Relativistic two-wave resonant acceleration of electrons at large-amplitude standing whistler waves during laser-plasma interaction

Kenta Takahashi; Shogo Isayama; Shuichi Matsukiyo; Takayoshi Sano

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Relativistic two-wave resonant acceleration of electrons at large-amplitude standing whistler waves during laser-plasma interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A circularly polarized laser reflecting off a magnetized foil can form a standing wave that accelerates nearly all electrons to relativistic energies.

desk verdict Credible mechanism with real PIC support and genuinely new analytic thresholds; the p∥=0 approximation at R≠1 is the main soft spot, but the authors flag it and the empirical match carries the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17492 v1 pith:AQOECMT2 submitted 2024-11-26 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HE

Takayoshi Sano , Shogo Isayama , Kenta Takahashi , Shuichi Matsukiyo This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.HE

keywords relativistictwo-waveresonantaccelerationstandingwhistlerwaveelectroncyclotronresonancehotgenerationlaser-plasmainteractionparticle-in-cellsimulationlaser-drivenionmagnetizedplasma

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 claims that when a right-hand circularly polarized laser reflects off a thin foil immersed in a strong axial magnetic field, the incident and reflected waves form a standing whistler wave whose magnetic-field troughs act as electron accelerators. The acceleration is a relativistic two-wave resonance: an electron's gyration in the external field locks simultaneously onto the two counter-propagating wave components, and once the standing-wave magnetic amplitude exceeds the ambient field a bifurcation in the gyration orbits removes the barrier between cold and relativistic trajectories. From a one-dimensional Hamiltonian for the perpendicular motion, the authors derive exact thresholds for the bifurcation and a formula for the maximum electron momentum, predicting the optimal field strength is $B_{\rm ext}/B_c \sim a_0$, the laser amplitude. Particle-in-cell simulations support the picture, showing hot-electron fractions above 10% and order-of-magnitude gains over unmagnetized cases. If correct, the mechanism would make laser-to-electron conversion much more efficient, strengthening sheath-driven ion acceleration in prospective laser-ion sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian of an electron gyrating at the trough of the magnetic field of a standing whistler wave, $H(\chi,\psi)=A\sqrt{\chi}\sin\psi - B\sqrt{\chi+1} + \chi$, with $\chi=\tilde{p}_\perp^2$, $A=2(1+R)a_0$ and $B=2\tilde{B}_{\rm ext}$. The Hamiltonian turns the resonance condition into a phase-space topology question: closed non-relativistic orbits are separated from relativistic ones by a separatrix, and the bifurcation thresholds $A_1$ and $A_2$ are found by setting discriminants of algebraic equations to zero, giving exact closed-form conditions. The same Hamiltonian yields the maximum momentum through the cubic root of Eq. (7), and the approximate formula $\tilde{p}_{\max}\approx A+\sqrt{B(B-2)}$ gives an immediate estimate. The analytical machinery is what converts the simulation observation into a parameter-free prediction of when and how efficiently two-wave resonant acceleration operates.

What would settle it

Integrate the full test-particle equations (C8)–(C11) without imposing $p_\parallel=0$ for the actual reflectivity $R$ at the laser–plasma interface, scanning $A$ and $B$ across the predicted $A_1$ and $A_2$; if no non-relativistic orbit becomes connected to a relativistic one when $A$ crosses $A_2$, or if the resulting maximum momentum does not follow the root of Eq. (7), the bifurcation mechanism fails in the conditions the model approximates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the standing wave itself, not the traveling laser pulse, is the engine of electron acceleration. In the PIC runs, electrons are lifted from $\gamma \sim 1$ to $\gamma \gtrsim 100$ in roughly one laser period, all at fixed positions $x \simeq (2n-1)\lambda_0/4$—the troughs of the magnetic-field envelope of the standing wave. At those locations the electron gyration is governed by a Hamiltonian $H(\chi,\psi)=A\sqrt{\chi}\sin\psi - B\sqrt{\chi+1} + \chi$, where $\chi=\tilde{p}_\perp^2$, $A=2(1+R)a_0$ encodes the incident plus reflected wave amplitude, and $B=2\tilde{B}_{\rm ext}$. As $A$ grows at fixed $B$, the orbit topology changes twice: at $A=A_1$ the separatrix isolating non-relativistic orbits first touches the relativistic branch, and at $A=A_2=2[(B/2)^{2/3}-1]^{3/2}$ all non-relativistic electrons are connected to relativistic orbits. The maximum perpendicular momentum is the root of a cubic, approximately $\tilde{p}_{\max}\simeq A+\sqrt{B(B-2)}$, so at the optimum $A\sim B$ (i.e., $\tilde{B}_{\rm ext}\sim (1+R)a_0$) the peak energy grows roughly linearly with field strength. The simulations reproduce the predicted optimum and the sharp cutoff at the bifurcation boundary, with the predicted maximum energy agreeing to within a factor of a few.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical predictions assume the electron stays exactly at a magnetic-field trough with zero momentum along the field, which is strictly true only when the two counter-propagating waves have equal amplitude; with unequal amplitudes the parallel and perpendicular motions couple, so the derived thresholds and maximum energies are approximations, and the paper notes the predicted maximum energy then falls below the simulations by up to a factor of a few.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At field strengths in the range $1 \lesssim \tilde{B}_{\rm ext} \lesssim a_0$, the hot-electron fraction rises by more than an order of magnitude over unmagnetized cases; with $a_0=\tilde{B}_{\rm ext}=100$, over half the electrons exceed 1 MeV and nearly 20% exceed 100 MeV.
The maximum electron energy scales roughly linearly with $\tilde{B}_{\rm ext}$ at the optimum, reaching about 1 GeV at $a_0=\tilde{B}_{\rm ext}=100$, and the theoretical $\tilde{p}_{\max}$ curve tracks the simulated maximum to within a factor of a few.
Longer laser pulses convert more electrons: the hot-electron fraction rises from 0.11 to 0.73 when the pulse duration is extended from 10 to 100 laser periods.
The enhanced hot-electron population strengthens target normal sheath acceleration; for carbon ions the maximum energy reaches hundreds of MeV/u (570 MeV/u at $a_0=100$), with tens of percent of ions above 10 MeV/u.
The acceleration survives two-dimensional geometry, finite laser incidence angle, and preplasma variations, so it is not an artifact of idealized one-dimensional setups.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the Hamiltonian depends only on the standing-wave amplitude and the cyclotron frequency, the same bifurcation criterion should apply to any pair of counter-propagating circularly polarized waves in a magnetized plasma—for example, whistler waves in planetary magnetospheres—so the threshold $A>A_2$ offers a dimensionless switch for relativistic electron production in those settings.
The $p_\parallel = 0$ approximation is exact only for equal counter-propagating amplitudes; a natural extension is to add the parallel degree of freedom, which will shift $A_1$ and $A_2$ and may explain the factor-of-few gap between the predicted and simulated maximum energies.
A practical design rule follows: for a laser of amplitude $a_0$, choose the axial field near $\tilde{B}_{\rm ext}=a_0$, and lengthen the pulse or thin the target to maximize the fraction of converted electrons—suggesting a path toward the >400 MeV/u carbon energies needed for medical ion beams.
If megatesla-class axial fields become available through structured targets, the same mechanism could be tested at high $a_0$ with current TW-class lasers, since the paper's fiducial parameters are already within reach of existing femtosecond lasers apart from the field strength.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth a serious look. The core new result is the analytic bifurcation conditions A1 and A2 for unequal counter-propagating wave amplitudes, plus the identification of the optimal condition Bext/Bc ~ a0 for hot electron generation. That optimal-condition scaling is cleanly derived and then confirmed by PIC across a wide parameter sweep, including the sharp drop near Bext/Bc = 56.9. The 2D oblique-incidence test and the angle-dependence runs give the paper a robustness that many similar studies lack. Credit is also due for the honest treatment of the model’s limits: Appendix C explicitly states that the Hamiltonian is exact only for R = 1 and approximate otherwise.

The main soft spot is exactly the one the stress test flags. At the magnetic-field trough with R ≠ 1, the parallel force dp∥/dt is order (1−R) and is dropped to close the Hamiltonian. In the relativistic regime, that term is not small compared to the retained (1+R) terms, so the quantitative thresholds and pmax could shift. The paper acknowledges this but still presents the thresholds as “derived precisely” and overlays them on PIC data. That wording oversells the approximation. However, the empirical agreement is surprisingly good: the predicted bifurcation boundary tracks the PIC energy drop, and the predicted pmax is consistently within a factor of a few of the simulations, always on the low side. That systematic offset is consistent with the neglected parallel dynamics and is a minor issue in practice. The reflectivity R is estimated rather than measured in the PIC runs, and no code or input files are provided; both are minor reproducibility concerns.

Who gets value: laser-plasma experimentalists planning strong-field magnetized experiments, and theorists working on two-wave resonant acceleration. The paper does not close the case, but it sets a clear target and provides a testable scaling law. I would send it to peer review. The referee should ask the authors to soften the “precisely” claim, add a short discussion of the expected size of the p∥ coupling, and ideally run or cite a full 4D test-particle integration for a representative case to show the separatrix topology is not qualitatively altered.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports 1D and 2D PIC simulations of a thin carbon foil irradiated by a circularly polarized laser along an external magnetic field, together with an analytical test-particle model. It argues that a standing whistler wave forms at the target front, and that electrons accelerated at the troughs of the magnetic-field envelope undergo a bifurcation in their gyration motion. When the standing-wave magnetic amplitude exceeds the ambient field, the authors claim that all non-relativistic electrons can reach relativistic energies through simultaneous cyclotron resonance with the two counter-propagating waves. The model yields closed-form bifurcation thresholds A1 and A2, a maximum-momentum formula, and an optimal-condition estimate B_ext/B_c ~ a0, which are compared with PIC results for electron and ion spectra, hot-electron fractions, and parameter scans over magnetic field, laser amplitude, pulse duration, target thickness, incidence angle, and dimensionality.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a concrete, identifiable acceleration site and a simple analytical condition for efficient hot-electron generation, with potentially important consequences for laser-driven ion acceleration. The study is commendably quantitative: the analytical formulas contain no fitted parameters, the scaling collapse in Fig. 4(c) is a genuine falsifiable prediction, and the predicted first-bifurcation boundary B_ext/B_c = 56.9 is found to coincide with a sharp drop in the simulated electron energy. The 2D verification and the demonstration of robustness to incidence angle and preplasma profile strengthen the practical relevance. The main weakness is that the quantitative bifurcation and maximum-energy predictions rest on a p_parallel = 0 reduction that is not valid at the retained order when the counter-propagating wave amplitudes differ, which is exactly the laser-plasma-interface situation. The paper acknowledges this approximation in Appendix C but does not quantify its effect on the predicted thresholds, and it overstates the precision of the derived optimal conditions in the abstract.

major comments (3)

[Appendix C, Eqs. (C8)-(C15); Sec. III.D, Eq. (2)] The reduction to the one-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian H(chi, psi) is not quantitatively controlled for the R != 1 case that applies at the laser-plasma interface. At the magnetic-field trough x = pi/2, Eq. (C13) gives d p_parallel/dt = N(1-R) a0 (p_perp/gamma) cos psi. When p_perp/gamma becomes of order unity, this term is of the same order as the retained (1+R) terms in Eqs. (C14)-(C15), i.e., precisely in the relativistic regime where the bifurcation to gamma > 100 occurs. The paper's own Appendix C states that for R != 1 the analysis is approximate, yet Sec. III.D uses this Hamiltonian to derive the exact-looking thresholds A1 and A2, Eqs. (4) and (6), and Fig. 4(a) compares the resulting p_max quantitatively with PIC. The authors should either (i) solve the coupled parallel-perpendicular equations, or (ii) run test-particle integrations of the full equations (C8)-(C11) and show that the bifurcation boundaries and p_max remain within the claimed accuracy, or (iii) explicitly delimit the validity range and revise the abstract's 'derived precisely' claim.
[Abstract; Sec. III.D, paragraph after Eq. (7)] The statement that 'all electrons with non-relativistic velocities can acquire relativistic energy' goes beyond what the reduced Hamiltonian can establish. The phase-space-connectedness argument in Fig. 6(c) is for fixed x = pi/2 and p_parallel = 0; in the PIC simulations the interaction is time-dependent, the standing wave is localized at the target surface, and the selected trajectories in Fig. 2(a) show acceleration at fixed x but with nonzero longitudinal momentum. The phrase 'all electrons' should be qualified to 'all electrons at the magnetic-field trough satisfying the stated test-particle assumptions,' or the authors should provide a fuller phase-space or simulation-based demonstration of universality across initial conditions.
[Sec. III.D, Eqs. (7)-(11) and Fig. 4(a)] The reported discrepancy between the theoretical maximum energy and the PIC maximum energy, 'always below them at most a factor of a few,' is attributed solely to the p_parallel = 0 assumption. But the comparison is also sensitive to how the reflectivity R is evaluated: R enters through the assumed refractive index N of Eq. (1), which depends on the local plasma density and magnetic field, whereas the simulation has a spatially varying preplasma and time-dependent density modification. The paper should clarify whether the theoretical curve in Fig. 4(a) uses the background values (n_e = 603 n_c, B_ext/B_c) or some time-dependent effective values, and should discuss whether the factor-of-a-few offset could be partly due to this modeling choice rather than only to p_parallel = 0. This would make the accuracy claim more defensible.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV.D, Fig. 12 caption] The electric-field snapshot in Fig. 12(b) is taken at t/t0 = 11, after the main pulse has passed; the caption should note that the standing-wave stripes visible at this time are a residual or trailing-wave feature, since the text says the injected field is extinguished at the end of the pulse.
[Sec. III.D, text near Eq. (6)] The word 'recognied' should be 'recognized', and in Appendix C the phrase 'simaltaneously' should be 'simultaneously'.
[Sec. III.B, text near Fig. 3] The phrase 'the accelerateion site' contains a typo ('accelerateion'); please correct to 'acceleration site'.
[Abstract and Sec. I] The abstract states that the optimum is 'derived precisely,' but the body of the paper (Sec. III.E) states only that a0 ~ B_ext is the approximate optimal condition; the wording of the abstract should match the level of precision actually established, especially in view of the p_parallel = 0 approximation.
[Sec. II, Eq. (1)] The refractive index N is written as a real expression only; for B_ext < B_c the square root is imaginary and the whistler mode does not propagate. It would help to state explicitly that all simulation cases with B_ext > 1 satisfy N^2 > 0 for the parameters used, and to comment on the n_e = 603 n_c case where N becomes imaginary when B_ext < 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the analytical predictions are derived from an explicitly stated test-particle Hamiltonian and checked against independent PIC simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The acceleration model is built in Sec. III.D and Appendix C from the Lorentz force for a test electron in the standing-wave fields (C1)-(C2), with the stated simplifications that the acceleration occurs at the magnetic-field trough (k0 x = pi/2) and that p_parallel = 0. Under these assumptions the perpendicular motion is closed and integrable, giving Hamiltonian (C16)/(2) with A = 2(1+R)a0 and B = 2Bext obtained directly from the input laser amplitude, reflectivity R = (N-1)/(N+1), and external field. The bifurcation thresholds (4) and (6), the maximum-momentum equation (7), and the optimum condition a0 ~ Bext are mathematical consequences of this Hamiltonian; no parameter is adjusted to match the PIC data. The PIC simulations are used as an independent benchmark: the theoretical maximum energy is compared with epsilon_e,max in Fig. 4(a) and is found to be within a factor of a few, always below the simulated values. Self-citations to Matsukiyo & Hada 2009 and Isayama et al. 2023 supply the Hamiltonian ansatz and the prior identification of the bifurcation mechanism, but the present paper re-derives the formulas it uses rather than importing an unverified uniqueness theorem. The only notable caveat, stated in Appendix C, is that the p_parallel = 0 reduction is exact only for equal counter-propagating amplitudes R = 1 and is approximate for R != 1; this limits quantitative accuracy of the thresholds and p_max, and the abstract's 'derived precisely' is an overstatement, but an acknowledged approximation is not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

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

The analytical model is a test-particle Hamiltonian with no free parameters fitted to the PIC data. Its main assumptions are the fixed standing-wave structure, the p_parallel = 0 closure at the acceleration site, and the linear refractive-index estimate of the reflectivity. These are simplifying physical approximations, not fitted constants.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Electrons are treated as test particles in prescribed standing wave fields, neglecting the collective plasma response.
In Appendix C, Eq. (C6), the Lorentz force is solved for a single electron in the analytic fields of Eqs. (C1) and (C2).
ad hoc to paper The parallel momentum p_parallel is set to zero at the acceleration site, closing the Hamiltonian for the perpendicular motion.
Stated in Sec. III.D and Appendix C; for equal counter-propagating wave amplitudes (R=1) it is exact, for R != 1 it is approximate, and the predicted maximum momentum is below the PIC result by up to a factor of a few.
domain assumption The reflected wave amplitude is R a0 with R determined by the cold-plasma refractive index of the dense target.
Used in Sec. III.D to set A = 2(1+R)a0; the actual reflectivity in the PIC simulation is not directly measured.
domain assumption The external magnetic field must exceed the critical value Bc = me omega0/e so that the wave propagates as a whistler mode.
This is the core setup assumption; the required magnetic field strength (402 kT in the fiducial run) is not currently available in laboratories.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic two-wave resonant acceleration of electrons at large-amplitude standing whistler waves during laser-plasma interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQOECMT2

@misc{pith2026241117492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic two-wave resonant acceleration of electrons at large-amplitude standing whistler waves during laser-plasma interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQOECMT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17492}
}

read the original abstract

The interaction between a thin foil target and a circularly polarized laser light injected along an external magnetic field is investigated numerically by particle-in-cell simulations. A standing wave appears at the front surface of the target, overlapping the injected and partially reflected waves. Hot electrons are efficiently generated at the standing wave due to the relativistic two-wave resonant acceleration if the magnetic field amplitude of the standing wave is larger than the ambient field. A bifurcation occurs in the gyration motion of electrons, allowing all electrons with non-relativistic velocities to acquire relativistic energy through the cyclotron resonance. The optimal conditions for the highest energy and the most significant fraction of hot electrons are derived precisely through a simple analysis of test-particle trajectories in the standing wave. Since the number of hot electrons increases drastically by many orders of magnitude compared to the conventional unmagnetized cases, this acceleration could be a great advantage in laser-driven ion acceleration and its applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17492 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Trajectories of hot electrons shown in the diagra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Time variation of the envelope of the electromagneti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (12 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The dependence of the maximum and average energie [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The number fraction of hot electrons over the thresh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a-c) Electron trajectories in the phase-momentum d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Theoretical prediction of the maximum electron mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Electron energy spectra and (b) ion energy spectr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Effects of the laser pulse duration on electron ene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) The maximum ion energy and the number frac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Time histories of the field and plasma energies in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Spatial distributions of the electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Spatial distributions of the electron average ener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. Energy spectra of electrons obtained from PIC sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15. Fitted results of the bulk electron temperature for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

X. H. Yang, W. Yu, H. Xu, M. Y. Yu, Z. Y. Ge, B. B. Xu, H. B. Zhuo, Y. Y. Ma, F. Q. Shao, and M. Borghesi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 224103 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

W. Feng, J. Q. Li, and Y. Kishimoto, Phys. Plasmas 23, 032102 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

S. X. Luan, W. Yu, F. Y. Li, D. Wu, Z. M. Sheng, M. Y. Yu, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 94, 053207 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

T. Sano, Y. Tanaka, N. Iwata, M. Hata, K. Mima, M. Murakami, and Y. Sentoku, Phys. Rev. E 96, 043209 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

T. Sano, M. Hata, D. Kawahito, K. Mima, and Y. Sen- toku, Phys. Rev. E 100, 053205 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

J. Park, S. S. Bulanov, J. Bin, Q. Ji, S. Steinke, J.-L. Vay, C. G. R. Geddes, C. B. Schroeder, W. P. Leemans, T. Schenkel, and E. Esarey, Phys. Plasmas 26, 1 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

T. Sano, S. Fujioka, Y. Mori, K. Mima, and Y. Sentoku, Phys. Rev. E 101, 013206 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

T. Sano, Y. Tatsumi, M. Hata, and Y. Sentoku, Phys. Rev. E 102, 053214 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 46 references

[9]

M. Hata, T. Sano, Y. Sentoku, H. Nagatomo, and H. Sakagami, Phys. Rev. E 104, 035205 (2021)

2021
[10]

Karmakar, S

M. Karmakar, S. Sengupta, and B. Patel, Phys. Scr. 96, 125620 (2021)

2021
[11]

Weichman, A

K. Weichman, A. P. L. Robinson, M. Murakami, J. J. Santos, S. Fujioka, T. Toncian, J. P. Palastro, and A. V. Areﬁev, Phys. Plasmas 29, 1 (2022)

2022
[12]

Marsch, Living Rev

E. Marsch, Living Rev. Sol. Phys. 3, 1 (2006)

2006
[13]

Turolla, S

R. Turolla, S. Zane, and A. L. Watts, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 116901 (2015)

2015
[14]

R. L. Stenzel, Adv. Phys. X 1, 687 (2016)

2016
[15]

Albertazzi, A

B. Albertazzi, A. Ciardi, M. Nakatsutsumi, T. Vinci, J. B´ eard, R. Bonito, J. Billette, M. Borghesi, Z. Burkley, S. N. Chen, T. E. Cowan, T. Herrmannsd¨ orfer, D. P. Higginson, F. Kroll, S. A. Pikuz, K. Naughton, L. Ro- magnani, C. Riconda, G. Revet, R. Riquier, H.-P. Schlenv...

2014
[16]

Areﬁev, T

A. Areﬁev, T. Toncian, and G. Fiksel, New J. Phys. 18, 105011 (2016)

2016
[17]

Matsuo, N

K. Matsuo, N. Higashi, N. Iwata, S. Sakata, S. Lee, T. Jo- hzaki, H. Sawada, Y. Iwasa, K. F. F. Law, H. Morita, Y. Ochiai, S. Kojima, Y. Abe, M. Hata, T. Sano, H. Na- gatomo, A. Sunahara, A. Morace, A. Yogo, M. Nakai, H. Sakagami, T. Ozaki, K. Yamanoi, T. Norimatsu, Y. Nakata,...

2020
[18]

K. F. F. Law, Y. Abe, A. Morace, Y. Arikawa, S. Sakata, S. Lee, K. Matsuo, H. Morita, Y. Ochiai, C. Liu, A. Yogo, K. Okamoto, D. Golovin, M. Ehret, T. Ozaki, M. Nakai, Y. Sentoku, J. J. Santos, E. d’Humi` eres, P. Korneev, and S. Fujioka, Phys. Rev. E 102, 033202 (2020)

2020
[19]

T. Sano, S. Tamatani, K. Matsuo, K. F. F. Law, T. Morita, S. Egashira, M. Ota, R. Kumar, H. Shimo- gawara, Y. Hara, S. Lee, S. Sakata, G. Rigon, T. Michel, P. Mabey, B. Albertazzi, M. Koenig, A. Casner, K. Shige- mori, S. Fujioka, M. Murakami, and Y. Sakawa, Phys. Rev. E 104, ...

2021
[20]

Murakami, J

M. Murakami, J. J. Honrubia, K. Weichman, A. V. Are- ﬁev, and S. V. Bulanov, Sci. Rep. 10, 16653 (2020)

2020
[21]

Shokov, M

D. Shokov, M. Murakami, and J. J. Honrubia, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 9, e56 (2021)

2021
[22]

M.-A. H. Zosa, Y. J. Gu, and M. Murakami, Appl. Phys. Lett. 120, 1 (2022)

2022
[23]

Matsukiyo and T

S. Matsukiyo and T. Hada, Astrophys. J. 692, 1004 (2009)

2009
[24]

K. H. Lee, Y. Omura, and L. C. Lee, Phys. Plasmas 20, 112901 (2013)

2013
[25]

Isayama, K

S. Isayama, K. Takahashi, S. Matsukiyo, and T. Sano, Astrophys. J. 946, 68 (2023)

2023
[26]

Sheng, K

Z.-M. Sheng, K. Mima, J. Zhang, and J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, Phys. Rev. E 69, 016407 (2004)

2004
[27]

S. G. Bochkarev, E. d’Humi` eres, V. T. Tikhonchuk, P. Korneev, and V. Y. Bychenkov, Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion 61, 025015 (2019)

2019
[28]

H¨ uller, A

S. H¨ uller, A. Porzio, J.-C. Adam, and A. H´ eron, Phys. Plasmas 26, 083107 (2019)

2019
[29]

Weichman, A

K. Weichman, A. P. L. Robinson, F. N. Beg, and A. V. Areﬁev, Phys. Plasmas 27, 013106 (2020)

2020
[30]

Daido, M

H. Daido, M. Nishiuchi, and A. S. Pirozhkov, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 056401 (2012)

2012
[31]

F. F. Chen, Introduction to Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion (Plenum Press, New York, 1984)

1984
[32]

Sentoku and A

Y. Sentoku and A. J. Kemp, J. Comp. Phys. 227, 6846 (2008)

2008
[33]

S. C. Wilks, A. B. Langdon, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, M. Singh, S. Hatchett, M. H. Key, D. Pennington, A. MacKinnon, and R. A. Snavely, Phys. Plasmas 8, 542 (2001)

2001
[34]

Mora and R

P. Mora and R. Pellat, Phys. Fluids 22, 2300 (1979)

1979
[35]

Mora, Phys

P. Mora, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 185002 (2003)

2003
[36]

Fuchs, Y

J. Fuchs, Y. Sentoku, E. d’Humi` eres, T. E. Cowan, J. Cobble, P. Audebert, A. Kemp, A. Nikroo, P. An- tici, E. Brambrink, A. Blazevic, E. M. Campbell, J. C. Fern´ andez, J. C. Gauthier, M. Geissel, M. Hegelich, S. Karsch, H. Popescu, N. Renard-LeGalloudec, M. Roth, J. Schreib...

2007
[37]

Takagi, N

Y. Takagi, N. Iwata, E. d’Humieres, and Y. Sentoku, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 043140 (2021)

2021
[38]

A. J. Kemp, Y. Sentoku, and M. Tabak, Phys. Rev. E 22 79, 066406 (2009)

2009
[39]

J. May, J. Tonge, F. Fiuza, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, C. Ren, and W. B. Mori, Phys. Rev. E 84, 025401 (2011)

2011
[40]

Yoneda, T

H. Yoneda, T. Namiki, A. Nishida, R. Kodama, Y. Sakawa, Y. Kuramitsu, T. Morita, K. Nishio, and T. Ide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 125004 (2012)

2012
[41]

Fujioka, Z

S. Fujioka, Z. Zhang, K. Ishihara, K. Shigemori, Y. Hironaka, T. Johzaki, A. Sunahara, N. Yamamoto, H. Nakashima, T. Watanabe, H. Shiraga, H. Nishimura, and H. Azechi, Sci. Rep. 3, 1170 (2013)

2013
[42]

Korneev, E

P. Korneev, E. d’Humi` eres, and V. Tikhonchuk, Phys. Rev. E 91, 043107 (2015)

2015
[43]

Goyon, B

C. Goyon, B. B. Pollock, D. P. Turnbull, A. Hazi, L. Di- vol, W. A. Farmer, D. Haberberger, J. Javedani, A. J. Johnson, A. Kemp, M. C. Levy, B. Grant Logan, D. A. Mariscal, O. L. Landen, S. Patankar, J. S. Ross, A. M. Rubenchik, G. F. Swadling, G. J. Williams, S. Fujioka, K. F...

2017
[44]

J. J. Santos, M. Bailly-Grandvaux, M. Ehret, A. V. Are- ﬁev, D. Batani, F. N. Beg, A. Calisti, S. Ferri, R. Florido, P. Forestier-Colleoni, S. Fujioka, M. A. Gigosos, L. Giuf- frida, L. Gremillet, J. J. Honrubia, S. Kojima, P. Ko- rneev, K. F. F. Law, J.-R. Marqu` es, A. Morac...

2018
[45]

Morita and S

H. Morita and S. Fujioka, Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys. 7, 13 (2023)

2023
[46]

Y. Shi, A. Areﬁev, J. X. Hao, and J. Zheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 155101 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

X. H. Yang, W. Yu, H. Xu, M. Y. Yu, Z. Y. Ge, B. B. Xu, H. B. Zhuo, Y. Y. Ma, F. Q. Shao, and M. Borghesi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 224103 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

W. Feng, J. Q. Li, and Y. Kishimoto, Phys. Plasmas 23, 032102 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

S. X. Luan, W. Yu, F. Y. Li, D. Wu, Z. M. Sheng, M. Y. Yu, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 94, 053207 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

T. Sano, Y. Tanaka, N. Iwata, M. Hata, K. Mima, M. Murakami, and Y. Sentoku, Phys. Rev. E 96, 043209 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

T. Sano, M. Hata, D. Kawahito, K. Mima, and Y. Sen- toku, Phys. Rev. E 100, 053205 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

J. Park, S. S. Bulanov, J. Bin, Q. Ji, S. Steinke, J.-L. Vay, C. G. R. Geddes, C. B. Schroeder, W. P. Leemans, T. Schenkel, and E. Esarey, Phys. Plasmas 26, 1 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

T. Sano, S. Fujioka, Y. Mori, K. Mima, and Y. Sentoku, Phys. Rev. E 101, 013206 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

T. Sano, Y. Tatsumi, M. Hata, and Y. Sentoku, Phys. Rev. E 102, 053214 (2020)

work page 2020