Highly-efficient electron ponderomotive acceleration in underdense plasmas
Abstract
Laser-plasma accelerators represent a promising technology for future compact accelerating systems, enabling the acceleration of tens of pC to above GeV over just a few centimeters. Nonetheless, these devices currently lack the stability, beam quality and average current of conventional systems. While many efforts have focused on improving acceleration stability and quality, little progress has been made in increasing the beam’s average current, which is essential for future laser-plasma-based applications. In this paper, we investigate a laser-plasma acceleration regime aimed at increasing the beam average current with energies up to few-MeVs, efficiently enhancing the beam charge. We present experimental results on configurations that allow reaching charges of nC and a maximum conversion efficiency of around %. Through comprehensive Particle-In-Cell simulations, we interpret the experimental results and present a detailed study on electron dynamics. From our analysis, we show that most electrons are not trapped in a plasma wave; rather, they experience ponderomotive acceleration. Thus, we prove the laser pulse as the main driver of the particles’ energy gain process.
I Introduction
Since their proposal [1], laser-plasma accelerators (LPA) have interested the scientific community for their ability to produce accelerating gradients times those of conventional systems (i.e., MV/m). The extremely intense electric field would allow for a scaling-down of future accelerators, representing a cost-effective alternative to state-of-the-art linear accelerators (LINACs) and radio frequency cavities. The production of stable, low-emittance, and highly energetic monochromatic LPA electron beams [2, 3, 4, 5], as well as recent optimization studies [6, 7], have dominated the literature. While these results demonstrate the potential of laser-plasma accelerators, their beam properties are still far from those of conventional systems. For instance, current medical electron LINACs can produce up to A, while LPAs deliver only tens-nA [8, 9]. Naturally, one direct method of increasing the average current of LPAs comes from increasing the beam’s charge. Using high-Z gases such as nitrogen and argon is proven as an effective way of enhancing the charge up to the nC-level [10, 11]. Recently, using a TW, Ti:Sapphire laser and a pure nitrogen plasma with a density cm-3, it was possible to accelerate around nC to few-MeVs, with divergences exceeding s mrad [12]. This potentially paves the way for A-level LPAs, marking an important milestone for laser-plasma-based applications. The acceleration of such beams is believed to be associated with the ionization injection of electrons in multiple plasma periods. Once trapped, the particles are subsequently accelerated by the plasma electric field, producing large energy spectra up to a few-tens of MeV.
In this work, we explore the interaction between a superintense laser pulse and a pure nitrogen plasma with densities in excess of , where and here nm. Specifically, through a parametric experimental campaign performed at “Laboratoire d’Optique Appliquée” (LOA), the charge-per-Joule metric serves as a straightforward method in gauging the efficiency of the different configurations of interest. By varying the laser energy, plasma density and gas nozzles, we study the conditions to produce highly divergent (i.e., s mrad), few-MeV electron beams with charges of nC and a maximum laser-to-electron energy conversion efficiency around %. Through further investigation of the experimental configurations using Fourier-Bessel Particle-In-Cell (FBPIC) [13] simulations, we identify three acceleration mechanisms: Ponderomotive Acceleration (PA), Wakefield Acceleration (WA) and Direct Laser Acceleration (DLA). Specifically, the numerical analysis underlines that, upon interaction with nitrogen, the driver pulse radially expels most electrons through its ponderomotive force. Consequently, our study challenges the wakefield’s role in accelerating electrons within the configurations of interest, as commonly attributed.
II Highly-Efficient Acceleration of Charged Electron Beams
The experiment was performed using Salle Jaune’s TW Ti:Sapphire laser system able to produce linearly polarized pulses of nm central wavelength and a Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) duration of fs, the driver beam in Figs. 1(a) and (b). The laser pulse is focused using an f/4 Off-Axis Parabola (OAP) on the gas target, as shown in Fig. 1(b), leading to a FWHM focal spot of m. We estimate that the maximum laser energy on target is J of which % is contained within the central spot, corresponding to the first minima ring. This corresponds to a peak laser intensity W cm-2 and a maximum normalized vector potential . We use pure nitrogen and two different cylindrically symmetric supersonic gas nozzles of mm and mm exit diameter. The latter is a fused silica nozzle obtained via hybrid 3D laser machining technique [14] produced at the Center for Physical Sciences and Technology in Lithuania. As depicted in Fig. 1(b), using a Phasics wavefront sensor [15] and a probe laser pulse we are able to perform plasma density measurements.
This figure also illustrates the Beam Profile Monitor (BPM), allowing to perform shot-to-shot charge and beam divergence measurements. Specifically, the beam charge is determined using an absolutely calibrated tritium capsule [16]. For each configuration, we calculate the average beam charge over ten consecutive shots, with the statistical error defined as the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD). The BPM consists of a motorized Lanex Regular Carestream screen with a diameter of mm, positioned on the laser axis, and a 16-bit CCD camera to collect the electron beam within a given solid angle. To measure the energy spectra, instead, we remove the BPM and position a motorized electron spectrometer on the laser axis, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Each spectrum is determined as the average over ten shots, with the corresponding RMSD. The spectrometer is composed of a magnetic dipole (T) with a mm diameter pinhole at the entrance. The selected electrons are subsequently deviated on a Lanex screen calibrated from MeV to MeV.
In Fig. 2(a) the continuous curves represent the charge-per-Joule (Q/J,Ω) achieved with the mm nozzle within a sr solid angle of the BPM, for three different plasma densities. Here, represents the estimated laser central spot energy. The PIC simulations (dashed lines) reproduce the charges obtained under these experimental conditions. Further details about this set of simulations can be found in the Supplementary Materials (Figs. S1 and S2). In the experimental measurements, at we notice that the charge-per-Joule from nC/J/sr at J increases to around nC/J/sr for J. At higher plasma densities, instead, we observe a stronger dependency on the laser energy. Specifically, for the charge-per-Joule increases with the laser energy, until reaching J, where it reaches a maximum of nC/J/sr and subsequently starts to decrease. Similarly, the curve at tends to decrease with the laser energy. The simulations show that this behavior is due to the limited BPM collecting angle: the dimension of the electron beams produced at these laser energies exceeds that of the BPM scintillating screen. Hence, some electrons are not co llected by the diagnostics, causing a decrease in the charge-per-Joule.
Furthermore, in Fig. 2(a) we also notice that the curves at and superimpose, highlighting the presence of a charge-per-Joule saturation effect. However, the numerical study seems to confirm that the superposition of these curves is somehow magnified by the limited collecting angle. Indeed, even an increase in the plasma density yields more divergent electrons that fall out of the BPM measuring cone. With this nozzle, we estimate a maximum of nC/J/sr at J (i.e., corresponding to a total charge of nC), with a conversion efficiency %. Here, we define the conversion efficiency as the ratio of the total electron energy to the total laser energy on target.
In Fig. 2(b), instead, we show the results obtained with the mm nozzle at and . In this figure, we move the BPM closer to the nozzle, allowing the collecting cone to increase to around sr. In Fig. 2(b) we notice very similar tendencies and values to what we have previously discussed. With this nozzle, we measure a maximum charge-per-Joule of nC/J/sr with at J (i.e., nC), corresponding to an energy conversion efficiency %. At full laser energy and at , we reach nC/J/sr, allowing to measure a maximum charge of nC and an efficiency %. The same efficiency is also estimated for the same laser energy at .
Fig. 2(c) and (d) illustrate examples of electron energy spectra measured around the beam center. The curves of Fig. 2(c) were obtained with the mm nozzle at for different laser energies. Thus, we observe that the shape of the energy spectrum and the beam’s average energy remain constant across different laser energies ranging from J to J, with an average energy of approximately MeV, calculated within the range MeV and MeV. We also measured the electron beam energy at different horizontal angles as shown in Fig. 2(d). From this figure, it is possible to conclude that the most divergent electrons are also the least energetic. Indeed, the average energy drops from MeV at the central position (i.e., = 0) to MeV at the extremes (i.e., = mrad), within the range MeV.
In Fig. 3(a-d) we present some single-shot images of the BPM scintillating screen. Specifically, these images refer to the 2 mm nozzle at and for two different laser energies. The white lines represent the transverse and longitudinal beam profiles passing through the maxima of each image. Coherent with our prior discussion, Figs. 3(a-d) prove that increasing either the plasma density or the laser energy leads to larger beam sizes. Indeed, from these figures, we estimate FWHM divergences between mrad and mrad, highlighting the influence of varying plasma density and laser energy on the beam divergence.
III Numerical Analysis
III.1 Simulation setup
In this section, we present a numerical study that allows us to interpret the experimental results. We first investigate the charge-per-Joule saturation effect and then discuss the different acceleration mechanisms.
The numerical study was performed employing the 3D code FBPIC, which uses a cylindrical grid with azimuthal decomposition. Concerning the simulation setup, we define a m density ramp, allowing the laser pulse to focus with limited energy losses at the beginning of a m plateau (Fig. S3 in Supplementary Materials). We assume the nitrogen gas is preionized up to N+3, corresponding to the first three L-shell electrons, for numerical ease. The investigation considers four different plateau plasma densities between and , corresponding to the full L-shell ionization (i.e., N+5). The laser considered is a 30 fs-Gaussian beam propagating along and polarized in the direction, with energies () ranging from J to J and a waist m. Regarding the numerical parameters, we employ a mesh with and , where nm is the laser wavelength. Finally, three azimuthal modes are considered, and the macroparticles per cell along and are set to 1, 1 and 4 respectively.
III.2 Efficiency saturation effect
We now intend to explain the charge-per-Joule saturation effect observed experimentally and discussed in the Section II. Thus, in Fig. 4 we present the charge-per-Joule (Q/J) within a sr solid angle as a function of the laser energy and plasma density, derived from linearly interpolated numerical results. We only consider electrons with a minimum energy MeV, which can be relevant for a number of low-energy applications such as industrial X-ray tomography. The white dashed lines in Fig. 4, instead, refer to charge-per-Joule isolines. From this figure, it is possible to notice that for J and the charge-per-Joule slowly increases from nC/J to around nC/J with the laser energy. This region is outlined by black dotted lines for visual reference. In accordance with the experimental findings discussed in Section II, we observe that within this region, increasing the plasma density at a fixed laser energy does not result in higher charges-per-Joule.
The numerical analysis underlines that this effect is due to the saturation of the conversion efficiency with respect to the plasma density. More precisely, the laser interacts with the plasma over a characteristic length approximately equal to half the pump depletion length, [17]. Simultaneously, increasing the plasma density results in more electrons being accelerated per unit length. Therefore, despite the reduced interaction length at higher densities, the faster ionization ultimately leads to the same amount of charge being accelerated. This analysis is corroborated by the energy spectra in Fig. 4(b), where we consider electrons with energies in the range , comprising over % of the charge above MeV. Indeed, we notice that the curves at J for and overlap, presenting an average energy of MeV. For these configurations, we estimate the efficiency to be %. A similar behavior is also observed at J, where we estimate the average energy to be MeV and the conversion efficiency is % for both densities. In other words, regardless of variations in plasma density, the same amount of laser energy ionizes and accelerates the same number of electrons to the same average energy.
III.3 Electron dynamics and acceleration mechanisms
Before discussing the acceleration mechanisms in detail, we intend to briefly describe the plasma structures that develop during the interaction. Thus, Fig. 5(a1) depicts the plasma density (top half) and corresponding radial plasma field (bottom half) obtained with and J. In this figure, we notice the presence of a long and rapidly-changing channel-like structure, with a characteristic length , where m is the plasma wavelength. This massive sheath is formed by nitrogen L-shell electrons and it is filled with K-shell electrons, continuously accumulating and flowing through the channel.
In the bottom half of Fig. 5(a1), we highlight that the radial focusing field generated by the L-shell electron sheath confines K-shell electrons close to the laser axis. Consequently, this dense concentration of particles on axis shields the longitudinal wakefield and hinders the formation of ion cavities. Nonetheless, inside of this structure, we can still find rapidly changing density modulations, which can generate a longitudinal wakefield. As we will discuss in the following, these modulations can contribute to the electron acceleration process. Close to the laser intensity peak (i.e., m), instead, the ponderomotive force allows for effective charge separation and the formation of a cavity in front of the channel structure.
In order to understand how electrons gain energy, we calculated the work performed by the laser and plasma electric fields. This task was carried out employing the numerical tool FBPIC-Electric Work Profiler (FBPIC-EWP) [18]. This code allows to estimate the work exerted on FBPIC-tracked electrons by both the laser and plasma electric fields, exploiting FBPIC modal decomposition. Hence, if we consider a single electron, in the time interval an electric field performs the work
(1) |
where the subscripts and denote the wakefield and laser field contribution respectively, is the electron velocity and is its charge.
Fig. 5(a1) illustrates two examples of K-shell electron trajectories (black curves) on the plane experiencing ponderomotive acceleration. L-shell electrons exhibit a similar dynamic as will be discussed in the following and in the Supplementary Materials (Fig. S6). Considering the case denoted by the continuous trajectory in Fig. 5(a1), we estimate that the particle crosses laser optical cycles before being expelled at the instant fs, denoted by a circle in Fig. 5(a1). Here, corresponds to the electron ionization time. Similar to what is observed in other acceleration regimes [19], this sort of dynamic is typical of ponderomotive electrons: they slip through several optical cycles experiencing low energy gains, as shown in Fig. 5(a2). Here, we plot the electron kinetic energy and, for simplicity, the work done by the plasma and the laser along the radial direction, defined as . We estimate that the laser provides MeV in radial push. Simultaneously, the electron loses MeV crossing regions of space where the focusing radial wakefield opposes the ponderomotive push (i.e., at m). Concerning the longitudinal dynamics, instead, the numerical analysis underlines that at fs (i.e., m) the electron crosses the wakefield decelerating region in the front cavity, causing a MeV loss, while also the laser performs a negative work around MeV. Finally, the electron leaves the laser with an energy MeV.
The particle denoted with the dashed trajectory in Fig. 5(a1) experiences a somewhat similar acceleration process. It slips through the laser field oscillating over optical cycles, before leaving the laser field at fs, as denoted by the circle on the electron trajectory. From Fig. 5(a3) we deduce that in this case, the laser also provides most of the energy, with a radial push of MeV, while the wakefield exerts a pull of MeV. Longitudinally, the particle receives MeV from the plasma field, since it experiences its accelerating phase at fs (i.e., m), while the laser performs a negative work of MeV. The electron leaves the laser pulse with an energy of MeV. Moreover, for fs in Fig. 5(a1) we note that this particle remains closer to the laser axis and is radially trapped in the channel-like structure discussed above. Here, it performs radial oscillations until leaving the channel without a significant difference in energy.
Having discussed the ponderomotive acceleration through two examples, we now present a statistically relevant study distinguishing between the number of electrons accelerated by the laser or the wakefield. Moreover, we provide an overview of other acceleration mechanisms we identified, and more details can be found in the Supplementary Materials (Figs. S4 and S5). Therefore, for each tracked electron at the instant , we now define the laser-to-plasma work ratio as
(2) |
allowing to compare the laser and plasma field contributions. A positive value clearly indicates the laser’s central role in driving the electron acceleration process. For coherence with Section III.2, in Fig. 5(b1) we plot the beam angular distribution for both K- and L-shell electrons with MeV at the last iteration. Each electron in the top half of this figure is colored based on its value. Thus, we define two criteria for and we identify the corresponding electron populations. In the range we find yellow electrons that gain most of their energy from wakefield acceleration.
The red particles, instead, have and are primarily accelerated by the laser. In this population, we find ponderomotive electrons, displaying dynamics similar to the two examples in Fig. 5(a1). As discussed below, some of these electrons can also experience direct laser acceleration [20, 21, 22]. We estimate that around % of the particles exhibit positive values of , proving the laser as the primary driver in particle acceleration. In the bottom half of Fig. 5(b1), instead, the color represents the energy of each particle. The average energy for MeV is around MeV for both laser- and wakefield-accelerated electrons, and we notice a concentration of higher energies closer to the laser axis, which is consistent with the experimental observation. For instance, if we consider a solid angle of sr (white circle in Fig. 5(b1)), the average energy increases to MeV.
Fig. 5(b2) depicts the phase space of laser- and wakefield-accelerated K-shell electrons at the final iteration of the simulation. This figure highlights the different behaviors of laser-accelerated electrons. As previously mentioned, in this population we find particles undergoing ponderomotive acceleration. We estimate that around % of laser-accelerated K-shell electrons gain up to MeV through the ponderomotive push [23]. Here, is the maximum laser normalized vector potential in plasma. Instead, the remaining % experiences direct laser acceleration. Fig. 6 presents an example of electron trajectory undergoing DLA (continuous curve). These particles are trapped in the ion cavity in front of the channel structure via ionization injection. Once trapped, they overlap with the driver pulse and perform oscillations along the laser polarization direction. Subsequently, these oscillations can lead to a gain in longitudinal momentum via the term of the laser. The longitudinal wakefield reduces the dephasing between the electrons and the laser, ultimately allowing these particles to reach MeV [24, 25]. In the example of Fig. 6, the electron reaches a maximum energy of MeV, with MeV attributed to the laser.
In Fig. 5(b2) we can also observe wakefield-accelerated K-shell electrons (yellow dots). Specifically, the numerical analysis highlights the presence of “traditional” wakefield acceleration, where the particles are trapped in phase with the wakefield within the front ion cavity long enough to reach MeV. Additionally, we recognize wakefield accelerated particles displaying a behavior somewhat similar to the dashed trajectory of Fig. 5(a1). Once ionized, they initially receive most of their energy from the laser ponderomotive push and they subsequently slip into the channel, where they radially oscillate until escaping the structure with few-MeVs in energy. However, once inside the channel, they undergo acceleration in the longitudinal wakefield phase, induced by the plasma density modulations mentioned earlier. The numerical analysis shows that this plasma field contribution exceeds the laser initial push and, in this sense, they undergo wakefield acceleration. Nonetheless, unlike traditional wakefield acceleration, where particles are trapped in phase with the wakefield within the front ion cavity, these electrons continuously slip through the channel. In Fig. 6 we provide an example of this sort of non-traditional wakefield acceleration (dashed curve). At the end of the simulation, the particle has gained MeV in energy, of which MeV are provided by the wakefield.
Analogously, Fig. 5(b3) displays the phase space of laser- and plasma-accelerated L-shell electrons at the final iteration of the simulation. We estimate that around % of L-shell electrons with MeV undergo PA, while the remaining fraction is mainly accelerated via WA while momentarily crossing the longitudinal wakefield accelerating phase.
IV Conclusion and Outlook
In this paper, we studied a regime allowing the increase of the average current of laser-plasma accelerators with energies at few-MeVs, through the enhancement of the beam charge. With an extensive experimental campaign, we were able to produce charges of nC, with average energies around MeV. Notably, employing a J laser pulse, we achieve a charge of nC with a conversion efficiency of %, one of the highest recorded to date. Improving the laser focal spot quality could lead to efficiencies exceeding %, as shown by the numerical study. These results are promising for future LPAs, paving the way for unprecedented average currents. Novel J-class lasers with W in average power are emerging [26, 27] and they would allow to exceed the A-level. Considering, for instance, the configuration discussed above (i.e., nC at J), we can easily estimate that the maximum achievable average current is A, assuming W in laser average power. With such capabilities, this electron source emerges as a promising candidate for various applications needing few-MeV electrons, including X-ray tomography [28, 29] and irradiation studies.
In configurations similar to those studied here, electron trapping via ionization injection followed by wakefield acceleration is typically considered the dominant acceleration process. However, in this paper, we were able to show that most particles are not injected in plasma cavities, as also discussed in other works present in the literature [30, 31]. More specifically, we proved that the electrons primarily gain energy through ponderomotive acceleration, establishing the laser pulse as the main driver in the energy gain mechanism.
Acknowledgements.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement n°101020100.References
- Tajima and Dawson [1979] T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267 (1979).
- Faure et al. [2006] J. Faure, C. Rechatin, A. Norlin, A. Lifschitz, Y. Glinec, and V. Malka, Nature 444, 737 (2006).
- Leemans et al. [2006] W. P. Leemans, B. Nagler, A. J. Gonsalves, C. Tóth, K. Nakamura, C. G. R. Geddes, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and S. M. Hooker, Nature Physics 2, 696 (2006).
- Gonsalves et al. [2019] A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. C. H. de Raadt, S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, S. S. Bulanov, J. van Tilborg, C. G. R. Geddes, C. B. Schroeder, C. Tóth, E. Esarey, K. Swanson, L. Fan-Chiang, G. Bagdasarov, N. Bobrova, V. Gasilov, G. Korn, P. Sasorov, and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 084801 (2019).
- Oubrerie et al. [2022] K. Oubrerie, A. Leblanc, O. Kononenko, R. Lahaye, I. Andriyash, J. Gautier, J.-P. Goddet, L. Martelli, A. Tafzi, K. Ta Phuoc, S. Smartsev, and C. Thaury, Light: Science & Applications 11, 180 (2022).
- Maier et al. [2020] A. R. Maier, N. M. Delbos, T. Eichner, L. Hübner, S. Jalas, L. Jeppe, S. W. Jolly, M. Kirchen, V. Leroux, P. Messner, M. Schnepp, M. Trunk, P. A. Walker, C. Werle, and P. Winkler, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031039 (2020).
- Jalas et al. [2021] S. Jalas, M. Kirchen, P. Messner, P. Winkler, L. Hübner, J. Dirkwinkel, M. Schnepp, R. Lehe, and A. R. Maier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 104801 (2021).
- Couperus Cabadağ et al. [2017] J. Couperus Cabadağ, R. Pausch, A. Köhler, O. Zarini, J. Krämer, M. Garten, A. Huebl, R. Gebhardt, U. Helbig, S. Bock, K. Zeil, A. Debus, M. Bussmann, U. Schramm, and A. Irman, Nature Communications 8, 487 (2017).
- Rovige et al. [2020] L. Rovige, J. Huijts, I. Andriyash, A. Vernier, V. Tomkus, V. Girdauskas, G. Raciukaitis, J. Dudutis, V. Stankevic, P. Gecys, M. Ouille, Z. Cheng, R. Lopez-Martens, and J. Faure, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 093401 (2020).
- Guillaume et al. [2015] E. Guillaume, A. Döpp, C. Thaury, A. Lifschitz, J.-P. Goddet, A. Tafzi, F. Sylla, G. Iaquanello, T. Lefrou, P. Rousseau, K. T. Phuoc, and V. Malka, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 18, 061301 (2015).
- Götzfried et al. [2020] J. Götzfried, A. Döpp, M. F. Gilljohann, F. M. Foerster, H. Ding, S. Schindler, G. Schilling, A. Buck, L. Veisz, and S. Karsch, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041015 (2020).
- Feng et al. [2023] J. Feng, Y. Li, J. Tan, W. Wang, Y. Li, X. Zhang, Y. Meng, X. Ge, F. Liu, W. Yan, C. Fu, L. Chen, and J. Zhang, Laser & Photonics Reviews 17, 2300514 (2023).
- Lehe et al. [2023] R. Lehe, M. Kirchen, S. Jalas, L. Jeppe, I. Andriyash, K. Peters, A. Huebl, omri seemann, S. Yoffe, dornmai, A. de la Ossa, E. Zoni, D. Grote, D. Stańczak-Marikin, R. Shalloo, Isaiah, K. Poder, M. Thévenet, R. Pausch, S. Kuschel, D. Seipt, and D.-X. Hui, fbpic/fbpic: 0.25.0 (2023).
- Tomkus et al. [2018] V. Tomkus, V. Girdauskas, J. Dudutis, P. Gečys, V. Stankevič, and G. Račiukaitis, Opt. Express 26, 27965 (2018).
- Primot and Sogno [1995] J. Primot and L. Sogno, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 2679 (1995).
- Kurz et al. [2018] T. Kurz, J. Couperus, J. Krämer, et al., Review of Scientific Instruments 89, 093303 (2018).
- Lu et al. [2007] W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 061301 (2007).
- Martelli and Andriyash [2024] L. Martelli and I. Andriyash, laumrt/fbpic-ewp: Fbpic-ewp (2024).
- Thévenet et al. [2016] M. Thévenet, A. Leblanc, S. Kahaly, H. Vincenti, A. Vernier, F. Quéré, and J. Faure, Nature Physics 12, 355 (2016).
- Pukhov et al. [1999] A. Pukhov, Z.-M. Sheng, and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Physics of Plasmas 6, 2847 (1999).
- Pukhov [2002] A. Pukhov, Reports on Progress in Physics 66, 47 (2002).
- Arefiev et al. [2016] A. V. Arefiev, V. N. Khudik, A. P. L. Robinson, G. Shvets, L. Willingale, and M. Schollmeier, Physics of Plasmas 23, 056704 (2016).
- Macchi [2013] A. Macchi, A Superintense Laser-Plasma Interaction Theory Primer, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer Netherlands, 2013).
- Shaw et al. [2014] J. L. Shaw, F. S. Tsung, N. Vafaei-Najafabadi, K. A. Marsh, N. Lemos, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 56, 084006 (2014).
- Shaw et al. [2016] J. L. Shaw, N. Lemos, K. A. Marsh, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 58, 034008 (2016).
- Pellegrina et al. [2022] A. Pellegrina, A. Jeandet, L. Lavenu, S. Ricaud, C. Simon-Boisson, A. Vernier, A. Flacco, and J. Faure, in Optica High-brightness Sources and Light-driven Interactions Congress 2022 (Optica Publishing Group, 2022) p. HW4B.6.
- Kiani et al. [2023] L. Kiani, T. Zhou, S.-W. Bahk, J. Bromage, D. Bruhwiler, E. M. Campbell, Z. Chang, E. Chowdhury, M. Downer, Q. Du, E. Esarey, A. Galvanauskas, T. Galvin, C. Häfner, D. Hoffmann, C. Joshi, M. Kanskar, W. Lu, C. Menoni, M. Messerly, S. B. Mirov, M. Palmer, I. Pogorelsky, M. Polyanskiy, E. Power, B. Reagan, J. Rocca, J. Rothenberg, B. E. Schmidt, E. Sistrunk, T. Spinka, S. Tochitsky, N. Vafaei-Najafabadi, J. van Tilborg, R. Wilcox, J. Zuegel, and C. Geddes, Journal of Instrumentation 18 (08), T08006.
- Svendsen et al. [2018] K. Svendsen, I. G. González, M. Hansson, J. B. Svensson, H. Ekerfelt, A. Persson, and O. Lundh, Opt. Express 26, 33930 (2018).
- Cole et al. [2018] J. M. Cole, D. R. Symes, N. C. Lopes, J. C. Wood, K. Poder, S. Alatabi, S. W. Botchway, P. S. Foster, S. Gratton, S. Johnson, C. Kamperidis, O. Kononenko, M. D. Lazzari, C. A. J. Palmer, D. Rusby, J. Sanderson, M. Sandholzer, G. Sarri, Z. Szoke-Kovacs, L. Teboul, J. M. Thompson, J. R. Warwick, H. Westerberg, M. A. Hill, D. P. Norris, S. P. D. Mangles, and Z. Najmudin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 6335 (2018).
- Yang et al. [2017] X. Yang, E. Brunetti, D. R. Gil, G. H. Welsh, F. Y. Li, S. Cipiccia, B. Ersfeld, D. W. Grant, P. A. Grant, M. R. Islam, M. P. Tooley, G. Vieux, S. M. Wiggins, Z. M. Sheng, and D. A. Jaroszynski, Scientific Reports 7, 43910 (2017).
- Behm et al. [2019] K. Behm, A. Hussein, T. Z. Zhao, S. Dann, B. X. Hou, V. Yanovsky, J. Nees, A. Maksimchuk, W. Schumaker, A. G. R. Thomas, and K. Krushelnick, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61, 065012 (2019).