Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Laser Wakefield Acceleration Driven by a Discrete Flying Focus

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A discrete flying focus can keep an electron beam locked in the accelerating phase of a plasma wave for 50 dephasing lengths, removing the main cap on single-stage energy gain.

desk verdict The discrete flying focus with a derived delay law is a genuine step forward; the 41 GeV result is plausible but rests on a quasistatic simulation whose own validation leaves the nonlinear rear-sheath physics unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19824 v1 pith:5Z3E6DNM submitted 2025-06-24 physics.acc-ph physics.plasm-ph

Jacob R. Pierce , Kyle G. Miller , Fei Li , John P. Palastro , Warren B. Mori This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.plasm-ph PACS 52.38.Kd52.65.Rr
keywords laserwakefieldaccelerationdiscreteflyingfocusdephasingplasmawavephasevelocityquasistaticparticle-in-cellsimulationpumpdepletionelectronbeamemittancespace-timestructuredpulses
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 proposes a way to remove the dephasing limit in laser wakefield acceleration without having to lower the plasma density and weaken the accelerating field. The idea is a discrete flying focus: a train of collinear laser pulses with staggered focal points and delays, chosen so that each pulse comes into focus at the same location in the moving coordinate $\xi = z - ct$. Because the peak of the combined envelope keeps arriving at that fixed $\xi$, the plasma wave's accelerating phase advances at the vacuum speed of light, so a highly relativistic electron beam can stay in the accelerating field for many dephasing lengths. Simulations in the nonlinear regime show a 150-J, 80-pulse train accelerating a 50-pC beam from 1 GeV to an average 41 GeV over 32 cm, about 50 dephasing lengths, while preserving the beam's normalized slice emittance.

What carries the argument

The central object is the discrete flying focus: a train of $N$ collinear Gaussian laser pulses, each with its own focal point $f_j$ and delay $\Delta_j$ (Eqs. 7\textendash 10). The delays are fixed by Eq. (10) so that every pulse reaches focus at the same value of $\xi = z - ct$, even though each pulse individually propagates at the subluminal group velocity $v_g$. As each pulse slips backward in $\xi$, its successor comes into focus at that same $\xi$, so the peak of the combined envelope\textemdash and with it the wake's accelerating phase\textemdash advances at $c$. In the linear regime each pulse only drives the wake over a Rayleigh range, requiring $N \approx L_D/z_R$ pulses; in the nonlinear regime self-guiding lets each pulse drive the wake over a pump-depletion length, so $N \approx L_D/L_{pd}$ is enough. The pulse train also provides independent knobs per pulse (spot size, duration, focal point, delay, polarization) that the simulations use to keep the injected beam ahead of the oscillating rear sheath.

What would settle it

Run the Figure 4 configuration end to end in a fully electromagnetic particle-in-cell code that resolves self-injection, trapped redshifted light, and direct laser acceleration, and check whether a 50-pC beam still reaches 41 GeV with normalized slice emittance at 4 $\mu$m.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dephasing that normally caps energy gain in a laser wakefield accelerator can be eliminated by discretizing the flying focus into $N$ collinear pulses. Each pulse $j$ is assigned a focal point $f_j$ and a delay $\Delta_j$ satisfying $\Delta_j = (v_g/c)\xi_0 + (1 - v_g/c)f_j$, where $v_g$ is the plasma's group velocity; this makes every pulse's focus land at the same value of $\xi = z - ct$. The wake driven by the train therefore has phase velocity $v_w = c$, and an electron with $v_z \approx c$ stays locked to the same accelerating phase for as long as the train lasts. The paper's load-bearing simulation result is that with $a_0 = 4$, $N = 80$, and 150 J of total pulse energy, a 50-pC beam injected at 1 GeV reaches an average energy of 41 GeV after 32 cm, corresponding to 50 dephasing lengths, with normalized slice emittance unchanged from its initial 4 $\mu$m and a slice energy spread of about 0.1 percent. The paper presents this as roughly three times the energy gain a conventional pulse could deliver in a stage of the same length, and as a route to reducing the number of stages needed for TeV-scale energies.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result depends on the quasistatic particle-in-cell code being trustworthy over 50 dephasing lengths, yet the paper's own comparison with a fully electromagnetic code shows agreement only within the first plasma period, shows that self-injection (dark current) is not captured, and does not model direct laser acceleration of the beam by redshifted trapped light.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding pulses extends the acceleration distance without lowering the plasma density, so single-stage energy gain scales linearly with $N$; this is the direct consequence of Eq. (14) and the reason a discrete flying focus reduces the number of stages required for a target energy.
  • In the nonlinear regime the number of pulses needed scales with the pump-depletion length rather than the Rayleigh range, so a discrete flying focus with only tens of pulses can drive a wake over tens of dephasing lengths.
  • For a fixed stage length, the energy-gain advantage over a conventional pulse grows roughly as $L^{1/3}$ and with density (Eq. 15), putting a premium on higher-density operation at the cost of lower loadable charge.
  • The injected beam must be placed ahead of the rear sheath, and the paper shows that tailoring the first two delays and adding a small slippage correction to all later delays is sufficient to keep the beam from being swept over by the sheath.
  • The 1.3% energy-transfer efficiency of the demonstration case is not a ceiling: the paper estimates that a fully blown-out wave loaded with a trapezoidal beam could hold about 400 pC and raise the efficiency to roughly 10%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same delay-tuning equation can be generalized to produce wakes with phase velocities deliberately above or below $c$, which would let a single experimental setup explore muon-acceleration wakes or wave-breaking suppression without changing the laser hardware.
  • Editorial inference: the pre-ionization energy (roughly 2600 J for the 41-GeV case) exceeds the pulse energy itself, so the practical viability of the concept may hinge on using the discrete flying focus to ionize the gas in flight or coupling into a pre-formed plasma; this is a testable extension the authors leave open.
  • Editorial inference: the claim that trapped redshifted light does not grow emittance is supported only by a phenomenological-model calculation in the paper, so a straightforward extension is to run the full 32-cm case in a code that models direct laser acceleration and check whether emittance growth stays below the 4-$\mu$m baseline.
  • Editorial inference: if the phase-locking holds, a useful diagnostic for an experiment would be to image the wake position versus propagation distance and verify that the accelerating phase moves at $c$ to within roughly $1/(k_p L)$; this would test the central mechanism before investing in a full beam run.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a discrete flying focus (DFF) for laser wakefield acceleration: a train of collinear laser pulses with staggered focal points and delays such that each pulse comes into focus at the same value of the comoving coordinate ξ, producing a plasma wave whose accelerating phase advances at c despite the subluminal group velocity of each pulse. The delay law (Eq. 10) is derived from linear dispersion and the paraxial approximation, extending the ASTRL formalism. The authors present QPAD simulations in the linear regime (a0=0.1) confirming vw=c over 20-25 dephasing lengths, and in the nonlinear regime (a0=4) a beam-loaded simulation in which a 48-50 pC, 1 GeV beam is accelerated to an average energy of 41 GeV over 32 cm (50 dephasing lengths) with preserved slice emittance. The paper also discusses experimental implementation and efficiency.

Significance. The DFF concept is a clever and potentially impactful extension of flying-focus techniques; if validated, it could reduce the number of stages needed for a TeV collider. The analytic derivation of the delay law is transparent and the linear-regime simulations provide a clean proof of principle. The paper is also commendable for including a detailed code-validation appendix that honestly identifies the limitations of QPAD. However, the central quantitative claim (41 GeV over 50 Ld) rests on a simulation tool whose nonlinear-regime accuracy is precisely the point in question, so the significance is currently contingent on additional validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C and Appendix C] The headline result (41 GeV, 50 Ld, N=80, beam-loaded) is produced entirely with QPAD, but Appendix C states that in the nonlinear regime QPAD deviates from OSIRIS after the first plasma period, cannot model self-injection, and does not model direct laser acceleration. The text in Sec. III B asserts that these deviations do not affect the accelerating field in the first period, but no comparison is shown for the actual beam-loaded configuration. Without a reduced-scale full-PIC benchmark (or a systematic convergence study) of the Fig. 4 setup, the quantitative claim is not established.
  2. [Sec. III C] The tailored delay law includes an empirical slippage correction S=1.25e-5, and a uniform-delay run loses most of the beam. Since S compensates for nonlinear rear-sheath evolution, which Appendix C identifies as the physics where QPAD is least reliable, the robust phase-locking may be a simulation artifact. The authors should provide a physical derivation of S or a sensitivity scan showing that the final energy and emittance are stable over a range of S.
  3. [Appendix C] The direct-laser-acceleration (DLA) estimate is performed for a beam with a 65-nm spot and 40-nm emittance over 5 Ld, whereas the Fig. 4 beam has a 650-nm spot, 4-µm emittance, and is simulated over 50 Ld. The resonance argument is suggestive, but it does not quantify the cumulative emittance growth for the headline beam. The DLA neglect is therefore not adequately supported for the configuration on which the main claim rests.
  4. [Appendix C] The OSIRIS benchmark shows a 0.35-nC self-injected bunch in the DFF wake. The paper argues that self-injection is causally disconnected from the external beam, but the self-injected bunch loads the wake and can alter the accelerating structure; moreover QPAD runs in mode-0 only, which cannot capture symmetry-breaking effects. A full-PIC simulation that includes the externally injected beam is needed to demonstrate that the 41 GeV result survives the omitted physics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III C] The abstract reports '40 GeV' and '50-pC', while Sec. III C reports '41 GeV' and '48-pC'. Please make these numbers consistent throughout.
  2. [Appendix C] The sentence 'Self-injection cannot be not modeled within the quasistatic approximation' contains a double negative; it should read 'cannot be modeled'.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states '50 pC' but the text in Sec. III C states '48-pC'. Please align the caption with the text.
  4. [Table I] The table lists L = 16 cm for the simulations in Figs. 2 and 3, while Sec. III C uses L = 32 cm. A footnote or separate row would clarify that the table does not apply to Fig. 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (10) is derived from group-velocity kinematics, and the tailored nonlinear simulations are openly benchmarked rather than fitted to the claimed output.

full rationale

The central analytic step, Eq. (10), is an algebraic consequence of requiring every pulse to focus at the same ξ value; it is not defined in terms of the target phase velocity or the final beam energy. The linear-regime simulations (Figs. 2 and 3c) confirm vw=c with no fitted parameters, providing an independent check of the dephasing-free mechanism. In the nonlinear beam-loaded case (Sec. III C), the paper explicitly states that the delays were tailored: the first two pulses were shifted by 2k_p^-1 and 1k_p^-1, and all subsequent pulses used S=1.25e-5, with the paper reporting that without this tailoring most of the beam was lost. This is an openly disclosed design choice rather than a parameter fitted to the 41 GeV result; the energy gain is a simulation outcome conditional on that design, not a quantity made equal to an input by construction. The QPAD code is self-cited, but Appendix C benchmarks it against the fully electromagnetic, independent OSIRIS code, so the simulation tool is not supported solely by self-citation. The acknowledged limitations of QPAD in the nonlinear regime (deviation after the first plasma period, no self-injection, no direct laser acceleration) are correctness risks explicitly stated in the manuscript; they are not instances of the derivation reducing to its own inputs. The direct-laser-acceleration negligibility argument is based on a physical resonance-condition estimate (kβ << kL) plus a separate phenomenological-model check, not on fitting the headline emittance. I find no step in the claimed derivation chain that is circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central derivation is largely self-contained (paraxial wave equation plus a kinematic delay law), but the headline nonlinear result relies on three hand-tuned quantities (S, the first two pulse delays, and the simulation length) and on the validity of the mode-0 quasistatic approximation over 50 dephasing lengths. The code comparison to OSIRIS provides external grounding, but only for reduced-scale cases. No new fundamental entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Slippage correction S in the tailored delay law = 1.25e-5
    In Sec. III C, the delays of pulses 3 and beyond are set to delta_j = (1/2 (kp/k0)^2 - S) f_j, where S is a correction to the linear group velocity factor chosen so that the rear sheath does not sweep over the beam. The paper states this corresponds to an extra slippage of 1 kp^-1 over 40 Ld and was chosen to produce the simulation shown; this is a fitted parameter.
  • Delays of first two pulses = shifted by 2 kp^-1 and 1 kp^-1 relative to Eq. 10
    Sec. III C: 'the delays delta_j of the first two pulses were shifted back relative to Eq. (10) by 2 kp^-1 and 1 kp^-1'. These shifts are hand-tuned, not derived.
  • Simulation length L=50Ld=32 cm = 16-32 cm
    The acceleration length was chosen to fit computational resources, not derived from a physical optimum. This is stated in the text, and it does not falsify the claim, but it is a simulation choice.
  • Per-pulse amplitude a0j in the linear-regime example = 0.024 for N=250, with overall a0=0.1
    The linear-regime simulation set a0j=0.024 instead of the nominal 0.1 so that the overall envelope has a0=0.1; this is a design choice for illustration rather than a parameter fitted to make the central claim succeed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Paraxial approximation and dropping of the three higher-order terms in Eq. (3).
    Sec. II and Appendix A justify dropping d_s d_zeta, (1-vg/c)^2 d_zeta^2, and d_s^2 terms. The paper explicitly derives length scales for these terms and argues they are negligible or compensated; this is a standard approximation in laser-plasma theory.
  • domain assumption Linear superposition of individual pulse envelopes (Eq. 7) is valid, including when pulses overlap.
    Eq. 7 superposes N paraxial pulses and ignores inter-pulse coupling in the envelope evolution. The paper acknowledges that overlapping pulses change the effective spot size and duration, and that spatiotemporal couplings invalidate the separable form (Appendix A), but it still uses Eq. 7 to design the DFF and interprets simulation results with it.
  • domain assumption The wakefield in the nonlinear regime is described by the quasistatic, ponderomotive-guiding-center, mode-0 (cylindrically symmetric) approximation in QPAD.
    Appendix B states QPAD uses quasistatic approximations including laser-cycle averaging and mode-0 truncation. Appendix C shows this misses self-injection and deviates from OSIRIS after the first plasma period. The paper argues these deviations do not affect the externally injected beam, but the assumption that the mode-0 quasistatic model is accurate over 50 dephasing lengths is load-bearing for the 41 GeV result.
  • ad hoc to paper The delay law Eq. (10) using the linear group velocity is a valid starting point for the nonlinear regime, and the empirical correction S accounts for all relevant slippage.
    Sec. II C states vw may differ from c due to nonlinear effects, higher-order dispersion, and pulse-profile effects, and Sec. III C introduces the tuned S correction. The validity of using a constant S with f_j is an assumption; the paper does not derive S from the nonlinear dispersion.
  • standard math Standard relativistic laser-plasma scaling laws (Eqs. 12-15) from Refs. 4, 23, 25 apply to the DFF parameter choices.
    The pulse depletion length, nonlinear dephasing length, and beam-loading scalings are used to set zR, Lpd, and density. These are established results in the field and are treated as inputs.
invented entities (2)
  • Discrete flying focus (DFF) pulse train
    purpose: A sequence of N collinear laser pulses with staggered focal points and delays that drives a wakefield with phase velocity c, eliminating dephasing.
    The DFF is a device/concept rather than a new physical entity (no new particle or force). It is a new proposed apparatus. Its experimental feasibility is supported by cited techniques (multiplexing, fiber lasers, axiparabola-echelon), but no experiment in this paper demonstrates it.
  • Tailored delay correction S (1.25e-5)
    purpose: Empirical adjustment to the delay law (Eq. 10) that keeps the rear sheath of the wake from sweeping over the beam in the headline simulation.
    This is a fitted constant introduced to make the simulation work, not derived from a physical model. It is not so much an entity as a free parameter; it is listed here because the paper treats it as a named design element.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laser Wakefield Acceleration Driven by a Discrete Flying Focus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Z3E6DNM

@misc{pith2026250619824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laser Wakefield Acceleration Driven by a Discrete Flying Focus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Z3E6DNM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19824}
}
read the original abstract

Laser wakefield acceleration (LWFA) may enable the next generation of TeV-scale lepton colliders. Reaching such energies will likely require multiple LWFA stages to overcome limitations on the energy gain achievable in a single stage. The use of stages, however, introduces challenges such as alignment, adiabatic matching between stages, and a lower average accelerating gradient. Here, we propose a discrete flying focus that can deliver higher energy gain in a single stage, thereby reducing the number of stages required for a target energy. A sequence of laser pulses with staggered focal points and delays drives a plasma wave in which an electron beam experiences a near-constant accelerating gradient over distances beyond those attainable with a conventional pulse. Simulations demonstrate that a discrete flying focus with a total energy of 150 J can transfer 40 GeV per electron to a 50-pC beam in a single 30-cm stage, corresponding to 50 dephasing lengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of LWFA with a conventional pulse and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of a discrete flying focus and driven plasma wave in the linear regime ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) inset]. This is consistent with Ref. [23], which predicts a 3× higher rate of slippage due to etching, i.e., local depletion at the front of the pulse. Although the rate of slippage is higher, the nonlinear dephasing length is similar to the linear dephasing length (kpLd ≈ 2000) because the wavelength of the plasma wave is longer in the nonlinear regime. As in the linear regime, increasing the number of pulses i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Acceleration of a 50 pC electron beam from 1 GeV to 41 GeV over 32 cm, or 50 dephasing lengths, using a discrete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The electron densities and electric field envelopes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    postcursor

    Because the transverse components of the vector potential evolve in- dependently, it is sufficient to consider the evolution of a single component: a(t,z, x⊥) = a(t,z, x⊥)ˆϵ where ˆϵ is a polarization unit vector. Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) and transforming to the coordinates (ζ,s )≡ (z−vgt,z ), where vg = c2k0/ω0 ≈ 1− 1 2(ω0/ωp)2 c is the linear g...

    work page

  2. [2]

    C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. Geddes, C. Benedetti, and W. P. Leemans, Physics considerations for laser- plasma linear colliders, Physical Review Special Top- ics—Accelerators and Beams 13, 101301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Tajima and J

    T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Laser electron accelerator, Physical review letters 43, 267 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    Esarey, C

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators, Re- views of modern physics 81, 1229 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Schroeder, F

    C. Schroeder, F. Albert, C. Benedetti, J. Bromage, D. Bruhwiler, S. Bulanov, E. Campbell, N. Cook, B. Cros, M. Downer, et al. , Linear colliders based on laser-plasma accelerators, Journal of Instrumentation 18 (06), T06001

    work page

  6. [6]

    Steinke, J

    S. Steinke, J. Van Tilborg, C. Benedetti, C. Geddes, C. Schroeder, J. Daniels, K. Swanson, A. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, N. Matlis, et al. , Multistage coupling of independent laser-plasma accelerators, Nature 530, 190 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Mehrling, J

    T. Mehrling, J. Grebenyuk, F. Tsung, K. Floettmann, and J. Osterhoff, Transverse emittance growth in staged laser-wakefield acceleration, Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams 15, 111303 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Debus, R

    A. Debus, R. Pausch, A. Huebl, K. Steiniger, R. Widera, T. E. Cowan, U. Schramm, and M. Bussmann, Cir- cumventing the dephasing and depletion limits of laser- wakefield acceleration, Physical Review X 9, 031044 (2019)

    2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Zhao, W. An, X. Xu, F. Li, L. Hildebrand, M. J. Hogan, V. Yakimenko, C. Joshi, and W. B. Mori, Emit- tance preservation through density ramp matching sec- tions in a plasma wakefield accelerator, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 23, 011302 (2020). 12

    2020

  2. [10]

    Caizergues, S

    C. Caizergues, S. Smartsev, V. Malka, and C. Thaury, Phase-locked laser-wakefield electron acceleration, Na- ture Photonics 14, 475 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Palastro, J

    J. Palastro, J. Shaw, P. Franke, D. Ramsey, T. Simpson, and D. Froula, Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration, Physical review letters 124, 134802 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Nutting, N

    T. Nutting, N. Ernst, A. G. Thomas, and K. Krushel- nick, Transversely pumped laser driven particle acceler- ator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11825 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    K. G. Miller, J. R. Pierce, M. V. Ambat, J. L. Shaw, K. Weichman, W. B. Mori, D. H. Froula, and J. P. Palas- tro, Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration in the bub- ble regime, Scientific Reports 13, 21306 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    D. H. Froula, D. Turnbull, A. S. Davies, T. J. Kessler, D. Haberberger, J. P. Palastro, S.-W. Bahk, I. A. Begi- shev, R. Boni, S. Bucht, et al., Spatiotemporal control of laser intensity, Nature photonics 12, 262 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Liberman, A

    A. Liberman, A. Golovanov, S. Smartsev, S. Tata, I. A. Andriyash, S. Benracassa, E. Y. Levine, E. Kroupp, and V. Malka, First direct observation of a wakefield gen- erated with structured light (2025), arXiv:2503.01516 [physics.acc-ph]

    2025

  8. [16]

    J. J. Pigeon, P. Franke, M. L. P. Chong, J. Katz, R. Boni, C. Dorrer, J. P. Palastro, and D. H. Froula, Ultrabroad- band flying-focus using an axiparabola-echelon pair, Opt. Express 32, 576 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    S. W. Jolly, O. Gobert, A. Jeandet, and F. Qu´ er´ e, Con- trolling the velocity of a femtosecond laser pulse using refractive lenses, Opt. Express 28, 4888 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. L. Shaw, M. V. Ambat, K. G. Miller, R. Boni, I. La- Belle, W. B. Mori, J. J. Pigeon, A. Rigatti, I. Settle, L. Mack, J. P. Palastro, and D. H. Froula, Path to a single-stage, 100-gev electron beam via a flying-focus- driven laser-plasma accelerator (2025), arXiv:2505.00157 ...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zuegel, A

    J. Zuegel, A. Aprahamian, E. Zurek, F. Dollar, and A. D. Piazza, Research Infrastructure: Midscale RI-1 (M1:DP): OMEGA-EP-Pumped Optical Parametric Amplifier Line (EP-OPAL) Facility Design, https://www.nsf.gov/ awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2329970 (2024), award Number: 2329970...

    2024

  12. [20]

    F. Li, W. An, V. K. Decyk, X. Xu, M. J. Hogan, and W. B. Mori, A quasi-static particle-in-cell algorithm based on an azimuthal fourier decomposition for highly efficient simulations of plasma-based acceleration: Qpad, Computer Physics Communications 261, 107784 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    J. R. Pierce, J. P. Palastro, F. Li, B. Malaca, D. Ram- sey, J. Vieira, K. Weichman, and W. B. Mori, Arbitrar- ily structured laser pulses, Physical Review Research 5, 013085 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Gorbunov and V

    L. Gorbunov and V. Kirsanov, Excitation of plasma waves by an electromagnetic wave packet, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 93, 509 (1987)

    1987

  15. [23]

    F. Li, W. An, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, and W. B. Mori, Integrating a ponderomotive guiding center algo- rithm into a quasi-static particle-in-cell code based on az- imuthal mode decomposition, Journal of Computational Physics 470, 111599 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Katsouleas, Physical mechanisms in the plasma wake- field accelerator, Phys

    T. Katsouleas, Physical mechanisms in the plasma wake- field accelerator, Phys. Rev. A 33, 2056 (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. Tsung, W. Mori, J. Vieira, R. Fonseca, and L. Silva, Generating multi- gev electron bunches using single stage laser wakefield acceleration¡? format?¿ in a 3d nonlinear regime, Physi- cal Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams 10, 061301 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    T. N. Dalichaouch, X. L. Xu, A. Tableman, F. Li, F. S. Tsung, and W. B. Mori, A multi-sheath model for highly nonlinear plasma wakefields, Physics of Plasmas 28, 063103 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Remarkable agreement between the electron densities and the electric field envelopes of the laser pulses is ev- ident in Fig

    using identical laser pulse and plasma parameters. Remarkable agreement between the electron densities and the electric field envelopes of the laser pulses is ev- ident in Fig. 5. The physical parameters correspond to the nonlinear ( a0 = 4) cases presented in Table I, but wit...

  20. [28]

    Tzoufras, W

    M. Tzoufras, W. Lu, F. S. Tsung, C. Huang, W. B. Mori, T. Katsouleas, J. Vieira, R. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Beam loading in the nonlinear regime of plasma-based acceleration, Physical review letters 101, 145002 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. Lu, C. Ren, W. B. Mori, S. Deng, S. Lee, T. Kat- souleas, and J. C. Adam, OSIRIS: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science...

    2002

  22. [30]

    Khachatryan, A

    A. Khachatryan, A. Irman, F. Van Goor, and K.-J. Boller, Femtosecond electron-bunch dynamics in laser wakefields and vacuum, Physical Review Special Top- ics—Accelerators and Beams 10, 121301 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Q. Su, J. Larson, T. N. Dalichaouch, F. Li, W. An, L. Hildebrand, Y. Zhao, V. Decyk, P. Alves, S. M. Wild, et al. , Optimization of transformer ratio and beam load- ing in a plasma wakefield accelerator with a structure- exploiting algorithm, Physics of Plasmas 30 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    B. S. Nunes, S. P. d. Santos, R. P. Nunes, C. Bont ¸oiu, M. Alva-S´ anchez, R. E. Samad, N. D. Vieira Jr, G. Xia, J. Resta-L´ opez, and A. Bonatto, Bayesian optimiza- tion of laser wakefield acceleration in the self-modulated regime (sm-lwfa) aiming to produce molybdenum-99 vi...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P.-F. Geng, M. Chen, and Z.-M. Sheng, Efficient muon acceleration in laser wakefields driven by single or com- bined laser pulses, Physics of Plasmas 31 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    J. P. Palastro, B. Malaca, J. Vieira, D. Ramsey, T. T. Simpson, P. Franke, J. L. Shaw, and D. H. Froula, Laser- plasma acceleration beyond wave breaking, Physics of Plasmas 28, 013109 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Vieira and J

    J. Vieira and J. Mendon¸ ca, Nonlinear laser driven donut wakefields for positron and electron acceleration, Physi- cal Review Letters 112, 215001 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Rainville, M

    A. Rainville, M. Whittlesey, C. Pasquale, Y. Jing, M. Chen, S. Chen, H. Pei, J. Ruppe, T. Zhou, Q. Du, Z. Zhang, G. Chang, F. X. K¨ artner, and A. Gal- vanauskas, Near-complete extraction of maximum stored energy from large-core fibers using coherent pulse stack- ing amplifica...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Mora and T

    P. Mora and T. M. Antonsen, Jr, Kinetic modeling of in- tense, short laser pulses propagating in tenuous plasmas, Physics of Plasmas 4, 217 (1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    Morshed, T

    S. Morshed, T. M. Antonsen, and J. P. Palastro, Ef- ficient simulation of electron trapping in laser and plasma wakefield acceleration, Physics of Plasmas 17, 10.1063/1.3432685 (2010)

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Pukhov, Z.-M

    A. Pukhov, Z.-M. Sheng, and J. M. ter Vehn, Particle acceleration in relativistic laser channels, Physics of Plas- mas 6, 2847 (1999), this is the main paper that derives 13 the betatron motion equation

    1999

  32. [40]

    K. G. Miller, J. P. Palastro, J. L. Shaw, F. Li, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, C. Joshi, and W. B. Mori, Accurate simulation of direct laser acceleration in a laser wakefield accelerator, Physics of Plasmas 30 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Davidson, A

    A. Davidson, A. Tableman, W. An, F. Tsung, W. Lu, J. Vieira, R. Fonseca, L. Silva, and W. Mori, Implemen- tation of a hybrid particle code with a PIC description in r–z and a gridless description in ϕ into OSIRIS, Journal of Computational Physics 281, 1063 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    F. Li, K. G. Miller, X. Xu, F. S. Tsung, V. K. De- cyk, W. An, R. A. Fonseca, and W. B. Mori, A new field solver for modeling of relativistic particle-laser in- teractions using the particle-in-cell algorithm, Computer Physics Communications 258, 107580 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.