Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 62 references

Generation and Acceleration of Isolated-Attosecond Electron Bunch in a Hollow-Channel Plasma Wakefield

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hollow-channel plasma wakefield can generate and accelerate an isolated attosecond electron bunch to 13 GeV with >2 nC charge and 36.7% efficiency, according to 2D PIC simulations.

desk verdict A clever new combination for attosecond bunch generation, but the headline numbers rest entirely on a 2D slab simulation that cannot represent the cylindrical channel it claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14653 v1 pith:RWBCR6XR submitted 2024-12-19 physics.plasm-ph physics.acc-ph

Liang-Qi Zhang , Mei-Yu Si , Tong-Pu Yu , Yuan-Jie Bi , Yong-Sheng Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.acc-ph
keywords isolatedattosecondelectronbunchhollow-channelplasmawakefieldradiativebeam-drivenaccelerationparticle-in-cellsimulationultrafastdiffractionacceleratortransverseself-injection
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 single-step plasma scheme that both creates and accelerates an isolated attosecond electron bunch. A relativistic electron beam sent through a hollow-channel plasma target makes inner-wall plasma electrons oscillate collectively, generating a radiative wakefield; electrons moving near the speed of light are then self-injected transversely at the wakefield's weak nodes and converge toward the channel axis, where the same wakefield accelerates them. Using 2D particle-in-cell simulations, the authors report a bunch with more than 2 nC charge, up to 13 GeV peak energy (over twice the 6 GeV driver), a peak divergence below 5 mrad, a duration of 276 attoseconds, and an energy conversion efficiency of 36.7%, about ten times higher than earlier plasma-based attosecond sources. If it holds, this offers a compact, beam-driven route to GeV-class attosecond electron pulses for ultrafast diffraction, advanced radiation sources, and future high-energy collider injectors.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the radiative wakefield generated by collective transverse oscillations of plasma electrons on the inner wall of the hollow channel. The transverse Coulomb field of the drive beam kicks wall electrons outward; the resulting charge-separation field $E_{\mathrm{cs}}= e n_p \delta_y/\varepsilon_0$ pulls them back, and their oscillation at about $0.83c$ radiates a longitudinal field described by the Lienard-Wiechert-type expression $E_{\mathrm{rad}} \propto [\vec{n}\times(\vec{n}\times\dot{\vec{\beta}}_p)]/[c(1-\beta_p\cos\theta)^3 R]$. The same wall electrons, moving nearly at $c$, are transversely self-injected at the half-periodic nodes of this radiative wakefield, converge toward the channel axis, and are then accelerated by the wakefield's ~1 TV/m longitudinal gradient. This single mechanism is what both creates the attosecond bunch and accelerates it to 13 GeV.

What would settle it

Run a 3D cylindrical particle-in-cell simulation of the same hollow channel (inner radius 20 µm, plasma density $1.1\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$) driven by the same 6 GeV, 5.78 nC super-Gaussian electron beam. If the self-injected bunch fails to reach multi-GeV energy with >2 nC charge and attosecond duration once azimuthal focusing is included, the scheme as described does not transfer to real geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an isolated attosecond electron bunch with dozen-GeV energy and few-nC charge can be generated and accelerated simultaneously by letting a relativistic electron beam pass through a hollow-channel plasma target. In this scheme, the Coulomb field of the drive beam displaces the plasma electrons on the inner wall of the channel; the resulting transverse charge-separation field makes them oscillate collectively at about $0.83c$, and this coherent transverse oscillation radiates a longitudinal wakefield estimated at $1.02$ TV/m analytically and found as $E_{x,\max}\approx 1$ TV/m in simulation. Because the radiative wakefield is weaker at its half-periodic nodes, plasma electrons moving close to the speed of light are transversely self-injected there and converge toward the channel center, assembling into an isolated attosecond bunch that is then accelerated by the same wakefield. The paper reports a peak energy of 13 GeV, more than twice the 6 GeV drive-beam energy, along with >2 nC charge, <5 mrad divergence, 276 as duration, and 36.7% transfer efficiency, and shows that the wakefield amplitude and electron yield are insensitive to drive-beam energy spread while increasing with drive-beam charge.

Load-bearing premise

All quoted bunch charge and conversion efficiency come from a 2D simulation in which plasma electrons focus to a line in the middle of the channel; in a real cylindrical tube they must focus to a single point on the axis, and the simulation ignores the way fields wrap around the tube.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism transfers to a real cylindrical tube, a single FACET-II-class drive beam (6 GeV, ~5.8 nC) could produce an isolated multi-GeV attosecond electron source without a separate injector or external laser.
  • The reported 36.7% conversion efficiency, about ten times earlier plasma-based mechanisms, would make attosecond electron bunches practical for single-shot ultrafast electron diffraction and imaging of materials.
  • The insensitivity of wakefield amplitude and electron yield to drive-beam energy spread (0–40%) suggests the scheme tolerates realistic accelerator beam quality.
  • The linear scaling of the radiative wakefield with drive-beam charge implies higher-charge drivers (e.g., the planned AWA beams) could push the attosecond bunch energy further.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full 3D cylindrical realization would focus the injected electrons to a point rather than a line, so the quoted charge and duration depend on an unstated out-of-plane thickness in the 2D planar simulations; the actual axisymmetric wakefield may alter the bunch charge and divergence.
  • If the linear scaling with drive-beam charge holds in 3D, tuning the driver charge could provide a control knob for both wakefield amplitude and attosecond bunch energy, potentially enabling energy-tunable sources.
  • The 'trident' angular distribution seen at early times suggests that a large fraction of the injected electrons initially have large divergence; optimizing the injection phase or wall profile could reduce emittance further and improve the brightness of the final bunch.
  • A radiative-wakefield-based injector of this kind, if confirmed, would complement laser-plasma accelerators by eliminating the need for a high-power laser system, which may ease repetition-rate and experimental complexity.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a beam-driven hollow-channel plasma wakefield scheme to generate an isolated attosecond electron bunch. The authors model a 6 GeV, 5.78 nC electron beam propagating through a carbon-tube plasma target with inner radius 20 μm using 2D Cartesian PIC (EPOCH). They report that plasma electrons at the inner wall oscillate transversely, emit a radiative wakefield with Ex≈1 TV/m, and self-inject into the hollow channel to form an isolated bunch with 276 as duration, 2.4 nC charge, 13 GeV peak energy, <5 mrad divergence, and 36.7% conversion efficiency. A theoretical estimate for the radiative wakefield is given in Eq. (3), and parameter scans of beam energy spread and charge are presented in Fig. 5.

Significance. If the reported numbers held in the proposed cylindrical geometry, this would be a significant advance: a single-step, high-charge, GeV-class attosecond electron source driven by a beam available at FACET-II-class facilities, with conversion efficiency far exceeding laser-driven schemes. The paper uses an open-source code, states numerical parameters, and includes robustness scans. However, the central evidence is a 2D planar simulation that represents a line focus, not the cylindrical point focus of the proposed hollow tube, and the charge/efficiency numbers rely on an unstated out-of-plane normalization. The quantitative claims are therefore not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [2D-PIC simulations, Figures 3-4] The entire quantitative case rests on a 2D Cartesian simulation in the x–y plane. In this geometry, plasma electrons from the two planar walls converge to the line y=0; in the proposed cylindrical hollow channel they must converge radially to the axis, and the radiative wakefield has azimuthal structure that is absent in the slab. Duration, divergence, and charge are all defined in the simulation plane. A 3D or axisymmetric (r–z) simulation, or a quantitative slab-vs-cylinder equivalence argument, is required before the quoted attosecond bunch parameters can be attributed to the proposed tube.
  2. [Simulation setup; Figures 3, 4] The reported bunch charge (2.4 nC) and conversion efficiency (36.7%) are not reproducible from the text because no out-of-plane depth is specified. With nb0=1.4e19 cm^-3 and the stated super-Gaussian sigma_x=10 um, sigma_y=7.5 um, a 5.78 nC drive beam implies an effective third-dimension width of order 10 um; the paper never states this width or the 2D charge normalization used by EPOCH. Please specify the out-of-plane normalization, report per-unit-length quantities, or provide the equivalent 3D numbers.
  3. [Eq. (3), Figure 2] The derivation of Eq. (3) from Eq. (2) is not shown; the integration variable and limits are unclear. The numerical estimate uses E=1.35 TV/m, delta_y=0.43 um, and beta_p=0.83 taken from the same simulation whose field Ex,max is approximately 1 TV/m is being reproduced, so the agreement is a consistency check rather than an independent validation. Moreover, the angular integration over theta presumes a rotationally symmetric configuration, which the 2D Cartesian simulation does not provide. Please present the integration steps and validate the estimate against a parameter set not used to calibrate it.
  4. [Fig. 5 and abstract] The robustness scans vary only energy spread and charge in 2D. They do not address sensitivity to channel radius, plasma density, beam centering, or three-dimensional effects, so the abstract's claim of 'high stability as compared with the laser-beam drive case' is not supported by a comparative simulation or a defined stability metric.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Figure 3 discussion] In the discussion of Figures 3(c)-(e), the text says 'at t = 13.34 ps and 13.34 ps'; the second time should be 50.03 ps.
  2. [Normalization, after Fig. 3] The normalization nc=1.1e27 m^-3 is the plasma density, not the conventional critical density; please rename to np or clarify the notation.
  3. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The notation for the time derivative of beta_p and the unit vector n is not fully specified; a short definition or diagram would help.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption calls the fields 'mid-infrared radiation fields,' while the text refers to a radiative wakefield; please make the terminology consistent.
  5. [References] Reference [59] (Jackson) lacks full bibliographic details.
  6. [Abstract and Fig. 3] The abstract says 'more than 2 nC' but the charge decreases from 5.3 nC to 2.4 nC during the simulation; please state the time at which the quoted charge applies.
  7. [Text near Eq. (1)] The expression for Ecs contains epsilon_o in the text while epsilon_0 is used elsewhere; use consistent notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline bunch parameters are direct PIC simulation outputs, and the analytic check (Eq. 3) is a consistency estimate from simulation-measured inputs rather than a prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper—charge, duration, divergence, energy, and conversion efficiency—are read directly from 2D PIC simulation outputs (Figures 3 and 4), not derived from the inputs by definition. The analytic formulas (Eqs. 1–3) are used only as a post-hoc consistency check: the transverse field E, oscillation distance δy, and normalized velocity βp are taken from the same simulation that produces Ex,max, and the standard Liénard-Wiechert expression is then evaluated to recover approximately 1 TV/m. This is an explanatory consistency estimate, not an independent prediction; the formula is not defined in terms of Ex,max and no parameters are fitted to force the match. The paper's citations to the authors' prior micro-tube radiation work (Refs. 48–49) are background context, not load-bearing assumptions of the new simulation result. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction, imported uniqueness theorem, or renamed known result was found. The main caveats—2D Cartesian geometry standing in for a 3D cylindrical tube, and the implicit out-of-plane width needed to quote nC charges and 36.7% efficiency—are validity and reproducibility concerns, not circularity of the derivation chain.

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

The central simulation result rests on the 2D PIC model, the unproved injection criterion, and the analytic wakefield estimate. The analytic estimate introduces three simulation-derived values as inputs, and the charge and efficiency figures require an implicit third-dimension length. No new particles or forces are posited.

free parameters (4)
  • E=1.35 TV/m (transverse electric field at inner wall) = 1.35 TV/m
    Used as input to Eq. (3) to compute the radiative wakefield; value is taken from the PIC simulation (Fig. 2b), not derived independently.
  • delta_y=0.43 um (transverse oscillation distance at force balance) = 0.43 um
    Chosen from the simulation to evaluate Eqs. (1) and (3); this is the displacement where the charge-separation field balances the transverse field.
  • beta_p=0.83 (normalized transverse speed of plasma electrons) = 0.83
    Read from simulated electron trajectories (Fig. 2a) and used in Eq. (3) to obtain E_total.
  • Implicit transverse z-extent for charge and conversion efficiency = not stated
    The simulation is 2D, so the beam is infinite in the third direction; quoting 2 nC and 36.7% requires an assumed z-length that is never specified.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Lienard-Wiechert radiation formula (Eq. 2) applies to the collective oscillating plasma electrons and its angular integral (Eq. 3) gives the longitudinal wakefield used for acceleration.
    Invoked in Eq. (3) from Jackson [59]; no derivation of the collective integration is shown, so the step from single-particle radiation to the total radiative wakefield is an unproved modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption A 2D Cartesian simulation with translational invariance in the third direction adequately represents the 3D hollow channel tube (inner radius 20 um, outer 25 um).
    The target is described as a cylindrical carbon tube, but EPOCH runs are 2D x-y; this removes azimuthal curvature and focusing, which is essential for the 'converge towards the center' mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper Plasma electrons on the inner wall are ejected transversely at the half-periodic node of the radiative wakefield, forming the isolated attosecond bunch.
    This injection condition is stated in the text and Fig. 3 but is not derived from the equations; the threshold and location of injection are inferred from the simulation.
  • domain assumption The plasma channel can be produced as a fully ionized carbon tube with the assumed density profile.
    The paper cites laser-irradiated carbon nanotube and near-critical gas targets [55-58] as possible fabrication routes, but no experimental demonstration or tolerance analysis is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generation and Acceleration of Isolated-Attosecond Electron Bunch in a Hollow-Channel Plasma Wakefield." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWBCR6XR

@misc{pith2026241214653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generation and Acceleration of Isolated-Attosecond Electron Bunch in a Hollow-Channel Plasma Wakefield},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWBCR6XR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14653}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a novel scheme for generating and accelerating simultaneously a dozen-GeV isolated attosecond electron bunch from an electron beam-driven hollow-channel plasma target. During the beam-target interaction, transverse oscillations of plasma electrons are induced, and subsequently, a radiative wakefield is generated. Meanwhile, a large number of plasma electrons of close to the speed of light are injected transversely from the position of the weaker radiative wakefield (e.g., the half-periodic node of the radiative wakefield) and converge towards the center of the hollow channel, forming an isolated attosecond electron bunch. Then, the attosecond electron bunch is significantly accelerated to high energies by the radiative wakefield. It is demonstrated theoretically and numerically that this scheme can efficiently generate an isolated attosecond electron bunch with a charge of more than 2 nC, a peak energy up to 13 GeV of more than 2 times that of the driving electron beam, a peak divergence angle of less than 5 mmrad, a duration of 276 as, and an energy conversion efficiency of 36.7% as well as a high stability as compared with the laser-beam drive case. Such an isolated attosecond electron bunch in the range of GeV would provide critical applications in ultrafast physics and high energy physics, etc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG 1. (a) Schematic diagram for the generation and acceleration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG 2. (a) Trajectories of some typical plasma electrons with trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG 4. (a) Energy spectra of electrons at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) presents that the maximum acceleration intensity Ex of the radiative wakefield maintains ∼ 1 TV/m with respect to the increase of δe, which indicates that the Ex is insensitive to the δe. One can see that yield Ne of attosecond electrons remains near 3.36×1010 (i.e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Goulielmakis, Z.-H

    E. Goulielmakis, Z.-H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V . S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, S. R. Leone, and F. Krausz, Nature 466, 739 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, and G. a. Mullot, Science292, 1689 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Antoine, A

    P. Antoine, A. L’Huillier, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1234 (1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Sansone, L

    G. Sansone, L. Poletto, and M. Nisoli, Nature Photonics 5, 655 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    J.-X. Li, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, B. J. Galow, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 204801 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Ghaith, M.-E

    A. Ghaith, M.-E. Couprie, D. Oumbarek-Espinos, I. Andriyash, F. Massimo, J. Clarke, M. Courthold, V . Bayliss, A. Bernhard, M. Trunk, M. Vallau, O. Marcouill, A. Chanc, S. Licciardi, V . Malka, F. Nguyen, and G. Dattoli, Physics Reports 937, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Duris, S

    J. Duris, S. Li, T. Driver, E. G. Champenois, J. P. MacArthur, A. A. Lutman, Z. Zhang, P. Rosenberger, J. W. Aldrich, R. Cof- fee, G. Coslovich, F.-J. Decker, J. M. Glownia, G. Hartmann, W. Helml, A. Kamalov, J. Knurr, J. Krzywinski, M.-F. Lin, J. P. Marangos, M. Nantel, A. Natan, J. T. ONeal, N. Shivaram, P. Walter, A. L. Wang, J. J. Welch, T. J. A. Wolf...

    work page 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Huang, Y

    S. Huang, Y . Ding, Y . Feng, E. Hemsing, Z. Huang, J. Krzywin- 6 ski, A. Lutman, A. Marinelli, T. Maxwell, and D. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 154801 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Ultra-compact attosecond X-ray free-electron lasers utilizing unique beams from plasma-based acceleration and an optical undulator,

    X. Xu, J. Liu, T. Dalichaouch, F. S. Tsung, Z. Zhang, Z. Huang, M. J. Hogan, X. Yan, C. Joshi, and W. B. Mori, “Ultra-compact attosecond X-ray free-electron lasers utilizing unique beams from plasma-based acceleration and an optical undulator,” (2023), arXiv:2302.08864 [physic...

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Morimoto and P

    Y . Morimoto and P. Baum, Nature Physics14, 252 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Nabben, J

    D. Nabben, J. Kuttru ff, L. Stolz, A. Ryabov, and P. Baum, Nature 619, 63 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Y .-T. Hu, J. Zhao, H. Zhang, Y . Lu, W.-Q. Wang, L.-X. Hu, F.-Q. Shao, and T.-P. Yu, Applied Physics Letters118, 054101 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Zhao, Y .-T

    J. Zhao, Y .-T. Hu, Y . Lu, H. Zhang, L.-X. Hu, X.-L. Zhu, Z.-M. Sheng, I. C. E. Turcu, A. Pukhov, F.-Q. Shao, and T.-P. Yu, Communications Physics 5, 15 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Li, T.-P

    H.-Z. Li, T.-P. Yu, L.-X. Hu, Y . Yin, D.-B. Zou, J.-X. Liu, W.-Q. Wang, S. Hu, and F.-Q. Shao, Optics Express 25, 21583 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    X.-L. Zhu, M. Chen, T.-P. Yu, S.-M. Weng, F. He, and Z.-M. Sheng, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 4, 014401 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Zhang, K

    L.-Q. Zhang, K. Liu, S. Tang, W. Luo, J. Zhao, H. Zhang, and T.-P. Yu, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 64, 105011 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hu, T.-P

    L.-X. Hu, T.-P. Yu, Y . Cao, M. Chen, D.-B. Zou, Y . Yin, Z.- M. Sheng, and F.-Q. Shao, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 12, e69 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Huang, H

    N. Huang, H. Deng, B. Liu, D. Wang, and Z. Zhao, The Innova- tion 2, 100097 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Petrillo, L

    V . Petrillo, L. Serafini, and P. Tomassini, Physical Review Spe- cial Topics - Accelerators and Beams 11, 070703 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    X. Xu, F. Li, F. S. Tsung, K. Miller, V . Yakimenko, M. J. Hogan, C. Joshi, and W. B. Mori, Nature Communications 13, 3364 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    K. Feng, K. Jiang, R. Hu, S. Luan, W. Wang, and R. Li, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 9, 057201 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    W. Y . Zhang, L. X. Hu, Y . Cao, F. Q. Shao, and T. P. Yu, Optics Express 32, 16398 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    T.-P. Yu, K. Liu, J. Zhao, X.-L. Zhu, Y . Lu, Y . Cao, H. Zhang, F.- Q. Shao, and Z.-M. Sheng, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 8, 24 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Jiang, W

    C. Jiang, W. P. Wang, S. Weber, H. Dong, Y . X. Leng, R. X. Li, and Z. Z. Xu, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 9, e44 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Liang, B

    Z. Liang, B. Shen, X. Zhang, and L. Zhang, Matter and Radia- tion at Extremes 5, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    F. Y . Li, Z. M. Sheng, Y . Liu, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, W. B. Mori, W. Lu, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135002 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Zhu, W.-Y

    X.-L. Zhu, W.-Y . Liu, M. Chen, S.-M. Weng, F. He, R. Ass- mann, Z.-M. Sheng, and J. Zhang, Physical Review Applied 15, 044039 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    T. Sun, Q. Zhao, F. Wan, Y . I. Salamin, and J.-X. Li, Physical Review Letters 132, 045001 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    A. Deng, X. Li, Z. Luo, Y . Li, and J. Zeng, Optics Express31, 19958 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Weikum, F

    M. Weikum, F. Li, R. Assmann, Z. Sheng, and D. Jaroszynski, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 829, 33 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    I. Y . Dodin and N. J. Fisch, Physical Review Letters98, 234801 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Hu, T.-P

    L.-X. Hu, T.-P. Yu, H.-Z. Li, Y . Yin, P. McKenna, and F.-Q. Shao, Optics Letters 43, 2615 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Hu, T.-P

    L.-X. Hu, T.-P. Yu, Z.-M. Sheng, J. Vieira, D.-B. Zou, Y . Yin, P. McKenna, and F.-Q. Shao, Scientific Reports 8, 7282 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Naumova, in AIP Conference Proceedings, V ol

    N. Naumova, in AIP Conference Proceedings, V ol. 827 (AIP, Varenna (Italy), 2006) pp. 65–73, iSSN: 0094243X

    2006

  28. [36]

    Naumova, I

    N. Naumova, I. Sokolov, J. Nees, A. Maksimchuk, V . Yanovsky, and G. Mourou, Physical Review Letters 93, 195003 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Kozk, Physical Review Letters 123, 203202 (2019)

    M. Kozk, Physical Review Letters 123, 203202 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    T. V . Liseykina, S. Pirner, and D. Bauer, Physical Review Letters 104, 095002 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    M. J. H. Luttikhof, A. G. Khachatryan, F. A. Van Goor, and K.-J. Boller, Physical Review Letters 105, 124801 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    P. Chen, J. M. Dawson, R. W. Huff, and T. Katsouleas, Physical Review Letters 54, 693 (1985)

    1985

  33. [41]

    Katsouleas, Physical Review A 33, 2056 (1986)

    T. Katsouleas, Physical Review A 33, 2056 (1986)

    1986

  34. [42]

    W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams 10, 061301 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Litos, E

    M. Litos, E. Adli, W. An, C. I. Clarke, C. E. Clayton, S. Corde, J. P. Delahaye, R. J. England, A. S. Fisher, J. Frederico, S. Gess- ner, S. Z. Green, M. J. Hogan, C. Joshi, W. Lu, K. A. Marsh, W. B. Mori, P. Muggli, N. Vafaei-Najafabadi, D. Walz, G. White, Z. Wu, V . Yakimenk...

    2014

  36. [44]

    F. Li, T. Dalichaouch, J. Pierce, X. Xu, F. Tsung, W. Lu, C. Joshi, and W. Mori, Physical Review Letters128, 174803 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    PPompili, M

    R. PPompili, M. Anania, M. Bellaveglia, A. Biagioni, F. Bisesto, E. Chiadroni, A. Cianchi, M. Croia, A. Curcio, D. Di Giove- nale, M. Ferrario, F. Filippi, M. Galletti, A. Gallo, A. Giribono, W. Li, A. Marocchino, A. Mostacci, M. Petrarca, V . Petrillo, G. Di Pirro, S. Romeo, ...

    2016

  38. [46]

    X. Xu, F. Li, W. An, T. Dalichaouch, P. Yu, W. Lu, C. Joshi, and W. Mori, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams20, 111303 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Liang, G

    L. Liang, G. Xia, A. Pukhov, and J. P. Farmer, Applied Sciences 12, 10919 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    M. Si, Y . Huang, M. Ruan, B. Shen, Z. Xu, T. Yu, X. Wang, and Y . Chen, Optics Express31, 40202 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Stable radiation field positron acceleration in a micro-tube,

    M. Si, Y . Huang, M. Ruan, B. Shen, Z. Xu, T. Yu, X. Wang, and Y . Chen, “Stable radiation field positron acceleration in a micro-tube,” (2024), arXiv:2302.12418 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Wakefield regeneration in a plasma accelerator,

    J. P. Farmer and G. Z. D. Porta, “Wakefield regeneration in a plasma accelerator,” (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    K. Qu, S. Meuren, and Fi, Physical Review Letters 127, 095001 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Yakimenko, L

    V . Yakimenko, L. Alsberg, E. Bong, G. Bouchard, C. Clarke, C. Emma, S. Green, C. Hast, M. Hogan, J. Seabury, N. Lip- kowitz, B. OShea, D. Storey, G. White, and G. Yocky, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 22, 101301 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence-Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, and C. P. Ridgers, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 57, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Clarke, E

    C. Clarke, E. Esarey, C. Geddes, G. Hofstaetter, M. Hogan, S. Nagaitsev, M. Palmer, P. Piot, J. Power, C. Schroeder, D. Um- stadter, N. Vafaei-Najafabadi, A. Valishev, L. Willingale, and V . Yakimenko, Journal of Instrumentation17, T05009 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    stling, D

    D. stling, D. Tomnek, and A. Rosn, Physical Review B 55, 13980 (1997)

    1997

  48. [56]

    Wang and Z

    Y .-N. Wang and Z. L. MiÅkovi, Physical Review A69, 022901 (2004)

    2004

  49. [57]

    Martn-Luna, A

    P. Martn-Luna, A. Bonatto, C. Bontoiu, G. Xia, and J. Resta- Lpez, New Journal of Physics 25, 123029 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Laser-driven ion and electron acceleration from near-critical density gas targets: to- wards high-repetition rate operation in the 1 PW, sub-100 fs laser interaction regime,

    V . Ospina-Bohrquez, C. Salgado-Lpez, M. Ehret, S. Malko, M. Salvadori, T. Pisarczyk, T. Chodukowski, Z. Rusiniak, M. Krupka, P. G. Lendrin, G. Prez-Callejo, C. Vlachos, F. Han- 7 nachi, M. Tarisien, F. Consoli, C. Verona, G. Prestopino, J. Dostal, R. Dudzak, J. L. Henares, J....

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed., Hardcover 832 pages (John Wiley & Sons, 1998)

    1998

  52. [60]

    F. E. Merrill, F. E. Goett, JMerrill, J. Goett, J. W. Gibbs, S. D. Imhoff, F. G. Mariam, C. L. Morris, L. P. Neukirch, J. Perry, D. Poulson, R. Simpson, P. L. V olegov, P. L. Walstrom, C. H. Wilde, C. Hast, K. Jobe, T. Smith, U. Wienands, A. J. Clarke, and D. Tourret, Applied ...

    2018

  53. [61]

    TUPWI027

    Walstrom, Peter and Barber, Ronald and Chapman, Catherine and Garnett, Robert and Gomez, Tony and O’Toole, Joseph and Salazar, Harry, in 6th International Particle Accelerator Conference (2015) p. TUPWI027

    2015

  54. [62]

    W. Gai, J. Qiu, and C. Jing, in Target Diagnostics Physics and Engineering for Inertial Confinement Fusion III, V ol. 9211, edited by P. M. Bell and G. P. Grim, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 2014) p. 921104

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.