Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Numerical investigations of heavy ion driven plasma wakefield acceleration

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 209Bi83+ beam can excite a stable 6 GV/m plasma wakefield and accelerate electrons to 675 MeV in one meter, according to simulations.

desk verdict A useful first numerical scoping study of heavy-ion-driven PWFA with HIAF parameters, but the headline 6 GV/m and 675 MeV rest on idealized zero-emittance and preformed-microbunch assumptions that need testing before the numbers are quoted as facility predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14132 v1 pith:SO3LJT7L submitted 2025-06-17 physics.acc-ph

Jiangdong Li , Jiancheng Yang , Guoxing Xia , Jie Liu , Wenlong Zhan , Ruihu Zhu This is my paper
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords heavy-ionbeamplasmawakefieldaccelerationself-modulationinstabilityquasi-staticparticle-in-cellsimulationbismuthelectrondensitygradientamplitude
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 argues that heavy-ion beams can serve as practical drivers for plasma wakefield acceleration, offering higher wake amplitudes and better stability than laser, electron, or proton drivers. Using quasi-static particle-in-cell simulations with parameters from China's planned high-intensity heavy-ion facility, it shows that a 209Bi83+ beam with a 0.1 mm radius self-modulates within 0.14 m of plasma and excites a stable wakefield of about 6 GV/m. It then simulates electron acceleration behind an idealized train of 66 bismuth microbunches, reaching 675 MeV over 1 m with a 1.5% energy spread when plasma density gradients are applied. The point of the claim is that heavy ions' high charge density and large mass can produce the high-gradient, stable wakefields needed for compact accelerators.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is self-modulation instability (SMI): a long relativistic bunch entering plasma excites transverse wakefields that periodically focus and defocus its tail, splitting the bunch into microbunches spaced by roughly the plasma wavelength λ_pe. These microbunches then resonantly drive a large-amplitude plasma wave. The simulations use a quasi-static, axisymmetric particle-in-cell code that evolves beam particles in a co-moving window, and the argument relies on a linear-theory saturation criterion stating that the wake amplitude stops growing when the normalized peak beam density approaches about 1 for positively charged drivers. The growth-rate formula cited from the literature is used to argue that heavy-ion mass slows SMI but that the growth distance remains negligible once the witness energy reaches the GeV scale.

What would settle it

Run the same simulation with a realistic, non-zero beam emittance and track the beam radius and wake amplitude over the first meter of plasma; if the radius grows enough to suppress self-modulation or drop the peak wakefield well below 6 GV/m, the central claim fails. An independent check is to replace the manually constructed 66-microbunch train with the fully self-modulated beam from the instability simulation and compare witness energy gain and energy spread.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a high-charge-state heavy-ion beam, specifically 209Bi83+ at 9.58 GeV/u with 1e12 particles and an RMS radius of 0.1 mm, can rapidly develop self-modulation instability in a plasma of density 2.8e15 $cm^{-3}$ and excite a wakefield with a peak gradient of 6 GV/m. This is attributed to the 83+ charge state per nucleon raising the beam's peak charge density close to the plasma electron density, and to the heavy ion mass making the driver less perturbed by the wakefield it creates. Under the same parameters, protons reach about 3 GV/m transiently and settle near 1 GV/m, while the bismuth beam stays near 6 GV/m before slowly dropping to about 3 GV/m. For acceleration, a manually arranged train of 66 bismuth microbunches spaced by half the plasma wavelength accelerates 16 MeV electron bunches to 281 MeV without density gradients and up to 675 MeV over 1 m with a 1.5% energy spread when density steps are added; a TeV-scale bismuth train, again simulated without gradients, would push 500 MeV electrons to 10.3 GeV in 2 m.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the heavy-ion driver can be treated as perfectly rigid: the simulations set its transverse emittance to zero, so beam divergence cannot change the radius, alter self-modulation growth, or reduce the wakefield over the meter-scale plasma.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 6 GV/m wakefield holds with a real, finite-emittance bismuth beam, heavy-ion drivers could compete with proton drivers for single-stage plasma acceleration.
  • Plasma density gradients become a necessary control tool for heavy-ion-driven schemes because the driver's subluminal velocity makes dephasing the dominant limit on energy gain.
  • A TeV-scale bismuth beam, if available, could in principle deliver about 10 GeV energy gain in 2 m without any density tailoring, suggesting a route to very compact high-energy stages.
  • The comparison with protons indicates that higher charge-state drivers reduce wakefield attenuation, which would relax staging requirements if it persists in experiment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to replace the zero-emittance assumption with the actual beam emittance and check whether the 0.14 m self-modulation distance and 6 GV/m peak survive; the paper itself identifies emittance as the next step.
  • The idealized 66-microbunch train omits the amplitude and phase jitter of a real self-modulated beam; a fully self-consistent simulation feeding the acceleration stage would show whether the 1.5% energy spread is robust.
  • The same charge-density argument suggests other highly charged species, such as uranium or gold, could push the wake amplitude further, at the cost of even lower driver velocity and shorter dephasing length.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports LCODE quasi-static PIC simulations of plasma wakefield acceleration driven by heavy-ion beams, motivated by the upcoming HIAF facility. The authors first simulate self-modulation instability (SMI) of long carbon and bismuth beams in plasma, finding that a 209Bi83+ beam with 9.58 GeV/u, 10^12 particles, 0.1 mm RMS radius, and 5 m length in a 2.8e15 cm^-3 plasma develops SMI within 0.14 m and excites a wakefield with peak amplitude 6 GV/m. They then simulate witness-electron acceleration by replacing the fully modulated beam with a manually constructed train of 66 identical bismuth microbunches, reporting acceleration of 16 MeV electrons to 675 MeV over 1 m with 1.5% energy spread when plasma density gradients are used. The central claim is that heavy ions can excite stable, high-amplitude wakefields suitable for electron acceleration, and that HIAF-class beams are a promising driver for plasma-based acceleration.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would open a genuinely new direction in plasma wakefield acceleration, since heavy-ion drivers have not been systematically studied and could offer high stored energy and stability. The topic is timely given the near-term commissioning of HIAF. The manuscript is also useful as an initial parameter scan for a possible HIAF-based PWFA experiment. However, the strength of the claim is presently limited by the idealized treatment of the driver beam and by the artificial replacement of the self-modulated beam by a preformed microbunch train. The paper does not provide convergence tests, code cross-checks, or quantitative comparison with an analytic SMI model, so the reported gradients and energy gains should be read as upper-bound estimates rather than validated facility predictions. The work is a reasonable starting point, but it requires additional validation before its headline numbers can be relied upon.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, first paragraph; Figures 8, 10, and 11] The electron-acceleration simulations replace the fully self-modulated bismuth beam by "a series of microbunches (66 microbunches) structure" with identical peak charge density and spacing lambda_pe/2. This is an artificial construction: nothing in Section 3 demonstrates that the actual SMI-generated train has the same amplitude, phase jitter, longitudinal profile, or transverse structure as the inserted train. The reported 675 MeV/1 m result is therefore not a self-consistent prediction of heavy-ion-driven acceleration by the same process that produces the 6 GV/m wakefield. The authors should either run the acceleration simulation with the actual self-modulated beam (at least for a benchmark case) or quantify the sensitivity of the accelerated energy and energy spread to the assumed train parameters, and they should state clearly that the acceleration results are for an idealized preformed train rather than for the self-modulated beam.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 3.2.2, Bismuth 0.1 mm case] Table 1 lists the wave-breaking field for n_pe = 2.8e15 cm^-3 as 5.1 GV/m, using E_WB = 96 sqrt(n_pe) V/m. Section 3.2.2 reports a peak wakefield of 6 GV/m for the bismuth beam, which exceeds the quoted wave-breaking field without any explanation. The paper should either show that the simulation is in a regime where the quoted wave-breaking formula is not the appropriate limit, or discuss why a field above the nominal wave-breaking value is physical. As written, this is an internal inconsistency in the central numerical result.
  3. [Section 3.1 and all simulation results] The paper relies on a single PIC code (LCODE) in quasi-static 2D axisymmetric geometry and provides no convergence tests, no variation of grid step or particle number, and no comparison against an independent code or an analytic limit for even one benchmark case. Given that the headline 6 GV/m result exceeds the nominal wave-breaking field and that the acceleration runs use a prescribed microbunch train, the absence of any numerical validation leaves the quantitative claims insufficiently supported. At minimum, the authors should present a grid-convergence study for the bismuth 0.1 mm case and compare the SMI growth distance or wake amplitude with the analytic SMI scaling of Eq. (6).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The text says "the radio of n_b/n_pe" and should read "the ratio of n_b/n_pe."
  2. [Equation (5)] Equation (5) contains self-referential notation: r_1 appears on both sides, and the symbols delta, r_0, and the normalization of N are not fully defined in the surrounding text. Please clarify the notation and state the assumptions under which this linear-theory expression applies.
  3. [Section 4, density gradient runs] The text repeatedly refers to "some plasma density gradients" and shows density profiles only in figures. For reproducibility, the density profile should be specified quantitatively, for example as a piecewise function with the gradient length, amplitude, and location relative to the driver.
  4. [Table 2] The simulation grid step is listed as 0.01 without units; please state whether this is in units of c/omega_pe, millimeters, or another normalisation, and give the equivalent physical step size.
  5. [Section 3.2.1 and Table 1] The table lists parameters "within the parentheses" as parallel parameters, but the meaning of parallel is not defined in the text. Please clarify whether these are alternative scenarios or parameters for a different plasma density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wakefield and acceleration numbers are direct LCODE simulation outputs for stated beam and plasma parameters, not refitted or self-referential targets.

full rationale

All load-bearing results in arXiv:2506.14132 are direct outputs of LCODE particle-in-cell simulations. The 6 GV/m wakefield amplitude is computed by evolving a specified 209Bi83+ beam through a specified plasma; it is not inserted into the input or obtained by fitting. The growth-rate discussion in Section 2 uses an external analytic result [25] only to motivate parameter choices, while the actual wakefield values are simulated. Section 4's electron acceleration runs use an explicitly idealized train of 66 identical bismuth microbunches 'to replace the entire beam' for computational economy; the paper openly states this replacement and does not claim that the manual microbunch train is itself a self-consistent SMI prediction, so the 675 MeV/1 m result is conditional on that modeling choice but not circular. The zero-emittance assumption, acknowledged in the Conclusion ('we have not considered the impact of emittance'), is a physical limitation that may make the results an upper bound, but it is not a step that redefines an output as an input. The only self-citation, the HIAF facility paper [21], is used to cite machine parameters and the facility layout; those parameters are external accelerator specifications, not consequences of the wakefield calculation, so the citation is not load-bearing in the derivation. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of a target prediction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central claim therefore rests on independent numerical evidence rather than on a circular reduction to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation results depend on a set of user-selected beam and plasma parameters, on the validity of the quasi-static LCODE approximation, and on modeling choices that replace the realistic beam with an idealized microbunch train. No entirely new physical entity is postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • RMS beam radius 0.1 mm = 0.1 mm
    Chosen because the 1 mm radius cases give weaker wakes; no emittance or lattice calculation shows HIAF can deliver and maintain this radius over the plasma.
  • Plasma density 2.8e15 cm^-3 = 2.8e15 cm^-3
    Selected to target GV/m-class fields; it sets plasma wavelength 0.628 mm and wave-breaking field 5.1 GV/m, and is not derived from a matching condition to the beam.
  • Microbunch train shape (66 bunches, length and spacing lambda_pe/2, equal peak density) = 66 bunches
    Replaces the self-modulated beam in acceleration simulations; total charge and amplitude evolution of the train are not matched to the SMI simulation.
  • Plasma density gradient profile = n_0 to increased density over 20 k_pe^-1
    Tuned by hand to extend dephasing; no optimization or design formula is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation valid for these beam-plasma parameters
    Section 3.1 restricts validity to beam evolution timescales much longer than the plasma wave period; no quantitative check is provided for the 5 m bismuth beam.
  • standard math Self-modulation instability growth follows Eqs. (5)-(6) from Schroeder et al.
    Used in Section 2 to argue SMI is weaker for heavier ions but still sufficient; the formula assumes a specific beam/plasma regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Zero emittance rigid driver
    Section 3.2 sets emittance to zero; real beams have finite emittance and transverse envelope evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper Fully self-modulated beam can be represented by an identical microbunch train
    Section 4 replaces the whole beam with 66 identical microbunches; the SMI-generated train would have growing, non-identical microbunches.
  • ad hoc to paper Witness beam is already trapped
    Section 4 states trapping conditions are not studied and assumes the electron bunch is trapped.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical investigations of heavy ion driven plasma wakefield acceleration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SO3LJT7L

@misc{pith2026250614132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical investigations of heavy ion driven plasma wakefield acceleration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SO3LJT7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14132}
}
read the original abstract

Plasma-Based Acceleration (PBA) has emerged as a promising approach to achieve ultra-high gradient particle acceleration. While extensive PBA studies have been conducted using laser, electron, and proton drivers, significant challenges remain in achieving high efficiency, stable acceleration, and scalable energy gain. Meanwhile, due to their higher beam charge density, heavier particle mass and higher kinetic energy, heavy-ion beam drivers represent an interesting direction in PBA research. In this paper, the plasma wakefield acceleration driven by heavy ion beam is studied for the first time, aiming to find the best mechanism for generating high-amplitude wakefields. Using the high intensity, high energy heavy ion beams provided by the High Intensity heavy-ion Accelerator Facility (HIAF), our simulations show that heavy ions can excite stable, high-amplitude plasma wakefields up to 6 GV/m, suitable for electron acceleration. These results show good performance of heavy ion beam drivers and their potential as a viable and promising approach in the field of PBA.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Role of $K^*_0(700)$ exchange in the $p \bar{p} \to \Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ reaction

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Meson-exchange fits of p pbar -> Lambda Lambdabar favor scalar K*_0(700) exchange over K and K*(892) exchange, when combined with a fitted vector resonance.

  2. Numerical simulations of electron acceleration driven by heavy ion beams in plasma with alternating density gradients

    physics.acc-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An alternating density gradient profile keeps the witness electron bunch in the accelerating phase of a heavy-ion-driven plasma wakefield, reaching about 1.2 GeV over one meter in simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Tajima, J

    T. Tajima, J. M. Dawson, Laser electron accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 267–270.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.43.267

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Esarey, C

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, W. P. Leemans, Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 1229–1285.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1229

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1229 2009

  3. [3]

    Pukhov, J

    A. Pukhov, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Laser wake field acceleration: the highly non-linear broken-wave regime, Appl. Phys. B 74 (4-5) (2002) 355–361.doi:10.1007/s003400200795

    doi:10.1007/s003400200795 2002

  4. [4]

    W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, et al., Generating multi-GeV electron bunches using single stage laser wakefield acceleration in a 3D nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10 (2007) 061301.arXiv:physics/ 0612227,doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.10.061301

    doi:10.1103/physrevstab.10.061301 2007

  5. [5]

    A. J. Gonsalves, et al., Petawatt Laser Guiding and Electron Beam Acceleration to 8 GeV in a Laser-Heated Capillary Discharge Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (8) (2019) 084801.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122. 084801

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122 2019

  6. [6]

    Picksley, et al., Matched Guiding and Controlled Injection in Dark-Current-Free, 10-GeV-Class, Channel- Guided Laser-Plasma Accelerators, Phys

    A. Picksley, et al., Matched Guiding and Controlled Injection in Dark-Current-Free, 10-GeV-Class, Channel- Guided Laser-Plasma Accelerators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (25) (2024) 255001.arXiv:2408.00740,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.133.255001

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    P. Chen, J. M. Dawson, R. W. Huff, T. C. Katsouleas, Acceleration of Electrons by the Interaction of a Bunched Electron Beam With a Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 693–696, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 55, 1537 (1985)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.693

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.54.693 1985

  8. [8]

    B. E. Blue, et al., Plasma wake field acceleration of an intense positron beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 214801. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.214801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.214801 2003

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    C. L. O’Connell, et al., Plasma production via field ionization, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 9 (2006) 101301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.9.101301

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    Blumenfeld, et al., Energy doubling of 42 GeV electrons in a metre-scale plasma wakefield accelerator, Nature 445 (2007) 741–744.doi:10.1038/nature05538

    I. Blumenfeld, et al., Energy doubling of 42 GeV electrons in a metre-scale plasma wakefield accelerator, Nature 445 (2007) 741–744.doi:10.1038/nature05538

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    Litos, et al., High-efficiency acceleration of an electron beam in a plasma wakefield accelerator, Nature 515 (7525) (2014) 92–95.doi:10.1038/nature13882

    M. Litos, et al., High-efficiency acceleration of an electron beam in a plasma wakefield accelerator, Nature 515 (7525) (2014) 92–95.doi:10.1038/nature13882

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    R. D. Ruth, A. Chao, P. B. Wilson, P. Morton, A plasma wake field accelerator, Part. Accel. 17 (SLAC-PUB-

  5. [13]

    Gschwendtner, et al., AW AKE, The Advanced Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment at CERN, Nucl

    E. Gschwendtner, et al., AW AKE, The Advanced Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment at CERN, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 829 (2016) 76–82.arXiv:1512.05498,doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.02. 026. 15

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Caldwell, K

    A. Caldwell, K. Lotov, A. Pukhov, F. Simon, Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration, Nature Phys. 5 (2009) 363–367.arXiv:0807.4599,doi:10.1038/NPHYS1248

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Caldwell, et al., Path to AW AKE: Evolution of the concept, Nucl

    A. Caldwell, et al., Path to AW AKE: Evolution of the concept, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 829 (2016) 3–16.arXiv: 1511.09032,doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.12.050

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Turner, et al., Experimental study of wakefields driven by a self-modulating proton bunch in plasma, Phys

    M. Turner, et al., Experimental study of wakefields driven by a self-modulating proton bunch in plasma, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23 (8) (2020) 081302.arXiv:2005.05277,doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.23. 081302

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kumar, A

    N. Kumar, A. Pukhov, K. Lotov, Self-modulation instability of a long proton bunch in plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 255003.arXiv:1003.5816,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.255003

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Verra, et al., Development of the self-modulation instability of a relativistic proton bunch in plasma, Phys

    L. Verra, et al., Development of the self-modulation instability of a relativistic proton bunch in plasma, Phys. Plasmas 30 (8) (2023) 083104.arXiv:2305.05478,doi:10.1063/5.0157391

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Caldwell, K

    A. Caldwell, K. Lotov, Plasma Wakefield Acceleration with a Modulated Proton Bunch, Phys. Plasmas 18 (2011) 103101.arXiv:1105.1292,doi:10.1063/1.3641973

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    E. Adli, A. Ahuja, O. Apsimon, et al., Acceleration of electrons in the plasma wakefield of a proton bunch, Nature 561 (7723) (2018) 363–367

    2018

  13. [21]

    J. Yang, L. Sun, Y . Yuan, Status of the HIAF Accelerator Facility in China, JACoW CYCLOTRONS2022 (2023) MOAI01.doi:10.18429/JACoW-CYCLOTRONS2022-MOAI01

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Verra, et al., Filamentation of a relativistic proton bunch in plasma, Phys

    L. Verra, et al., Filamentation of a relativistic proton bunch in plasma, Phys. Rev. E 109 (5) (2024) 055203. arXiv:2312.13883,doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.109.055203

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W. Lu, C. Huang, M. M. Zhou, W. B. Mori, T. Katsouleas, Limits of linear plasma wakefield theory for electron or positron beams, Phys. Plasmas 12 (6) (2005) 063101.doi:10.1063/1.1905587

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    Liu, G.-X

    C. Liu, G.-X. Xia, J.-J. Zhuang, et al., Impact of rf instability on magnetic compression, Qiangjiguang Yu Lizishu/High Power Laser and Particle Beams 18 (2006) 139–142.doi:10.1017/S1598240800000060

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    C. B. Schroeder, C. Benedetti, E. Esarey, F. J. Grüner, W. P. Leemans, Growth and Phase Velocity of Self- Modulated Beam-Driven Plasma Waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (14) (2011) 145002.arXiv:1108.1564,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.145002

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Batsch, et al., Transition between Instability and Seeded Self-Modulation of a Relativistic Particle Bunch in Plasma, Phys

    F. Batsch, et al., Transition between Instability and Seeded Self-Modulation of a Relativistic Particle Bunch in Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (16) (2021) 164802.arXiv:2012.09676,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126. 164802

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Verra, et al., Controlled Growth of the Self-Modulation of a Relativistic Proton Bunch in Plasma, Phys

    L. Verra, et al., Controlled Growth of the Self-Modulation of a Relativistic Proton Bunch in Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2) (2022) 024802.arXiv:2203.13752,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.024802

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. V . Lotov, G. Z. Lotova, V . I. Lotov, et al., Natural noise and external wakefield seeding in a proton-driven plasma accelerator, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 16 (4) (2013) 041301.arXiv:1204.3444,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevSTAB.16.041301

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Muggli, et al., AW AKE readiness for the study of the seeded self-modulation of a 400 GeV proton bunch, Plasma Phys

    P. Muggli, et al., AW AKE readiness for the study of the seeded self-modulation of a 400 GeV proton bunch, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60 (1) (2017) 014046.arXiv:1708.01087,doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aa941c

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. P. Sosedkin, K. V . Lotov, LCODE: A parallel quasistatic code for computationally heavy problems of plasma wakefield acceleration, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 829 (2016) 350–352.arXiv:1511.04193,doi:10.1016/j. nima.2015.12.032

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. V . Lotov, Fine wakefield structure in the blowout regime of plasma wakefield accelerators, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 6 (2003) 061301.doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.6.061301. 16

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    Y . J. Yuan, et al., Status of the HIRFL-CSR complex, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B 317 (2013) 214–217.doi: 10.1016/j.nimb.2013.07.040

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Petrenko, K

    A. Petrenko, K. Lotov, A. Sosedkin, Numerical Studies of Electron Acceleration Behind Self-Modulating Proton Beam in Plasma with a Density Gradient, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 829 (2016) 63–66.arXiv:1511.04360, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.01.063

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Braunmüller, T

    F. Braunmüller, T. Nechaeva, A. Collboration, Proton Bunch Self-Modulation in Plasma with Density Gradient, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (26) (2020) 264801.arXiv:2007.14894,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.264801

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P. I. Morales Guzmán, et al., Simulation and experimental study of proton bunch self-modulation in plasma with linear density gradients, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24 (10) (2021) 101301.arXiv:2107.11369,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.24.101301

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    K. V . Lotov, A. Pukhov, A. Caldwell, Effect of plasma inhomogeneity on plasma wakefield acceleration driven by long bunches, Phys. Plasmas 20 (2013) 013102.arXiv:1205.3388,doi:10.1063/1.4773905

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    T. C. Katsouleas, Physical mechanisms in the plasma wake-field accelerator, Phys. Rev. A 33 (1986) 2056–2064. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.33.2056. 17

    1986 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.