photondiag2017 workshop
Doublegrating monochromatic beamline with ultrafast response for FLASH2 at DESY
^{a}National Research Council – Institute of Photonics and Nanotechnologies, Via Trasea 7, Padova 35136, Italy, and ^{b}Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron – DESY, Notkestraße 85, Hamburg 22603, Germany
^{*}Correspondence email: luca.poletto@cnr.it
The preliminary design of a monochromatic beamline for FLASH2 at DESY is presented. The monochromator is tunable in the 50–1000 eV energy range with
higher than 1000 and temporal response below 50 fs over the whole energy range. A timedelaycompensated configuration using the variablelinespacing monochromator design with two gratings is adopted: the first grating disperses the radiation on its output plane, where the intermediate slit performs the spectral selection; the second grating compensates for the pulsefront tilt and for the spectral dispersion due to diffraction from the first grating.Keywords: timedelaycompensated monochromator; diffraction; variablelinespaced grating; freeelectron laser.
1. Introduction
Freeelectron laser (FEL) sources provide extremeultraviolet (XUV) and Xray radiation with ultrashort time duration, high spatial coherence and an increase of six to eight orders of magnitude on the peak ). These characteristics make FEL sources useful for a wide range of applications, including atomic and molecular physics, ultrafast Xray science, advanced material studies, ultrafast chemical dynamics, biology and medicine (Yabashi & Tanaka, 2017). There are several operating FEL facilities already open to users' experiments: FLASH in Germany (Ackermann et al., 2007), SACLAXFEL in Japan (Ishikawa et al., 2012), LCLS in USA (Emma et al., 2010), FERMI in Italy (Allaria et al., 2012) and the incoming European XFEL in Germany (Abela et al., 2006) and SwissFEL in Switzerland (Ganter, 2010).
with respect to synchrotron radiation sources (Huang & Kim, 2007The handling and conditioning of ultrashort coherent FEL pulses has required the development of suitable optical technologies (Canova & Poletto, 2015). In particular, this paper is focused on the monochromatization of FEL pulses to go beyond the intrinsic resolution of selfamplified (SASE) FELs. Grating monochromators are already used at FLASH (Martins et al., 2006; Gerasimova et al., 2011) and LCLS (Schlotter et al., 2012).
The use of gratings to realise XUV monochromators with ultrafast time response is well established for highorder laser harmonics, where the problem of pulse length preservation has been extensively studied (Poletto et al., 2012). Both the single and the doublegrating design are used. In the first case, when using a single grating, a residual pulsefront tilt due to diffraction has to be accepted at the output of the monochromator, that can however be minimized by choosing a suitable geometry to obtain temporal responses in the range of a few tens of femtoseconds in the XUV (Frassetto et al., 2011). In the second case, two consecutive gratings are employed: the first one performs the spectral selection on an intermediate slit while the second one corrects for the pulsefront tilt introduced by the diffraction. Doublegrating instruments have already been demonstrated to give time resolution below 10 fs in the XUV (Poletto et al., 2009; Ito et al., 2010; Igarashi et al., 2012).
In this paper, we present the preliminary design of a monochromator beamline for FLASH2 at DESY (Faatz et al., 2016; Plönjes et al., 2016). The monochromator is designed for the 50–1000 eV energy range, i.e. 1.2–25 nm wavelength range, with λ/Δλ higher than 1000 and temporal response below 50 fs over the whole energy range, i.e. a temporal elongation of the initial FEL pulse of below 50 fs. The optical design discussed here originates from the variablelinespaced (VLS) grating monochromator that is already used at LCLS (Heimann et al., 2011). Different from the conditions at LCLS, where the energy range of the monochromator is 500–2000 eV and the pulsefront tilt given by the grating is below 30 fs, FLASH2 is operated at lower energies and thus the stretching given by the singlegrating configuration would be unacceptable, as discussed later. Therefore, a second grating is added to realise a timedelaycompensating configuration that corrects for the pulsefront tilt to below 10 fs.
The paper is organized as follows: the singlegrating configuration is initially discussed to show the limitations on the temporal duration of the output monochromatic pulse; then the doublegrating configuration is presented and its performance is discussed in detail.
2. Singlegrating monochromator for ultrafast pulses
A single grating performs the spectral selection in the simplest optical configuration; however, a residual pulsefront tilt has to be tolerated at the output. Indeed, each ray that is diffracted by two adjacent grooves is delayed by mλ, where λ is the wavelength and m is the diffracted order. The total pulsefront tilt is mλN, where N is the number of illuminated grooves. Therefore, the pulse stretching depends on the illuminated area on the grating.
Once the R = λ/Δλ, has been defined, the Rayleigh criterion states that the minimum number of grooves N_{min} that have to be involved in the diffraction to support such a is mN_{min} = λ/Δλ, where Δλ is the halfheight spectral width. The corresponding halfwidth variation of the optical paths at the grating output is ΔOP_{min} ≃ (1/2)mλN_{min} = (1/2)λ^{2}/Δλ. It follows that the diffraction from a grating gives a lower limit for the pulsefront tilt Δτ_{G,min} given by
where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. This value is quite close to the Fourier limit, which states that the minimum Δτ for a given bandwidth is
where k depends on the pulse shape, e.g. k ≃ 0.44 for a Gaussian pulse and k ≃ 0.32 for a sech^{2}shaped pulse. Therefore the singlegrating design can be adopted for the monochromatization of ultrashort pulses without altering in a significant way the beyond the Fourier limit, provided that the number of illuminated grooves times the diffracted order is equal to the actual (Poletto & Frassetto, 2010). The aim of the optical design is to find the parameters that fulfil the requirements on spectral range, spectral resolution, efficiency, etc. and to minimize at the same time the illuminated area on the grating to reduce the pulsefront tilt. Unfortunately, fulfilling of the latter condition is not trivial, since the illuminated area depends on the source divergence, that is assigned, and geometrical parameters, such as the distance from the source and the incident angle, that often are subject to constraints.
In the following we will concentrate on a VLS grating monochromator. It was proposed by Hettrick & Bowyer (1983) and used for synchrotron radiation beamlines (Underwood & Koch, 1997) and highorder laser harmonics (Poletto et al., 2003). Recently, the VLS design has been adopted also for the monochromatic beamline at LCLS (Heimann et al., 2011). The optical layout is shown in Fig. 1. A flat VLS grating is illuminated by the light converging from a focusing mirror and diffracts the radiation onto the exit slit. The wavelength scanning is performed by rotating the grating around an axis passing through its centre to change the incidence angle α at constant subtended angle, i.e. α + β = constant. The variable groove spacing provides the additional free parameters to keep the focus on the slit plane at the different wavelengths and to correct for highorder aberrations, namely coma and spherical aberration. The design is rather simple from the optomechanical point of view, because only two optical elements are required and the wavelength is scanned by a single rotation.
The incident angle is changed following the equation
where K is the subtended angle: K = α + β, α and β are the incidence and diffracted angles, respectively, and σ_{c} is the central groove density.
The halfwidth bandwidth at the output slit, having width W, is
where q is the grating arm, that is the distance between the grating centre and the slit.
Let D indicate the halfdivergence of the source. After the reflection from the concave mirror, the divergence is modified as Dp_{M}/(s + q), where p_{M} is the entrance arm of the mirror, s is the mirrortograting distance and q is the gratingtoslit distance. Therefore, the number of grooves illuminated on the grating is N = 2D[p_{M}/(s + q)](σ_{c}q)/cosα while the corresponding pulsefront tilt at halfmaximum is
Starting from the required bandwidth Δλ, the parameters K, σ_{c} and q are chosen to fulfil equation (4) with a given width of the output slit, that is typically W ≃ 100 µm. Since p_{M}, i.e. the distance between the source and the mirror, is normally imposed by the geometry of the beamline, the only free parameter to control the pulsefront tilt is the mirrortograting distance s: the larger the value of s, the smaller Δτ_{G}.
In the following, we will apply the VLS configuration to the preliminary design of a monochromatic beamline for FLASH2. The main requirements are the following:
(i) Spectral range 4–25 nm (310–50 eV), FLASH2 fundamental emission; 1.2–4 nm (1000–310 eV), FLASH2 harmonics.
(ii) λ/Δλ higher than 1000 over the full spectral range.
(iii) Time response below 50 fs (halfwidth).
When designing a beamline for newgeneration FEL sources, there are also some major issues related to the source itself that drive the design:
(i) Due to the high angular and lateral stability of the source, the monochromator works without an entrance slit, i.e. the FEL itself acts as the source point.
(ii) Due to high
horizontal and vertical foci have to be kept separated to reduce the radiation density on the slit blades.There are also some geometrical constraints to be taken into account for FLASH2:
(i) The first optical element of the beamline, i.e. the first deviating mirror, has to be placed 68.9 m away from the source.
(ii) The minimum distance between the first deviating mirror and the grating is 6 m due to space contraints.
(iii) The total length of the beamline from the first deviating mirror can be 23 m at maximum.
The FLASH2 source is assumed to have a size of 200 µm r.m.s. The divergence is taken as 75 µrad r.m.s. at 40 nm and scales as λ^{3/4} (Plönjes et al., 2013).
2.1. Singlegrating monochromator for FLASH2
The singlegrating setup is similar to the already existing monochromatic beamline at SLAC. The optical layout is depicted in Fig. 2. The FEL beam is focused by the planeelliptical mirror M1 towards the plane VLS grating G1. The latter is illuminated in converging light and diffracts the radiation toward the slit, where the beam is monochromated. The radiation is finally focused to the sample by two planeelliptical mirrors in the Kirkpatrick–Baez (KB) configuration, M3 and M4. The additional plane mirror M2 is used in combination with the mirror M3 to correct the vertical deviation of the beam and have an output beam parallel to the floor.
The monochromator parameters have been chosen to obtain the required . Two gratings are used to cover the full spectral range. They are used in the first and second orders to optimize the performance in a broad interval. Note that the groove profile has to be blazed, i.e. a sawtooth profile, to have high efficiency at the two diffracted orders. The blaze angle that maximizes the grating efficiency is 1°. The position of the KB focusing stage has been fixed to give a demagnification of 3.5 in the horizontal direction and 36 in the vertical direction, thus giving a halfmaximum size of the final focus of about 15 µm × 10 µm.
using a 100 µm slit. They are listed in Table 1

The . The use of the first and second orders allows the requirements of using two gratings over the full spectral range to be met. The halfwidth pulsefront tilt is shown in Fig. 4. It has been calculated using equation (5) and also verified through raytracing simulations using a program explicitly written to calculate the delay of the rays within the beam aperture. Although the temporal stretching has been minimized by increasing the mirrortograting distance as required by equation (5), the pulsefront tilt is below 50 fs only for some wavelengths shorter than 3 nm and it becomes as high as 600 fs at 25 nm. Being limited by the pulsefront tilt, the singlegrating monochromator cannot be used in any interval within the 3–25 nm range for a temporal resolution below 50 fs. Fig. 4 shows only the pulse length stretching due to the monochromator, which is added to the initial pulse length of the FEL pulse. A much shorter response is achieved by using a doublegrating configuration, as will be discussed in the following section.
on a 100 µm slit is shown in Fig. 33. Doublegrating monochromator for ultrafast pulses
Doublegrating configurations have been proposed for XUV ultrafast pulses to correct for the pulsefront tilt given by the diffraction from a single grating. In such a configuration the second grating compensates for the temporal stretching and for the spectral spread introduced by the first one. Such a configuration is normally defined as a timedelaycompensating monochromator. From the point of view of the ray paths, there are two conditions that the design must comply to: (i) the differences in the path lengths of rays having the same wavelength but with different entrance directions within the beam aperture that are caused by the first grating must be compensated by the second grating, and (ii) two rays at different wavelengths within the spectrum of the pulse to be selected have to be focused on the same point, i.e. the global spectral dispersion has to be zero. Both conditions are satisfied by a scheme with two equal concave gratings mounted in a symmetrical way and operated in opposite diffraction orders, i.e. the incidence angle on the second grating is equal to the diffraction angle of the first grating. The spectral selection is performed by a slit placed in an intermediate position between the gratings, where the radiation is focused by the first grating. Timedelaycompensating monochromators are almost routinely used for the monochromatization of highorder laser harmonics, as already discussed in the Introduction.
In the following we will concentrate on the doublegrating configuration applied to the VLS grating monochromator. The correction of the pulsefront tilt is achieved by inserting a second VLS grating equal to the first one into the optical path after the slit (i.e. with the same average groove density and same law for groove space variation), mounted in a symmetrical position with respect to the slit to be illuminated on the same area (i.e. both gratings are placed at the same distance from the slit therefore the number of illuminated grooves is the same) and operated in the compensating configuration, that requires to operate the second grating in the opposite diffraction order with respect to the first one and to mount the two gratings in the socalled C configuration (i.e. both are faced on the same side).
The condition for timedelay compensation requires that: (i) the same number of grooves is illuminated in both gratings; (ii) the two gratings are used in opposite diffraction order (internal–external or external–internal); (iii) the spectral dispersion is compensated (gratings in C geometry, i.e. both faced on the same side). Once these three conditions are fulfilled, the tilt of the pulsefront is corrected. After the second grating, the optical elements can be designed to achieve the desired focus without influencing the pulsefront tilt.
3.1. Doublegrating monochromator for FLASH2
The optical layout is shown in Fig. 5. With respect to the singlegrating design, a second grating G2 is added. The distances have been recalculated to fit within the space available for the beamline, in particular the M1toG1 distance has been reduced to 6.0 m to reduce the total beamline length within the given constraints.
The monochromator parameters are listed in Table 2. Two gratings are operated at the first and second orders to cover the full spectral range. The grating subtended angle has been increased to 174° to achieve higher efficiency at short wavelengths. Again, note that the groove profile has to be blazed. The blaze angle that maximizes the grating efficiency is 1°.

The . The use of the first and second orders allows the requirements of using two sets of gratings over the full spectral range to be fulfilled.
on a 100 µm slit is shown in Fig. 63.1.1. Temporal response
The temporal response is evaluated considering two effects on the ultrafast pulse given by the timedelaycompensating configuration. The first effect is the compensation of the pulsefront tilt, i.e. all the rays emitted by the source in different directions at the same wavelength have to travel the same optical path. Ideally the compensation is perfect for a doublegrating configuration, although aberrations may give a residual distortion of the pulsefront, which is evaluated through raytracing simulations. The second effect is the group delay introduced by the two gratings, i.e. different wavelengths within the bandwidth transmitted by the slit travel different paths. Similarly to grating pulse shapers for the visible range, the pair of gratings in the timedelaycompensating configuration can be considered as an XUV pulse shaper, capable of introducing a controllable group delay (Frassetto et al., 2008; Mero et al., 2011). In this case the configuration is very asymmetrical, since a large demagnification is used, therefore, a nonnegligible group delay is introduced within the bandwidth. The group delay has been calculated by raytracing simulations. The resulting optical path decreases linearly with the wavelength and this forces the group delay dispersion to be almost constant and positive.
The residual distortion of the pulsefront at the output, the group delay and the Fourier limit for the output bandwidth (100 µm slit) are shown in Fig. 7. The doublegrating configuration is very effective in compensating for the pulsefront tilt at the slit, which may be as high as 1 ps at 25 nm, down to a residual sub10 fs distortion. Fig. 7 shows only the pulse length distortion due to the monochromator, which is added to the initial pulse length of the FEL pulse. This is the value to be compared with the Fourier limit and with the group delay in order to calculate the ultimate temporal resolution. The results reported in Fig. 7 show that for wavelengths shorter than 7 nm the group delay is the dominating factor limiting the for a Fourierlimited pulse in the 15–25 fs range. For longer wavelengths, the temporal response is dominated by the Fourier limit, which may be as high as 90 fs at 25 nm.
A tradeoff between Fourier limit and group delay can be found by acting on the width of the slit. Indeed, the Fourier limit is inversely proportional to the slit width, while the group delay is directly proportional to it. For longer wavelengths, the slit can be opened to ∼200 µm; in such a way the output bandwidth is doubled. Therefore, the Fourier limit will decrease by a factor of two (∼50 fs) and the group delay will increase by the same factor (∼50 fs), giving the best tradeoff for temporal resolution at the longerwavelength side.
It can be concluded that the doublegrating configuration will fulfill the requirements on temporal and spectral resolution over the whole interval of operation.
3.1.2. Spot size
Differently from the singlegrating configuration, in the timedelaycompensating configuration the spot size at the output is independent of the slit aperture. This is because the configuration compensates also for the spectral dispersion that occurs on the slit plane, i.e. different wavelengths are focused on different points on the slit plane but they are recombined on the same point at the output after the second grating. Therefore, the size of the final image is independent of the width of the slit, since dispersion is compensated. Indeed, the width of the image is the projection of the source size intended as monochromatic that is demagnified by M4 and diffracted by G1. The height of the image is the projection of the source size as demagnified by M3. Given the FLASH2 parameters, the halfwidth spot size at the output is evaluated by raytracing simulations to be 12 µm × 8 µm (H × V). The horizontal (vertical) spot size is here defined as the size of the horizontal (vertical) aperture that transmits 50% of the rays.
3.1.3. Slope errors
The effects of slope errors on the resolution and on the spot size have been evaluated through raytracing simulations. The spectral resolution is affected only by the surface quality of M1 and G1. The decrease of the
is almost negligible even for 2 µrad r.m.s. slope errors on the optics. Indeed, the slope errors limit mainly the spot size at the output, the degradation being almost a factor of two for 2 µrad r.m.s. slope errors. This is the main effect to be considered when defining the desired quality of the optical surfaces. It can be concluded that slope errors below 1 µrad r.m.s. have to be required for all the optical surfaces in order to keep high focusing properties.3.1.4. Efficiency
Of particular importance for a beamline design is the total transmission, which depends on the reflectance of the mirrors and on the efficiency of the gratings. With respect to a monochromatic beamline with a single grating, just one optical element has been added to achieve the ultrafast response in the XUV range, namely the second grating. Since the efficiency of a single grating is expected to be in the range 15–35%, the efficiency of the beamline is decreased by a factor of three to eight with respect to the singlegrating design. Typically, the higher the energy, the lower the efficiency. For energies below ∼280 eV, where Ccoated optics can be used, the total transmission is expected to be in the range 0.1–0.15. For energies in the range 280–650 eV, where Nicoated optics can be used, the total transmission is expected to be ∼0.05. For energies higher than 280 eV, Ptcoated optics have to be used and the total transmission is expected to be ∼0.01. Furthermore, assuming tangential sizes of 400 mm for the mirrors and 160 mm for the gratings, the vignetting due to the finite sizes of the optics is totally negligible.
The use of the second grating may be a problem, in terms of efficiency, for wavelengths shorter than 4 nm, where the FEL third harmonic is used as a source, since the ), a possible solution would be to use just the first grating for the short wavelengths and take out the second grating. In this case, the focusing KB system and the experimental chamber have to be moved to the new focal position for experiments at short wavelengths: the required rotation is 6° and the resulting (horizontal) translation is ∼20 cm for the KB system and ∼40 cm for the experimental chamber in the proposed design.
is lower than the fundamental by a factor of ∼100 and the grating efficiency is expected to be 20–25% at best. Since the pulsefront tilt of the singlegrating configuration is in any case small for short wavelengths (see Fig. 44. Conclusions
The preliminary design and expected performance of a monochromatic beamline for FLASH2 have been presented. The beamline operates in the 50–1000 eV energy range and adopts a timedelaycompensating configuration with two VLS gratings to compensate for the pulsefront tilt due to diffraction. Indeed, as shown in the paper, given the characteristics of the FLASH2 source and the proposed requirements on the spectral resolution with a λ/Δλ higher than 1000, monochromatic ultrashort pulses below 50 fs require the use of two gratings for most of the desired wavelength range. The aim of the design has been to find the best tradeoff in terms of optical parameters in order to fulfil the requirements within the whole spectral region of operation.
Acknowledgements
LP would like to acknowledge the Stephenson Distinguished Visitor Programme (DESY Photon Science), Year 2016, for supporting the project.
References
Abela, R. et al. (2006). XFEL: The European XRay FreeElectron Laser. Technical Report. DESY, Hamburg, Germany (http://dx.doi.org/10.3204/DESY_06097). Google Scholar
Ackermann, W. et al. (2007). Nat. Photon. 1, 336–342. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Allaria, E. et al. (2012). Nat. Photon. 6, 699–704. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Canova, F. & Poletto, L. (2015). Optical Technologies for ExtremeUltraviolet and Soft Xray Coherent Sources. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
Emma, P. et al. (2010). Nat. Photon. 4, 641–647. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Faatz, B. et al. (2016). New J. Phys. 18, 062002. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Frassetto, F., Cacho, C., Froud, C. A., Turcu, I. C. E., Villoresi, P., Bryan, W. A., Springate, E. & Poletto, L. (2011). Opt. Express, 19, 19169–19181. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Frassetto, F., Villoresi, P. & Poletto, L. (2008). Opt. Express, 16, 6652–6667. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Ganter, R. (2010). SwissFEL Conceptual Design Report. Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland. Google Scholar
Gerasimova, N., Dziarzhytski, S. & Feldhaus, J. (2011). J. Mod. Opt. 58, 1480–1485. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Heimann, P., Krupin, O., Schlotter, W. F., Turner, J., Krzywinski, J., Sorgenfrei, F., Messerschmidt, M., Bernstein, D., Chalupský, J., Hájková, V., HauRiege, S., Holmes, M., Juha, L., Kelez, N., Lüning, J., Nordlund, D., Fernandez Perea, M., Scherz, A., Soufli, R., Wurth, W. & Rowen, M. (2011). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82, 093104. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Hettrick, M. & Bowyer, S. (1983). Appl. Opt. 22, 3921–3924. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Huang, Z. & Kim, K.J. (2007). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 10, 034801. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Igarashi, H., Makida, A., Ito, M. & Sekikawa, T. (2012). Opt. Express, 20, 3725–3732. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. et al. (2012). Nat. Photon. 6, 540–544. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ito, M., Kataoka, Y., Okamoto, T., Yamashita, M. & Sekikawa, T. (2010). Opt. Express, 18, 6071–6078. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Martins, M., Wellhöfer, M., Hoeft, J. T., Wurth, W., Feldhaus, J. & Follath, R. (2006). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77, 115108. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Mero, M., Frassetto, F., Villoresi, P., Poletto, L. & Varjú, K. (2011). Opt. Express, 19, 23420–23428. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Plönjes, E., Faatz, B., Feldhaus, J., Kuhlmann, M., Tiedtke, K. I. & Treusch, R. (2013). FEL2013: Proceedings of the 35th International FreeElectron Laser Conference, New York, USA, pp. 614–617. Google Scholar
Plönjes, E., Faatz, B., Kuhlmann, M. & Treusch, R. (2016). AIP Conf. Proc. 1741, 020008. Google Scholar
Poletto, L. & Frassetto, F. (2010). Appl. Opt. 49, 5465–5473. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Poletto, L., Frassetto, F. & Villoresi, P. (2012). Quantum Electron. 18, 467–478. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Poletto, L., Tondello, G. & Villoresi, P. (2003). Appl. Opt. 42, 6367–6373. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Poletto, L., Villoresi, P., Frassetto, F., Calegari, F., Ferrari, F., Lucchini, M., Sansone, G. & Nisoli, M. (2009). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 123109. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Schlotter, W. F. et al. (2012). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 043107. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Underwood, J. H. & Koch, J. A. (1997). Appl. Opt. 36, 4913–4921. CrossRef PubMed CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Yabashi, M. & Tanaka, H. (2017). Nat. Photon. 11, 12–14. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CCBY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.