Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

First demonstration of coherent radiation imaging for bunch-by-bunch longitudinal compression monitoring

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Broadband coherent radiation images change shape and brightness with electron bunch compression, demonstrated for both invasive and non-invasive sources.

desk verdict First credible PoC that imaging broadband CTR/CSR tracks bunch compression; main caveat is an unshown F_T≈1 test and no TDC benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04689 v1 pith:6W47VVTN submitted 2025-09-04 physics.acc-ph

Joseph Wolfenden , Ana Guisao-Betancur , Carsten Welsch , Billy Kyle , Thomas Pacey , Erik Mansten , Sara Thorin , Mathias Brandin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph PACS 29.27.Fh
keywords coherenttransitionradiationsynchrotronlongitudinalbunchcompressionbunch-by-bunchmonitorTHzimagingformfactornon-invasivebeamdiagnostics
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 tries to establish that a camera-style image of broadband coherent radiation can serve as a bunch-by-bunch longitudinal compression monitor for very short electron bunches. The central claim is that the width and brightness of a coherent transition radiation (CTR) image are controlled by the bunch's longitudinal form factor, so compression changes show up as visible changes in the image. Proof-of-principle scans at a fourth-generation light source show image width and peak intensity tracking the expected compression minimum for both invasive CTR and non-invasive CSR sources. If this is right, accelerator operators gain a fast, non-destructive way to optimize and monitor femtosecond bunches, complementing destructive transverse deflecting cavity measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is Equation 4: the broadband coherent-radiation image is a frequency integral of single-particle image distributions, each weighted by the longitudinal form factor |F_L(ω)|^2 and by N^2. The longitudinal form factor is the squared Fourier transform of the bunch charge profile; the shorter the bunch, the more high-frequency content it carries. Because the single-particle TR pattern becomes narrower and more intense at higher frequencies, the weighted sum changes both width and brightness as compression changes. The normalized shape (FWHM) is used as a charge-independent metric, while the absolute intensity provides a second, N^2-weighted confirmation.

What would settle it

Measure the CTR image width and brightness while holding the longitudinal compression fixed and deliberately changing the transverse beam size, for example by scanning an upstream quadrupole. If the image changes, the assumption F_T(ω)≈1 fails and the compression readout is contaminated by transverse effects. Alternatively, across a phase scan, compare the image FWHM with a transverse deflecting cavity bunch-length measurement; if the two do not follow the same monotonic trend, the claimed sensitivity to compression is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a point-to-point image of broadband coherent radiation contains longitudinal compression information: the image-plane intensity is a weighted superposition of spectral images, with weights set by the longitudinal form factor. Simulations show that as the Gaussian bunch length falls from 100 fs to 20 fs, the absolute image intensity rises dramatically and the normalized image narrows. Experiments reproduce this qualitatively: phase and sextupole scans show the CTR image FWHM reaching a minimum and peak intensity reaching a maximum at the compression point predicted by simulations, for both an invasive CTR target and a non-invasive CSR source. The authors state this

Load-bearing premise

The whole method assumes the bunch's transverse size is so small compared with the wavelength-dependent radiation pattern that the image is controlled only by the longitudinal charge distribution; if that fails, transverse size changes would masquerade as compression changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single normalized image-width metric, such as FWHM, can serve as a bunch-charge-independent compression monitor because the shape change does not depend on total charge.
  • The same technique can in principle be applied across bunch length scales simply by selecting an imaging bandwidth and materials matched to the bunch's frequency content.
  • For roughly 1 fs bunches, the dominant bandwidth shifts toward the infrared, so conventional IR optics and cameras could be used, making the method attractive for plasma wakefield accelerators.
  • A linear pyroelectric array allowed fully bunch-by-bunch operation with stable, repeatable profiles, sufficient for use as an operational compression monitor.
  • A dedicated CSR imaging system could provide fully non-invasive online monitoring, although the present focal-plane CSR demonstration has reduced signal and interference from upstream sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the FWHM minimum is charge independent, the method is ready-made for a closed feedback loop that tunes compressor phases or sextupole strengths in real time; the paper demonstrates the observable but not the loop.
  • Charge jitter will always contaminate the N^2 intensity channel, so a practical monitor should rely primarily on normalized shape and visibility, treating peak intensity as a secondary cross-check unless charge is measured shot-by-shot.
  • The observed low-frequency plateau suggests that a multi-band or split-field imaging system could break the resolution limit and extend the usable bunch-length range without changing the radiator.
  • If a transverse deflecting cavity benchmark later supplies the missing FWHM-to-bunch-length calibration, this same imaging hardware could graduate from a compression monitor to an absolute longitudinal profile monitor.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a longitudinal bunch compression monitor based on broadband imaging of coherent transition radiation (CTR) and, in a non-invasive variant, coherent synchrotron radiation (CSR). The theoretical framework (Eq. 4) expresses the coherent image-plane intensity as a bandwidth integral of single-particle spectral image distributions weighted by the longitudinal bunch form factor |F_L(ω)|², assuming the transverse form factor F_T≈1. The authors present proof-of-concept measurements at the MAX IV Short Pulse Facility: a single-pixel scanning detector acquires CTR images at different RF phase settings, showing image FWHM and intensity changes qualitatively consistent with Elegant simulations; a linear pyroelectric array then enables bunch-by-bunch measurements with phase and sextupole scans, yielding correlated FWHM minima and intensity maxima that match the expected compression optimum. CSR measurements from a dipole in BC2 are also used with the same setup, demonstrating a non-invasive configuration. The paper concludes that both the shape and intensity of broadband coherent radiation images can monitor longitudinal compression.

Significance. If the method is validated, it would provide a simple, flexible, bunch-by-bunch longitudinal compression monitor applicable to sub-100 fs bunches, with a clear path toward non-invasive operation via CSR. The derivation is based on standard CTR formalism and introduces no free parameters; comparisons with independent Elegant simulations give the work a degree of internal consistency. The data are openly available, which is a strength. However, the experimental evidence is limited by the absence of a TDC benchmark, coarse spatial resolution, and an unverified central assumption about the transverse form factor. As a proof of concept, the work is significant and timely, but the current manuscript does not yet fully establish the quantitative capability claimed in its title.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (4)] The central derivation drops the transverse form factor by assuming F_T(ω)≈1, and the text states this 'was tested during experimental measurements' (Section II.A), but no such test or data are presented anywhere in the manuscript. Because the phase and sextupole scans used to compress the bunch can also alter the transverse beam size and divergence at the CTR/CSR source point, a non-negligible F_T(ω) would make the observed image-width and intensity variations partially or wholly transverse in origin, directly undermining the attribution to longitudinal compression. Please provide the experimental evidence for F_T≈1 over the 0.1–10 THz bandwidth (e.g., a comparison of images with and without a deliberate transverse-optics change), or quantitatively bound the effect of F_T using measured beam sizes and Eq. (1), and adjust the claim accordingly.
  2. [III.B and IV.B (Figs. 10, 13–14)] The proof-of-concept rests on FWHM and peak-intensity changes that are at or near the detector resolution limits. The single-pixel images have 2 mm pixels (Fig. 9), and the linear-array FWHM variation after de-magnification is only ~6 pixels (Section IV.B), with CSR variations of ~3 pixels. The paper acknowledges the lack of a TDC benchmark, but it does not provide a quantitative estimate of the minimum detectable compression change given the pixel size, scan step, and shot-to-shot jitter. Without such an analysis or an independent bunch-length reference, the reader cannot assess whether the observed trends constitute a reliable compression monitor or are largely resolution/artifact driven. Please include a resolution/sensitivity analysis and, if possible, a quantitative comparison of the measured FWHM and intensity curves with the Elegant-predicted trends across the whole scan rather th
  3. [IV.B, Fig. 13(b)] The intensity-based metric is presented as one of the two demonstrated methods, yet the bunch charge is only described as 'reasonably stable at ~85 pC but varying at the few percent level.' Since the coherent signal scales as N², a few percent charge variation produces a >10% intensity variation, comparable to the shot-to-shot scatter reported. The manuscript should provide the measured charge values and either normalize the intensity data or show that the FWHM metric is insensitive to charge jitter; otherwise the intensity-based claim is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.A] The sentence 'the total form factor being defined entirely by the longitudinal distribution' should be rephrased to 'the total form factor reduces to the longitudinal form factor' to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The 3D charge distribution ρ(r', z) is used with a 2D integral over r'; please clarify the notation and the integration domains for r' and z.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The notation dU_B(ri)/dr appears inconsistent; the left-hand side should likely be dU_B/dr (or d²U_B/dωdr) with a clear definition of the single-particle spectral intensity d²U_P/dωdr.
  4. [Fig. 3] The y-axis label 'Irradiance (nJ/mm2)' seems to be followed by a stray '10^4' or a formatting artifact; please correct.
  5. [IV.B] The statement 'the system was indeed much less sensitive' should specify whether 'sensitivity' refers to minimum detectable signal, per-pixel responsivity, or signal-to-noise ratio.
  6. [III.B] Grammar: 'the TDC now in commissioning at MAX IV' should be 'the TDC currently being commissioned'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward model derived from standard CTR formalism, experimental trends compared to independent Elegant simulations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. Equation 1 is the standard definition of the longitudinal/transverse form factor; Equation 2 is the coherent superposition of single-particle image-plane fields; Equation 3 follows by expanding the squared field into incoherent and coherent terms; Equation 4 follows by neglecting the incoherent N-term and setting F_T(ω)≈1 as stated in Section II.A. This is a forward model, not a fit: the simulated image shape and intensity depend on the longitudinal form factor through an integral over the imaging bandwidth, and the simulation results in Figs. 3 and 4 are generated from this model without reference to the measured CTR/CSR images. The experimental comparisons use independent Elegant simulations to choose phase settings and to identify the expected optimal linearization point, and the measured FWHM minima and intensity maxima are compared with those expectations rather than derived from them. No free parameter is fitted to the experimental images to produce the claimed correlation. The self-citation [26] is used only to estimate the pre-existing bunch-length range for choosing optics and bandwidth, not to define the outcome of the measurement, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The paper's own caveats—no TDC benchmark available, limited spatial resolution, 20% shot-to-shot intensity jitter, and the asserted but untested F_T≈1 assumption—are correctness/validity limitations rather than circular steps: they affect whether the observed signal is unambiguously longitudinal, but they do not make the derivation reduce to its own inputs. Overall, the central claim is supported by a self-contained theoretical model plus independent simulation-guided experiment, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard transition radiation theory and the bunch form factor; no new entities or fitted parameters are introduced. The main assumptions are the negligibility of the transverse form factor and the use of Gaussian profiles in simulations.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Transverse form factor F_T(ω) ≈ 1 across bandwidth of interest
    Stated in Section II.A after Equ. 1; assumed throughout and claimed tested but no test data shown.
  • domain assumption Gaussian longitudinal bunch profile for simulations
    Used in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 simulations; real bunches may not be Gaussian, affecting the form factor shape.
  • domain assumption Point-to-point imaging with negligible vignetting (sufficiently large limiting aperture)
    Invoked in Section II.B when deriving Equ. 2-4, citing [17].
  • standard math Standard transition radiation theory (polarization charge analysis or pseudo-photon method)
    Used as basis for the source field model, Section II.A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First demonstration of coherent radiation imaging for bunch-by-bunch longitudinal compression monitoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6W47VVTN

@misc{pith2026250904689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First demonstration of coherent radiation imaging for bunch-by-bunch longitudinal compression monitoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6W47VVTN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04689}
}
read the original abstract

Longitudinal bunch profile monitoring is a crucial diagnostic requirement in most accelerator facilities. This is particularly true in modern free-electron lasers and novel acceleration schemes, where bunch lengths are often <100 fs and standard instrumentation is invasive or lacks the required resolution. This paper proposes a new monitoring method in this challenging parameter space. Initial proof of principle results for relative compression monitoring via broadband imaging of coherent THz radiation are presented. The technique can utilize more conventional intensity monitoring or novel spatial distribution variation. Both techniques have been demonstrated using both invasive and non-invasive coherent radiation sources. These results pave the way for a future non-invasive longitudinal bunch profile monitor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the TR generation mechanism and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Demonstration of how the frequency content of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: 1D cross-sections of the absolute (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Demonstration of FWHM distance variation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A schematic of the MAX IV linac and the SPF. The location of the CTR imaging setup is indicated with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Schematic of CTR single pixel imaging system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of measured CTR images using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: CTR image FWHM variation with K01 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison of measured CTR images at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: CTR imaging system using linear array of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparison of measured CTR images at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Variation of CTR image with different phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Variation of CTR image across a sextupole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Variation of CSR image across a sextupole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hanuka, C

    A. Hanuka, C. Emma, T. Maxwell, A. S. Fisher, B. Ja- cobson, M. J. Hogan, and Z. Huang, Accurate and confi- dent prediction of electron beam longitudinal properties using spectral virtual diagnostics, Scientific Reports11, 2945 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    E. Adli, A. Ahuja, O. Apsimon, R. Apsimon, A.-M. Bachmann, D. Barrientos, F. Batsch, J. Bauche, V. K. Berglyd Olsen, M. Bernardini, T. Bohl, C. Bracco, F. Braunm¨ uller, G. Burt, B. Buttensch¨ on, A. Cald- well, M. Cascella, J. Chappell, E. Chevallay, M. Chung, D. Cooke, H. Damerau, L. Deacon, L. H. Deubner, A. Dexter, S. Doebert, J. Farmer, V. N. Fedosse...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Transverse deflecting cavities

    G. Burt, Transverse deflecting cavities, (2012), arXiv:1201.2600

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Schr¨ oder, C

    S. Schr¨ oder, C. A. Lindstrøm, S. Bohlen, G. Boyle, R. D’Arcy, S. Diederichs, M. J. Garland, P. Gonza- lez, A. Knetsch, V. Libov, P. Niknejadi, K. Pøder, L. Schaper, B. Schmidt, B. Sheeran, G. Tauscher, S. Wesch, J. Zemella, M. Zeng, and J. Osterhoff, High- resolution sampling of beam-driven plasma wakefields, Nature Communications11, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Christie, A

    F. Christie, A. A. Lutman, Y. Ding, Z. Huang, V. A. Jha- lani, J. Krzywinski, T. J. Maxwell, D. Ratner, J. R¨ onsch- Schulenburg, and M. Vogt, Temporal x-ray reconstruc- tion using temporal and spectral measurements at lcls, Scientific Reports10, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    D. V. Karlovets and A. P. Potylitsyn, Universal de- scription for different types of polarization radiation 10.48550/arxiv.0908.2336 (2009)

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0908.2336 2009

  7. [7]

    Schmidt, S

    B. Schmidt, S. Wesch, T. K¨ ovener, C. Behrens, E. Hass, S. Casalbuoni, and P. Schm¨ user,Longitudinal Bunch Diagnostics using Coherent Transition Radiation Spec- troscopy Physical Principles, Multichannel Spectrometer, Experimental Results, Mathematical Methods, Tech. Rep. (DESY, 2018) arXiv:1803.00608v1

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Fr¨ ohlich,Bunch Length Measurements Using a Martin-Puplett Interferometer at the VUV-FEL, Tech

    L. Fr¨ ohlich,Bunch Length Measurements Using a Martin-Puplett Interferometer at the VUV-FEL, Tech. Rep. (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Thangaraj, G

    J. Thangaraj, G. Andonian, R. Thurman-Keup, J. Ruan, A. S. Johnson, A. Lumpkin, J. Santucci, T. Maxwell, A. Murokh, M. Ruelas, and A. Ovodenko, Demonstration of a real-time interferometer as a bunch-length monitor in a high-current electron beam accelerator, Review of Scientif...

    2012

  2. [10]

    M. L. Ter-Mikaelian,High Energy Electromagentic Pro- cesses in Condensed Media(Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1972)

    1972

  3. [11]

    Verzilov, Transition radiation in the pre-wave zone, Physics Letters A273, 135 (2000)

    V. Verzilov, Transition radiation in the pre-wave zone, Physics Letters A273, 135 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Wolfenden, R

    J. Wolfenden, R. B. Fiorito, and C. P. Welsch, A novel simulation and analysis algorithm for high resolution op- tical transition radiation imaging, Optics Express27, 2988 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Karlovets and A

    D. Karlovets and A. Potylitsyn, Transition radiation in the pre-wave zone for an oblique incidence of a particle on the flat target, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Ma- terials and Atoms266, 3738 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Kube, Imaging with Optical Transition Radiation , Transverse Beam Diagnostics for the XFEL, (2008)

    G. Kube, Imaging with Optical Transition Radiation , Transverse Beam Diagnostics for the XFEL, (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Potylitsyn, L

    A. Potylitsyn, L. Sukhikh, T. Gusvitskii, G. Kube, and A. Novokshonov, Image of the transverse bunch profile via coherent optical transition radiation, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams23, 042804 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Castellano, A

    M. Castellano, A. Cianchi, G. Orlandi, and V. Verzilov, Effects of diffraction and target finite size on coherent transition radiation spectra in bunch length measure- ments, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detector...

    1999

  9. [17]

    Xiang and W

    D. Xiang and W. H. Huang, Theoretical considerations on imaging of micron size electron beam with optical transition radiation, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom- eters, Detectors and Associated Equipment570, 357 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    H. Loos, R. Akre, A. Brachmann, F.-j. Decker, Y. Ding, D. Dowell, P. Emma, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, G. Hays, P. Hering, Z. Huang, R. Iverson, C. Limborg-Deprey, A. Miahnahri, S. Molloy, H.-d. Nuhn, J. Turner, J. Welch, W. White, J. Wu, and D. Ratner, OBSER V ATION OF COHERENT O...

    2008

  11. [19]

    Zemax, OpticalStudio

  12. [20]

    Tydex, www.tydexoptics.com

  13. [21]

    Thorin, J

    S. Thorin, J. Andersson, F. Curbis, M. Eriksson, O. Karl- berg, D. Kumbaro, E. Mansten, D. Olsson, and S. Werin, THE MAX IV LINAC, inLINAC2014(Geneva, 2014) p. 14 TUIOA03

    2014

  14. [22]

    N. B. Kraljevic, L. Isaksson, E. Mansten, and S. Thorin, Beam dynamics for the max iv transverse deflecting cav- ity beamline, inProceedings - Linear Accelerator Con- ference, LINAC(JACOW Publishing, Geneva, Switzer- land, 2022) pp. 565–568

    2022

  15. [23]

    Enquist, A

    H. Enquist, A. Jurgilaitis, A. Jarnac, ˚A. U. J. Bengtsson, M. Burza, F. Curbis, C. Disch, J. C. Ekstr¨ om, M. Harb, L. Isaksson, M. Kotur, D. Kroon, F. Lindau, E. Mansten, J. Nygaard, A. I. H. Persson, V. T. Pham, M. Rissi, S. Thorin, C.-M. Tu, E. Wall´ en, X. Wang, S. Werin,...

    2018

  16. [24]

    T. E. Amico, G. Guignard, and T. Raubenheimer, THE CLIC MAIN LINAC BUNCH COMPRESSOR, , 8 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    R. J. England, J. B. Rosenzweig, G. Andonian, P. Musumeci, G. Travish, and R. Yoder, Sextupole correction of the longitudinal transport of relativistic beams in dispersionless translating sections, Physical Re- view Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams8, 012801 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    B. Kyle, R. Appleby, M. Brandin, E. Mansten, T. Pacey, S. Thorin, P. Williams, and J. Wolfenden, Simulations and measurements of coherent synchrotron radiation at the max-iv short pulse facility, Proc. 10th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC’19), Melbourne, Au...

    2019

  19. [27]

    J. R. Hook and H. E. Hall,Solid State Physics, 2nd ed. (John Wiley and Sons, 2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Gentec, Thz5i-bl-bnc - (accessed may 2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Karataev, A

    P. Karataev, A. Aryshev, S. Boogert, D. Howell, N. Terunuma, and J. Urakawa, First observation of the point spread function of optical transition radiation, Physical Review Letters107, 1 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Borland, Elegant: A Flexible SDDS-Compliant Code for Accelerator Simulation, inProceedings of ICAP 2000 (2000)

    M. Borland, Elegant: A Flexible SDDS-Compliant Code for Accelerator Simulation, inProceedings of ICAP 2000 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    DIAS, Pyrosens - (accessed may 2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Thorlabs, www.thorlabs.com

  25. [33]

    P. A. Walker, P. D. Alesini, A. S. Alexandrova, M. P. Anania, N. E. Andreev, I. Andriyash, A. As- chikhin, R. W. Assmann, T. Audet, A. Bacci, I. F. Barna, A. Beaton, A. Beck, A. Beluze, A. Bern- hard, S. Bielawski, F. G. Bisesto, J. Boedewadt, F. Brandi, O. Bringer, R. Brinkma...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Wolfenden, Ctr and csr imaging to mea- sure particle bunch compression

    J. Wolfenden, Ctr and csr imaging to mea- sure particle bunch compression. [data collection], https://doi.org/10.17638/datacat.liverpool.ac.uk/3025 (2025)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.