research papers
Compact coherence enhancement by subharmonic selfseeding in Xray freeelectron laser facilities
^{a}Paul Scherrer Institut, CH5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
^{*}Correspondence email: eduard.prat@psi.ch
Xray freeelectron lasers (FELs) are cuttingedge scientific tools able to generate transversely coherent radiation with very high power and ultrashort pulse durations. The selfseeding mechanism has been proven to increase the longitudinal coherence of the FEL radiation but its efficiency could be significantly improved, especially for soft Xrays. This paper proposes the enhancement of the performance of selfseeding by combining it with the harmonic generation mechanism. In particular, by starting the process with a subharmonic of the wavelength of interest, the coherence of the produced radiation is improved, the undulator beamline becomes more compact, and the monochromator realization is simplified. Numerical simulations for SwissFEL are presented showing that the method can be employed, within a given space, to increase the spectral
by one order of magnitude or more with respect to standard selfseeding. This coherence enhancement will be fundamental for many photon science applications and techniques such as resonant inelastic Xray scattering.Keywords: freeelectron laser; selfseeding; Xray coherence; simulations.
1. Introduction
Xray freeelectron lasers (FELs) are modern research instruments capable of generating radiation with wavelengths down to the ångstrom level, peak powers of tens of gigawatts or larger, and pulse durations shorter than tens of femtoseconds (Emma et al., 2010; Ishikawa et al., 2012; Amann et al., 2012; Allaria et al., 2013; Ackermann et al., 2007). Most of the stateoftheart FEL facilities are based on the selfamplified (SASE) process (Kondratenko & Saldin, 1980; Bonifacio et al., 1984), which starts from the electrons' shot noise. As a result of this, the radiation obtained from the SASEFELs is not fully coherent over the longitudinal extent of the bunch, with typical relative bandwidths in the 10^{3} to 10^{4} level.
Many FEL users need to filter the SASE signal to achieve a narrower bandwidth and improved longitudinal coherence. Utilizing a monochromator, however, reduces the available number of photons. Instead, seeding techniques are a better choice to increase the coherence of the SASEFEL radiation. The coherence enhancement also helps improve the efficiency of tapering the undulator field to maximize the extracted FEL power (Kroll et al., 1981; Fawley et al., 2002). Seeding with external lasers, directly with a highharmonicgeneration source (Togashi et al., 2011; Ackermann et al., 2013) or with more complex setups such as the highgain harmonic generation (Yu, 1991; Allaria et al., 2012, 2013) or the echoenabled harmonic generation schemes (Stupakov, 2009; Zhao et al., 2012; Hemsing et al., 2016), is presently limited to around 0.3 keV (Allaria et al., 2013) and going beyond is challenging due to wavelength limitations of the available lasers and noise degradation problems (Saldin et al., 2002). For the Xray regime, one can employ the selfseeding mechanism, where, as shown schematically in the top of Fig. 1, the SASE radiation, generated in a first undulator section, passes through a monochromator to be later amplified in a second undulator stage (Feldhaus et al., 1997; Saldin et al., 2001; Geloni & Saldin, 2010; Ratner et al., 2015; Amann et al., 2012). Selfseeding has been experimentally demonstrated for both soft and hard Xrays at the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at SLAC (Ratner et al., 2015; Amann et al., 2012). However, the efficiency of selfseeding should be improved further, especially in the soft Xray regime where only a moderate between 2000 and 5000 has been demonstrated (Ratner et al., 2015). This is not sufficient to extend the coherence on the entire bunch for wavelengths of a few nanometers or shorter; ideally the coherence time should be given by the electron bunch length.
The fundamental wavelength of the FEL radiation is given by (Bonifacio et al., 1984)
where is the period length of the undulator, γ is the Lorentz factor of the electron beam, and K is the undulator field parameter. In a planar undulator, the FEL process also occurs at the odd harmonics of the fundamental wavelength (Vignola et al., 1985; Bonifacio et al., 1990; Freund et al., 2000; Huang & Kim, 2000; Tremaine et al., 2002; Saldin et al., 2006; Ratner et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 1985; McNeil et al., 2006; Schneidmiller & Yurkov, 2012).
Here we propose to improve the selfseeding scheme by combining it with the harmonic generation mechanism. Specifically, we put forward the idea of driving the selfseeding with the subharmonic of the wavelength of interest, thus our scheme may be called subharmonic selfseeding. As a result, the coherence of the radiation will be higher, the undulator length will be reduced, and the requirements on the selfseeding monochromator will be relaxed. A higher longitudinal coherence will be beneficial for many photon science applications and techniques that require FEL radiation with very small bandwidth. For instance, it will improve the resolution of resonant inelastic Xray scattering, a cuttingedge spectroscopic technique with a unique potential to probe fundamental excitations in complex materials (Ament et al., 2011; Dell'Angela et al., 2016). The method can be applied to both hard and soft Xrays; here we will focus on the soft Xray case.
2. Description of the scheme
Fig. 1 provides schematic layouts of the standard selfseeding scheme and the two possible implementations of our setup, one to maximize the radiation power (highpower mode) and another to minimize the required undulator length (compact mode). For both modes, as in the standard selfseeding, there is a first stage that produces SASEFEL radiation, a monochromator that improves the coherence of the SASEFEL light, and a second stage that amplifies the monochromatic radiation to a higher power level. In our case, however, the undulators of the first stage and the monochromator are tuned to a wavelength λ which is a subharmonic of the wavelength of interest , i.e. , where n is the harmonic number. Before the monochromator, SASEFEL radiation is generated for the subharmonic (λ) and its harmonics or the wavelength of interest (). In the compact mode, the monochromator is followed by a series of undulators tuned to the subharmonic (λ), which produce seeded FEL radiation for both the subharmonic (λ) and the wavelength of interest () in the nonlinear regime up to saturation. This causes a fast power growth of the radiation at the wavelength of interest, which is, however, limited to a lower final value than in the highpower mode. In that case, the monochromator is followed by an initial row of undulators tuned to the subharmonic (λ), which generate seeded FEL radiation for both the subharmonic (λ) and the wavelength of interest () well before the FEL process reaches saturation. Afterwards, the beam is sent to undulator modules tuned to the wavelength of interest (), which boost the radiation at that wavelength to a higher power level than in the compact implementation. In the highpower implementation, the requirement of having undulators tuned to the subharmonic and the wavelength of interest can be achieved either with variablegap undulators able to provide different undulator fields, K, or with two undulator types with different periods, .
The key idea of our scheme is that the coherence time given by the monochromator is much longer with the subharmonic radiation, assuming comparable resolving powers for both wavelengths. In a second step, the coherent radiation at the subharmonic (λ) will drive in the second stage coherent radiation at its harmonics or the wavelength of interest (). In the compact mode, the coherence time of the subharmonic will be imprinted to the wavelength of interest via the nonlinear harmonic generation process and, consequently, the relative bandwidth will be improved by a factor equal to the harmonic number (Pellegrini et al., 2016). In the highpower mode, the harmonic process in the undulators after the monochromator enters the nonlinear regime but does not reach saturation. This is to avoid a spectrum deterioration within the undulators tuned to the wavelength of interest due to the onset of sideband instabilities (Kroll & Rosenbluth, 1980) which are enhanced in the harmonic conversion process. Consequently, for the highpower implementation the increase in coherence will be reduced in comparison with the compact mode. The shift from the undulators tuned to the subharmonic to those at the wavelength of interest needs to be done at the optimum location for best performance.
In addition to the coherence improvement, both implementations of the proposed scheme will be more compact than the standard selfseeding: the first stage will be significantly reduced because it is tuned to the subharmonic with a much shorter gain length than if tuned to the wavelength of interest. In our scheme, the monochromator is employed to produce FEL radiation outside its operational range (a monochromator working at can provide radiation at ). Therefore, another advantage of subharmonic selfseeding is that the realization of a monochromator to cover a certain wavelength range becomes easier. As an example, a monochromator operating between 1.5 and 4.5 nm is sufficient to produce FEL radiation down to 0.5 nm when using the third subharmonic. This particular example illustrates that a monochromator suited for soft Xrays can be used in our scheme to generate hard Xray FEL pulses. Our method is intended to be useful for shorter wavelengths in the nominal tuning range of the FEL. Taking the previous example, to cover a wavelength range between 0.5 and 4.5 nm, standard selfseeding would be employed between 1.5 and 4.5 nm, while subharmonic selfseeding would be used between 0.5 and 1.5 nm.
The main advantage of the highpower mode, in comparison with the compact implementation, is that the resulting radiation may have higher power and spectral
Moreover, filtering the radiation of the subharmonic is much easier, since the power level of the subharmonic is much lower and its radiation has a different source point than the one produced at the wavelength of interest. The compact mode, however, does have its own benefits: it requires a shorter undulator beamline, the final coherence is higher, it can be realized with a single type of fixedgap undulators, and it allows expanding the wavelength range of the FEL facility (producing radiation at a certain wavelength only requires generating FEL radiation at the subharmonic of that wavelength).Our method resembles three earlier proposals. First, Geloni and coworkers proposed for the first time the highpower mode of subharmonic selfseeding for hard Xrays using bunching at the second harmonic (Geloni et al., 2011, 2015). In our case we propose using the radiation naturally generated at the odd harmonics and we focus our analysis on the coherence enhancement by starting the selfseeding mechanism with the subharmonic radiation. Second, the scheme described by Schneidmiller & Yurkov (2012, 2013) and Schneidmiller et al. (2017) is similar to the second stage of the highpower implementation of our scheme, but implemented for SASEFEL pulses to achieve a moderate improvement of their coherence and saturation length. While in that case the nonlinear coupling is avoided in order not to ruin the spectral bandwidth, in our proposal it is explicitly utilized to transfer the coherence properties to the wavelength of interest. Third, Emma et al. (2017a) suggested combining the selfseeding with harmonic generation, but with the monochromator directly tuned to the wavelength of interest. In our case, since the monochromator is tuned to the subharmonic, the final coherence of the resulting radiation is significantly better.
3. Simulations
We will now discuss the performance of the subharmonic selfseeding scheme by means of an example for the future soft Xray beamline of SwissFEL (Milne et al., 2017; Prat et al., 2016), expected to generate FEL radiation between 0.65 and 5 nm. We have performed FEL simulations with the code Genesis 1.3 (Reiche, 1999) with the following electronbeam parameters: the energy is 3.15 GeV, the current profile is flat with a peak value of 3 kA and a total bunch length of 20 µm, the normalized transverse emittance is 300 nm, the slice energy spread is 350 keV [root mean square (RMS)], and the average β function is about 5 m. The undulator beamline will initially consist of 16 undulator modules, with possible extensions in future upgrades. Each undulator module has an undulator period of 38 mm and a total length of 2 m, and the undulator field parameter K can be scanned between 0.8 and 3.5. The space between undulator modules is about 0.7 m. We assume that the energy spread is not degraded in the first stage before the monochromator, which could be achieved by using a fresh bunch in the second undulator stage (Emma et al., 2016, 2017a,b; Lutman et al., 2016; Reiche & Prat, 2016; Prat et al., 2015). Our system, however, is rather robust against larger energy spreads: we have simulated that the FEL power in the harmonics only drops by about 25% when increasing the energy spread from 350 to 1000 keV. Table 1 shows the parameters used in the simulations presented here.

First, we study the transfer of coherence to the harmonics. We use as an input coherent radiation at a wavelength of 3.5 nm. Fig. 2 shows the evolution of the firstorder correlation function, the spectral bandwidth, and the FEL power for the subharmonic (fundamental) and the wavelengths of interest (third and fifth harmonics). The results are calculated for 50 different shots. The input seed has a Gaussian shape with a peak power of 1 MW and a length of 3 µm (RMS). It can be seen that the coherence of the radiation at the wavelengths of interest is quite poor at the beginning of the beamline, but improves after a certain distance driven by the coherent radiation at the subharmonic. The final relative bandwidth of the radiation at the wavelength of interest is, as expected, better than the one at the subharmonic by a factor approximately equal to the harmonic number. This mimics the second stage of the compact mode. In the case of the standard selfseeding configuration, working directly at the wavelength of interest, the length of the seed pulse would be shorter by a factor equal to the harmonic number.
We have performed simulations for the full setup with a wavelength of interest of 0.7 nm. We have considered all methods shown in Fig. 1, with n = 3 for the subharmonic selfseeding. To illustrate the performance of the scheme in the first stage before the monochromator, Fig. 3 shows the SASEFEL power along the undulator beamline for the standard selfseeding configuration, for which the undulators are tuned to the wavelength of interest (0.7 nm corresponding to K = 0.89), and for the subharmonic selfseeding, for which the undulators are tuned to the third subharmonic (2.1 nm corresponding to K = 2.53). The results are averaged over five runs with different seeds for the generation of the electrons' shot noise. No tapering of the undulator field (Kroll et al., 1981) is applied. The statistical errors, not shown in the plot, amount to less than 10%. For the subharmonic selfseeding, the FEL process reaches saturation in about eight modules at a power around 20 GW, while for the standard selfseeding we would need almost twice the length to saturate at a power of 6 GW. This illustrates the first advantage of our method: it is possible to send more radiation power to the monochromator with much fewer undulator modules.
We have simulated the second stage after the monochromator taking as an input seed coherent radiation with a power of 1 MW. We adopt a second stage consisting of 16 undulator modules and assume that the et al., 2013). As an example, for the experiment presented by Ratner et al. (2015), the of the grating monochromator was 4800 for a photon energy of 1 keV ( nm) and 6800 for 0.5 keV ( nm) (Cocco et al., 2013). Therefore, the coherence improvement using subharmonic selfseeding could be better in reality than that shown here. The coherence length for a radiation wavelength of 0.7 nm and a of 5000 is 3.5 µm. Since this is much shorter than the full bunch length (20 µm), one could potentially achieve smaller bandwidth by increasing the coherence. We assume the monochromator to have an efficiency in terms of radiation power of 0.1%, which is consistent with previous work (Ratner et al., 2015). Thus, starting with 1 MW of coherent signal would require 1 GW of SASEFEL radiation from the first stage. For the subharmonic selfseeding, this would be achieved in six undulator modules, while 15 m more of undulator beamline would be required for standard selfseeding.
of the monochromator is 5000 for all radiation wavelengths. This is roughly consistent with stateoftheart monochromators but it is conservative in the sense that the of soft Xray monochromators is typically larger for longer wavelengths (see, for instance, CoccoTable 2 and Fig. 4 show the simulation results of the second stage after the monochromator. For the standard selfseeding configuration, we shift the beginning of the second stage to take into account that 15 m more would be required to reach 1 GW of FEL power in the first stage. Table 2 shows the final FEL average power, the relative bandwidth at saturation and the final power spectral density at the wavelength of interest for the three cases considered. The power spectral density, equivalent to is calculated as the FEL average power over the spectral bandwidth (FWHM values) in units of W (0.1% bandwidth)^{−1}. For the subharmonic selfseeding configurations, we also indicate the FEL power at the subharmonic radiation. Fig. 4 displays the FEL power spectral density along the beamline. The results are averaged over 25 seeds. The statistical errors, not indicated in the figure and the table, are well below the 10% level. For each case we have optimized the value of the undulator field before saturation to minimize the spectral bandwidth and the linear taper amplitude after saturation to maximize the FEL power. The optimum taper is about 2×10^{3} for the standard selfseeding, 2.5×10^{3} for the highpower mode of the subharmonic selfseeding, and 1.5×10^{3} for its compact implementation. For the highpower mode, we have also optimized the number of modules tuned to the subharmonic radiation: in our case, the best performance is obtained when three modules are tuned to the subharmonic (2.1 nm) and the rest are in resonance with the wavelength of interest (0.7 nm). Having rather short undulator modules, as in our case, facilitates the optimization of the location where the undulator resonance condition is changed from the subharmonic to the wavelength of interest.

The table and the figure illustrate that higher powers and smaller bandwidths can be obtained with subharmonic selfseeding. In comparison with the standard selfseeding configuration, the power spectral density or 4×10^{10} W (0.1% bandwidth)^{−1}, about ten times higher than in the highpower implementation (and in any case much higher than for the standard selfseeding). The coherence improvement with respect to the standard selfseeding is about a factor of three (two) for the compact (highpower) mode of the subharmonic selfseeding. The bandwidth reduction in the highpower mode is not equal to the harmonic number because, as explained before, the shift from the undulators tuned to the subharmonic to those tuned to the wavelength of interest needs to be established before the bandwidth reduction is fully achieved, or else sideband instabilities spoil the spectrum. Finally, we observe in Table 2 that the FEL power of the subharmonic radiation is almost negligible for the highpower mode (0.05 GW), while it is considerable for the compact implementation (82.7 GW). This, as explained before, will render filtering the subharmonic radiation much easier in the highpower mode.
at the end of the beamline is 13 (6) times higher for the highpower (compact) implementation. The highpower mode reaches power spectral densities at the end of the beamline around a factor of two higher than the compact implementation, but the latter is able to achieve an already decent performance in a much shorter distance. For instance, for the initially available space in SwissFEL (16 modules in total, 10 in the second stage), the compact mode gives a power spectral density of aboutWe have also calculated the case for the standard selfseeding configuration where the number of undulator modules in the second stage equals that used for the subharmonic selfseeding (16). After taper optimization the final FEL power would be equivalent to the one obtained with the higherpower mode of our scheme (around 17 GW), but the coherence and
would still be a factor of two worse than with subharmonic selfseeding. Moreover, the facility would need 15 m more of undulator beamline, equivalent to five or six undulator modules.4. Further possibilities
The performance of the scheme could be further improved by working at the fifth or higher harmonics. For higher harmonic numbers, however, the highpower mode becomes more sensitive to sideband instabilities and the power is reduced in the compact implementation. Moreover, one could use progressively several fresh fractions of the bunch to increase the power of the produced radiation, as proposed by Prat et al. (2015) with a spatially chirped beam. In addition, our method could also be implemented to improve the efficiency of the highbrightness SASE scheme, a compact alternative to selfseeding to increase the coherence of the FEL radiation by delaying the electrons with respect to the photons (Thompson et al., 2010; McNeil et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2013). The detailed analysis of these aspects is, however, beyond the scope of this work.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, a method is presented that improves the performance of the selfseeding in FEL facilities by combining it with the harmonic generation mechanism: brighter radiation can be obtained within a shorter undulator beamline, and the efficiency of the monochromator is effectively enhanced. It has been shown with numerical simulations that, for a given undulator beamline, the increase in spectral
is of one order of magnitude or more with respect to the standard selfseeding scheme. The compact implementation of the subharmonic selfseeding could be readily tested at LCLS; for the highpower mode an FEL facility with an Xray monochromator and variable gap undulators, such as the future soft Xray beamline of SwissFEL, is required.Acknowledgements
This work was inspired by stimulating discussions with Evgeny Schneidmiller and Mikhail Yurkov. We thank Hans Braun and Thomas Schietinger for improving this work through fruitful discussions and language corrections.
References
Ackermann, S. et al. (2013). Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 114801. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Ackermann, W., Asova, G., Ayvazyan, V., Azima, A., Baboi, N., Bähr, J., Balandin, V., Beutner, B., Brandt, A. & Bolzmann, A. (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
Allaria, E. et al. (2013). Nat. Photon. 7, 913–918. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Amann, J. et al. (2012). Nat. Photon. 6, 693–698. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ament, L. J., van Veenendaal, M., Devereaux, T. P., Hill, J. P. & van den Brink, J. (2011). Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 705–767. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bonifacio, R., De Salvo, L. & Pierini, P. (1990). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 293, 627–629. CrossRef Google Scholar
Bonifacio, R., Pellegrini, C. & Narducci, L. M. (1984). Opt. Commun. 50, 373–378. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Cocco, D. et al. (2013). Proc. SPIE, 8849, 88490A. CrossRef Google Scholar
Dell'Angela, M. et al. (2016). Sci. Rep. 6, 38796. Google Scholar
Emma, C., Fang, K., Wu, J. & Pellegrini, C. (2016). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 19, 020705. CrossRef Google Scholar
Emma, C., Feng, Y., Nguyen, D., Ratti, A. & Pellegrini, C. (2017a). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 20, 030701. CrossRef Google Scholar
Emma, C., Lutman, A., Guetg, M., Krzywinski, J., Marinelli, A., Wu, J. & Pellegrini, C. (2017b). Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 154101. CrossRef Google Scholar
Emma, P. et al. (2010). Nat. Photon. 4, 641–647. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Fawley, W. M., Huang, Z., Kim, K.J. & Vinokurov, N. A. (2002). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 483, 537–541. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Feldhaus, J., Saldin, E. L., Schneider, J. R., Schneidmiller, E. A. & Yurkov, M. V. (1997). Opt. Commun. 140, 341–352. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Freund, H., Biedron, S. & Milton, S. (2000). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 445, 53–58. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Geloni, G., Kocharyan, V. & Saldin, E. (2011). Extension of SelfSeeding to Hard Xrays >10 keV as a Way to Increase User Access at the European XFEL. Report 11–224. DESY, Hamburg, Germany. Google Scholar
Geloni, G., Kocharyan, V. & Saldin, E. (2015). Scheme to Increase the Output Average Spectral Flux of the European XFEL at 14.4 keV. Report 15–141. DESY, Hamburg, Germany. Google Scholar
Geloni, G. K. V. & Saldin, E. (2010). A Simple Method for Controlling the Line Width of SASE Xray FELs. Report 10–053. DESY, Hamburg, Germany. Google Scholar
Hemsing, E., Dunning, M., Garcia, B., Hast, C., Raubenheimer, T., Stupakov, G. & Xiang, D. (2016). Nat. Photon. 10, 512–515. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Huang, Z. & Kim, K.J. (2000). Phys. Rev. E, 62, 7295–7308. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. et al. (2012). Nat. Photon. 6, 540–544. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Kondratenko, A. M. & Saldin, E. L. (1980). Particle Accel. 10, 207–216. CAS Google Scholar
Kroll, N. M., Morton, P. L. & Rosenbluth, M. N. (1981). IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 17, 1436–1468. CrossRef Web of Science Google Scholar
Kroll, N. M. & Rosenbluth, M. N. (1980). FreeElectron Generators of Coherent Radiation, pp. 147–174. Reading: AddisonWesley. Google Scholar
Lutman, A. A. et al. (2016). Nat. Photon. 10, 745–750. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
McNeil, B. W. J., Robb, G. R. M., Poole, M. W. & Thompson, N. R. (2006). Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 084801. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
McNeil, B. W. J., Thompson, N. R. & Dunning, D. J. (2013). Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 134802. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Milne, C. J. et al. (2017). Appl. Sci. 7, 720. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Murphy, J., Pellegrini, C. & Bonifacio, R. (1985). Opt. Commun. 53, 197–202. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Pellegrini, C., Marinelli, A. & Reiche, S. (2016). Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015006. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Prat, E., Calvi, M., Ganter, R., Reiche, S., Schietinger, T. & Schmidt, T. (2016). J. Synchrotron Rad. 23, 861–868. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Prat, E., Löhl, F. & Reiche, S. (2015). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 18, 100701. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Ratner, D. et al. (2015). Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 054801. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Ratner, D. et al. (2011). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 14, 060701. CrossRef Google Scholar
Reiche, S. (1999). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 429, 243–248. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Reiche, S. & Prat, E. (2016). J. Synchrotron Rad. 23, 869–873. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Saldin, E. L., Schneidmiller, E. A., Shvyd'ko, Y. V. & Yurkov, M. V. (2001). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 475, 357–362. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Saldin, E. L., Schneidmiller, E. A. & Yurkov, M. V. (2002). Opt. Commun. 202, 169–187. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Saldin, E., Schneidmiller, E. & Yurkov, M. (2006). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 9, 030702. CrossRef Google Scholar
Schneidmiller, E., Faatz, B., Kuhlmann, M., RönschSchulenburg, J., Schreiber, S., Tischer, M. & Yurkov, M. (2017). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 20, 020705. CrossRef Google Scholar
Schneidmiller, E. A. & Yurkov, M. V. (2012). Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 15, 080702. CrossRef Google Scholar
Schneidmiller, E. & Yurkov, M. (2013). Proceedings of the 35th International FreeElectron Laser Conference (FEL2013), New York, NY, USA, 26–30 August 2013, pp. 700–703. Google Scholar
Stupakov, G. (2009). Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 074801. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Thompson, N. R., Dunning, D. J. & McNeil, B. W. J. (2010). Proceedings of the 1st International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC2010), Kyoto, Japan, 23–28 May 2010, pp. 2257–2259. Geneva: JACoW. Google Scholar
Togashi, T. et al. (2011). Opt. Express, 19, 317–324. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Tremaine, A., Wang, X., Babzien, M., BenZvi, I., Cornacchia, M., Nuhn, H.D., Malone, R., Murokh, A., Pellegrini, C., Reiche, S., Rosenzweig, J. & Yakimenko, V. (2002). Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 204801. CrossRef Google Scholar
Vignola, G., Freeman, R., Kincaid, B., Pellegrini, C., Luccio, A., Murphy, J., Galayda, J. & Van Steenbergen, A. (1985). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 239, 43–46. CrossRef Google Scholar
Wu, J., Pellegrini, C., Marinelli, A., Nuhn, H.D., Decker, F.J., Loos, H., Lutman, A., Ratner, D., Feng, Y., Krzywinski, J., Zhang, D. & Zhu, D. (2013). Proceedings of the 4th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC2013), Shanghai, China, 12–17 May 2013, pp. 2068–2070. Geneva: JACoW. Google Scholar
Yu, L. H. (1991). Phys. Rev. A, 44, 5178–5193. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Zhao, Z. T. et al. (2012). Nat. Photon. 6, 360–363. Web of Science 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.