MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388141721 · doi:10.1103/physreva.108.053101

Imaging electron angular distributions to assess a full-power petawatt-class laser focus

2023· article· en· W4388141721 on OpenAlexafffund
Smrithan Ravichandran, M. Huault, R. Lera, Calvin He, Andrew Longman, R. Fedosejevs, L. Roso, W. T. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBasic Energy SciencesLaserlab-EuropeJunta de Castilla y LeónNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsOpticsElectronLaserParaxial approximationIonizationAtomic physicsComputational physicsBeam (structure)Nuclear physicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we present a technique to assess the focal volume of petawatt-class lasers at full power. Our approach exploits quantitative measurement of the angular distribution of electrons born in the focus via ionization of rarefied gas, which are accelerated forward and ejected ponderomotively by the field. We show that a bivariate (θ,Φ) angular distribution, which was obtained with image plates, not only enables the peak intensity to be extracted, but also reflects nonideality of the focal-spot intensity distribution. In our prototype demonstration at intensities of a few ×1019 to a few ×1020W/cm2, an f/10 optic produced a focal spot in the paraxial regime. This allows a plane-wave parametrization of the peak intensity given by tanθc=2/a0 (a0 being the normalized vector potential and θc the minimum ejection angle) to be compared with our measurements. Qualitative agreement was found using an a0 inferred from the pulse energy, pulse duration, and focal spot distribution with a modified parametrization, tanθc=2η/a0 ($η=2.02^{+0.26}_{–0.22}$). This highlights the need for (i) better understanding of intensity degradation due to focal-spot distortions and (ii) more robust modeling of the ejection dynamics. Using single-shot detection of electrons, we showed that while there is significant shot-to-shot variation in the number of electrons ejected at a given angular position, the average distribution scales with the pulse energy in a way that is consistent with that seen with the image plates. Finally, we note that the asymptotic behavior as θ→0° limits the usability of angular measurement. For 800 nm, this limit is at an intensity ~1021W/cm2.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207