pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18447 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ⚛️ physics.acc-ph

Recognition: unknown

High-power attosecond X-ray free-electron lasers: physics and design strategy

Bingyang Yan, Chenzhi Xu, Haixiao Deng, Jiawei Yan, Marc Guetg, Tianyun Long, Winfried Decking, Ye Chen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.acc-ph
keywords attosecond XFELpost-saturation superradianceeffective lasing lengthhigh-power X-ray pulseselectron beam phase spaceundulator taperingsingle-spike operation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The effective lasing length of the electron beam determines both the peak power and pulse duration of attosecond X-ray pulses in free-electron lasers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that in high-power attosecond XFELs generated from short current spikes, the effective lasing length within the electron beam controls the achievable peak power and the shortness of the pulse. This unified view applies across different methods of creating those spikes, such as laser modulation or beam manipulation. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers general design rules for reaching terawatt-level attosecond pulses without depending on specific schemes, revealing trade-offs in beam properties like energy spread and emittance.

Core claim

From the perspective of post-saturation superradiant evolution, the effective lasing length of the electron beam governs both the attainable peak power and the pulse duration. The work examines how slice energy spread, slice emittance, energy chirp, undulator tapering, and transverse beam tilt affect this, revealing trade-offs between peak power, pulse shortening, and single-spike probability, and providing guidelines for terawatt-class operation.

What carries the argument

The effective lasing length of the electron beam, which confines XFEL amplification to a short window in the current spike and through post-saturation superradiant evolution sets the output power and duration.

If this is right

  • The effective lasing length directly limits the maximum peak power attainable.
  • Shorter effective lasing lengths enable shorter pulse durations but may reduce single-spike probability.
  • Parameters such as slice energy spread and emittance must be optimized to balance power and pulse quality.
  • Undulator tapering and energy chirp play distinct roles in controlling the superradiant evolution.
  • These relations hold independently of the specific spike-generation scheme.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the scaling holds, facilities could use it to set beam quality targets without scheme-specific simulations.
  • The approach implies that efforts to reduce slice energy spread would directly improve attosecond performance across methods.
  • Testable by comparing post-saturation behavior in different spike generation techniques.
  • This framework might extend to predicting performance in other ultrafast X-ray sources beyond XFELs.

Load-bearing premise

XFEL amplification in short current spikes is always limited to a short effective lasing window, and post-saturation superradiant evolution quantitatively describes the output for any spike generation method.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of peak power and pulse duration as a function of the effective lasing length in an XFEL experiment, checking if they follow the predicted scaling independent of how the current spike was created.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18447 by Bingyang Yan, Chenzhi Xu, Haixiao Deng, Jiawei Yan, Marc Guetg, Tianyun Long, Winfried Decking, Ye Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Two-dimensional evolution of the radiation power along the undulator. At each undulator position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Temporal profiles of the FEL radiation power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Representative shots for an electron-bunch length of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Statistical analysis for the 650 as bunch-length case. (a) Mean pulse energy and relative pulse-energy jitter as functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Spectral bandwidth and single-spike ratio as func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dependence of the FEL pulse properties on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dependence of the mean peak power and pulse dura [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Normalized temporal power profiles of 50 shots for slice energy spreads of 8, 10, 12, and 14 MeV for the 650 as electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Mean peak power and pulse duration as functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Mean peak power and pulse duration as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Temporal and spectral properties of the attosec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Schematic layout of a dedicated attosecond XFEL facility. The injector, linearizer, linac sections (L1–L4), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Conceptual design of the arc section. The section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Attosecond pulses from X-ray free-electron laser (XFEL) have opened new opportunities for probing ultrafast electronic dynamics on the Angstrom--attosecond spatiotemporal scale. Most attosecond XFEL concepts rely on generating an ultrashort high-current spike through either external laser modulation or accelerator-based beam manipulation. Despite their different implementations, these approaches share the same essential physics, namely that the XFEL amplification is confined to a short effective lasing window within the electron beam. However, existing studies are often scheme-specific and do not yet provide a unified quantitative picture of how fundamental electron-beam properties constrain high-power attosecond performance. In this work, we investigate the general physics and scheme-independent requirements for generating high-power attosecond X-ray pulses from a short current spike. From the perspective of post-saturation superradiant evolution, we show that the effective lasing length of the electron beam governs both the attainable peak power and the pulse duration. We further examine the distinct roles of slice energy spread, slice emittance, energy chirp, undulator tapering, and transverse beam tilt. Our results reveal the trade-off between peak power, pulse shortening, and single-spike probability, and provide facility-independent guidelines for optimizing electron-beam phase-space manipulation toward terawatt-class attosecond XFEL operation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a unified, scheme-independent framework for high-power attosecond XFELs generated from short current spikes in the electron beam. It argues that the effective lasing length within the spike governs both attainable peak power and pulse duration via post-saturation superradiant evolution, examines the distinct roles of slice energy spread, emittance, energy chirp, undulator tapering, and transverse tilt, and identifies trade-offs between peak power, pulse shortening, and single-spike probability to guide optimization toward terawatt-class operation.

Significance. If the central relations hold with quantitative support, the work provides a valuable general perspective that could streamline design strategies across laser-modulation and accelerator-based spike-generation approaches. The focus on effective lasing length as the dominant parameter and the explicit treatment of higher-order phase-space effects represent a strength for the field, particularly if accompanied by reproducible derivations or simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and central physics section] The central claim that post-saturation superradiant evolution provides a general quantitative description applicable across generation schemes requires explicit demonstration that the effective lasing length is uniquely defined and independent of the spike-generation method (e.g., external laser modulation versus accelerator-based manipulation). Without this, the scheme-independent trade-offs between power, duration, and single-spike probability do not necessarily follow.
  2. [Sections discussing beam properties and trade-offs] The assertion that higher-order effects (slice energy spread, emittance, chirp, tapering, tilt) enter only as corrections rather than altering the superradiant scaling itself needs concrete validation, such as through parameter scans or comparisons showing that fixing the effective length yields equivalent performance metrics regardless of the underlying phase-space manipulation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the key relations but supplies no equations, derivations, or validation data; including at least the defining relation for effective lasing length and the resulting scaling for power/duration would improve clarity and allow immediate assessment of the claims.
  2. [Introduction and methods] Notation for 'effective lasing length' and related quantities should be defined consistently and early, with explicit reference to how it is extracted from the current spike profile.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review, which highlights key areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We agree that explicit demonstrations of the scheme-independence of the effective lasing length and concrete validation of higher-order effects as corrections will improve the clarity and impact of the work. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and central physics section] The central claim that post-saturation superradiant evolution provides a general quantitative description applicable across generation schemes requires explicit demonstration that the effective lasing length is uniquely defined and independent of the spike-generation method (e.g., external laser modulation versus accelerator-based manipulation). Without this, the scheme-independent trade-offs between power, duration, and single-spike probability do not necessarily follow.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The effective lasing length is defined in the manuscript as the longitudinal region of the current spike where the local current density exceeds the FEL threshold, determined solely from the spike's current profile and independent of its generation mechanism. The post-saturation superradiant dynamics then follow from 1D FEL theory applied to this length. To address the request for explicit demonstration, we will add a dedicated subsection (with supporting analytical derivations) that compares the resulting power and duration scalings for equivalent effective lengths produced by laser modulation versus accelerator-based methods (e.g., emittance spoiler or dogleg compression). This will include references to existing literature simulations confirming equivalence and will explicitly link the definition to the observed trade-offs in single-spike probability. We believe this addition will make the scheme-independent framework fully rigorous. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sections discussing beam properties and trade-offs] The assertion that higher-order effects (slice energy spread, emittance, chirp, tapering, tilt) enter only as corrections rather than altering the superradiant scaling itself needs concrete validation, such as through parameter scans or comparisons showing that fixing the effective length yields equivalent performance metrics regardless of the underlying phase-space manipulation.

    Authors: We agree that additional concrete validation is warranted. The manuscript derives that these effects primarily reduce the effective lasing length (via dephasing or gain suppression) or introduce secondary corrections to the superradiant pulse shortening, without modifying the core scaling relations derived from the 1D superradiant equations. To provide the requested evidence, we will incorporate parameter scans (via both analytical estimates and 1D FEL simulations) in a new figure and appendix. These scans will hold the effective lasing length fixed while varying slice energy spread, emittance, chirp, tapering, and tilt, demonstrating that peak power and duration remain consistent with the predicted scalings. The revised text will clarify the separation between fundamental scaling and these corrections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the effective lasing length governs peak power and pulse duration via post-saturation superradiant evolution—is framed as a general physics perspective applicable across schemes, without any quoted equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations that reduce the result to its own inputs by construction. The abstract and description examine distinct roles of slice energy spread, emittance, chirp, tapering, and tilt as separate factors rather than re-deriving them from the main result. No evidence of self-definitional loops, predictions forced by fits, or ansatzes smuggled via prior self-work appears in the provided material, so the chain is independent and externally grounded in standard XFEL physics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Assessment limited to abstract; full paper may identify additional free parameters such as specific tapering profiles or beam-tilt tolerances.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption XFEL amplification is confined to a short effective lasing window within the electron beam
    Described in abstract as the essential shared physics of all attosecond XFEL approaches.
  • domain assumption Post-saturation superradiant evolution governs the relationship between lasing length, power, and duration
    Invoked explicitly as the analytical perspective for deriving the governing relations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5553 in / 1311 out tokens · 67916 ms · 2026-05-10T03:08:34.389231+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Driver, M

    T. Driver, M. Mountney, J. Wang, L. Ortmann, A. Al- Haddad, N. Berrah, C. Bostedt, E. G. Champenois, L. F. DiMauro, J. Duris,et al., Nature632, 762 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Goulielmakis, Z.-H

    E. Goulielmakis, Z.-H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V. S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling,et al., Nature466, 739 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    P. M. Kraus, B. Mignolet, D. Baykusheva, A. Ru- penyan, L. Horn` y, E. F. Penka, G. Grassi, O. I. Tol- stikhin, J. Schneider, F. Jensen,et al., Science350, 790 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Pertot, C

    Y. Pertot, C. Schmidt, M. Matthews, A. Chauvet, M. Huppert, V. Svoboda, A. Von Conta, A. Tehlar, D. Baykusheva, J.-P. Wolf,et al., Science355, 264 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Aug´ e, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, and P. Agostini, Science292, 1689 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, C. Spielmann,et al., Na- ture414, 509 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Mashiko, S

    H. Mashiko, S. Gilbertson, C. Li, S. D. Khan, M. M. Shakya, E. Moon, and Z. Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 103906 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  9. [9]

    Vincenti and F

    H. Vincenti and F. Qu´ er´ e, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 113904 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    J. Yan, W. Qin, Y. Chen, W. Decking, P. Dijk- stal, M. Guetg, I. Inoue, N. Kujala, S. Liu, T. Long, N. Mirian, and G. Geloni, Nature Photonics18, 1293 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    E. Prat, A. Malyzhenkov, G. L. Orlandi, T. Weilbach, and S. Reiche, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L042060 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Franz, S

    P. Franz, S. Li, T. Driver, R. R. Robles, D. Cesar, E. Isele, Z. Guo, J. Wang, J. P. Duris, K. Larsen,et al., Nature Photonics18, 698 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Short pulses and 2-color capabilities at the sase3 fel line of the european xfel,

    S. Serkez, “Short pulses and 2-color capabilities at the sase3 fel line of the european xfel,” Oral presentation slides at the 40th International Free Electron Laser Con- ference (FEL2022)

  14. [14]

    Huang, H

    N. Huang, H. Deng, B. Liu, D. Wang, and Z. Zhao, The Innovation2, 100097 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Berrah, J

    N. Berrah, J. Cryan, R. Robles, T. Driver, A. Marinelli, and P. Bucksbaum, Adv. Opt. Photon.17, 623 (2025)

    2025

  16. [17]

    Inoue, R

    I. Inoue, R. Robles, A. Halavanau, V. Guo, T. M. Linker, A. Benediktovitch, S. Chuchurka, M. H. Seaberg, Y. Sun, D. Zhu, D. Cesar, Y. Ding, V. Es- posito, P. Franz, N. S. Sudar, Z. Zhang, T. Osaka, G. Yamaguchi, Y. Sano, K. Yamauchi, J. Yamada, U. Bergmann, M. F. Kling, C. Pellegrini, M. Yabashi, N. Rohringer, T. Sato, and A. Marinelli, “Experimental demo...

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [18]

    Zhu and D

    D. Zhu and D. A. Reis, Nature Photonics18, 1232 (2024)

    2024

  18. [19]

    Pellegrini, A

    C. Pellegrini, A. Marinelli, and S. Reiche, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015006 (2016)

    2016

  19. [20]

    L. H. Yu, Phys. Rev. A44, 5178 (1991)

    1991

  20. [21]

    A. A. Zholents, Physical Review Special Topics – Accel- erators and Beams8, 040701 (2005)

    2005

  21. [22]

    Duris, S

    J. Duris, S. Li, T. Driver, and et al., Nature Photonics 14, 30 (2020)

    2020

  22. [23]

    A. A. Zholents and G. Penn, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams8, 050704 (2005)

    2005

  23. [24]

    Y. Ding, Z. Huang, D. Ratner, P. Bucksbaum, and H. Merdji, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams12, 060703 (2009)

    2009

  24. [25]

    Y. Xiao, T. Chen, B. Liu, Z. Huang, M. Pang, Y. Leng, and C. Feng, Ultrafast Science5, 0099 (2025)

    2025

  25. [26]

    J. B. Rosenzweig, D. Alesini, G. Andonian,et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A593, 39 (2008)

    2008

  26. [27]

    Reiche, P

    S. Reiche, P. Musumeci, C. Pellegrini, and J. B. Rosen- zweig, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A593, 45 (2008)

    2008

  27. [28]

    Malyzhenkov, Y

    A. Malyzhenkov, Y. P. Arbelo, P. Craievich, P. Dijkstal, E. Ferrari, S. Reiche, T. Schietinger, P. Jurani´ c, and E. Prat, Physical Review Research2, 042018 (2020)

    2020

  28. [29]

    E. Prat, A. Malyzhenkov, C. Arrell,et al., APL Pho- tonics8, 111302 (2023)

    2023

  29. [30]

    B. Yan, C. Xu, S. Chen, D. Gu, Y. Chen, J. Yan, and H. Deng, Ultrafast Science6, 0143 (2026)

    2026

  30. [31]

    Soutome, T

    K. Soutome, T. Hara, E. Iwai, K. Yasutome, H. Mae- saka, and H. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams29, 020701 (2026)

    2026

  31. [32]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Duris, J. P. MacArthur, A. Zholents, Z. Huang, and A. Marinelli, New Journal of Physics 22, 083030 (2020)

    2020

  32. [33]

    S. Li, Z. Zhang, S. Alverson,et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 191101 (2024)

    2024

  33. [34]

    C. Emma, X. Xu, A. Fisher, R. Robles, J. P. MacArthur, J. Cryan, M. J. Hogan, P. Musumeci, G. White, and A. Marinelli, APL Photonics6, 076107 (2021)

    2021

  34. [35]

    C. H. Shim, Y. W. Parc, S. Kumar, I. S. Ko, and D. E. Kim, Scientific Reports8, 7463 (2018)

    2018

  35. [36]

    C. H. Shim, Y. W. Parc, and D. E. Kim, Scientific Reports10, 1312 (2020)

    2020

  36. [37]

    Baxevanis, J

    P. Baxevanis, J. Duris, Z. Huang, and A. Marinelli, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams21, 110702 (2018)

    2018

  37. [38]

    Bonifacio, L

    R. Bonifacio, L. De Salvo Souza, P. Pierini, and N. Pi- ovella, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- 14 search Section A296, 358 (1990)

    1990

  38. [39]

    Bonifacio, L

    R. Bonifacio, L. De Salvo, P. Pierini, N. Piovella, and C. Pellegrini, Physical Review Letters73, 70 (1994)

    1994

  39. [40]

    Bonifacio, C

    R. Bonifacio, C. Pellegrini, and L. Narducci, Optics Communications50, 373 (1984)

    1984

  40. [41]

    Huang and K.-J

    Z. Huang and K.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 034801 (2007)

    2007

  41. [42]

    Hemsing, Phys

    E. Hemsing, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams23, 120703 (2020)

    2020

  42. [43]

    Curcio, G

    A. Curcio, G. Dattoli, E. Di Palma, and S. Pagnutti, Journal of Applied Physics134, 133103 (2023)

    2023

  43. [44]

    Watanabe, X

    T. Watanabe, X. J. Wang, J. B. Murphy, J. Rose, Y. Shen, T. Tsang, L. Giannessi, P. Musumeci, and S. Reiche, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 034802 (2007)

    2007

  44. [45]

    X. Yang, N. Mirian, and L. Giannessi, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams23, 010703 (2020)

    2020

  45. [46]

    N. S. Mirian, M. Di Fraia, S. Spampinati, F. Sot- tocorona, E. Allaria, L. Badano, M. B. Danailov, A. Demidovich, G. De Ninno, S. Di Mitri, G. Penco, P. Rebernik Ribiˇ c, C. Spezzani, G. Gaio, M. Trov´ o, N. Mahne, M. Manfredda, L. Raimondi, M. Zangrando, O. Plekan, K. C. Prince, T. Mazza, R. J. Squibb, C. Cal- legari, X. Yang, and L. Giannessi, Nature Ph...

    2021

  46. [47]

    Pongchalee and B

    P. Pongchalee and B. W. McNeil, Results in Physics60, 107673 (2024)

    2024

  47. [48]

    R. R. Robles, L. Giannessi, and A. Marinelli, Physical Review Research6, 033158 (2024)

    2024

  48. [49]

    Reiche, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, De- tectors and Associated Equipment429, 243 (1999)

    S. Reiche, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, De- tectors and Associated Equipment429, 243 (1999)

    1999

  49. [50]

    Genesis 1.3 version 4,

    S. Reiche, “Genesis 1.3 version 4,”https://github. com/svenreiche/Genesis-1.3-Version4(2022), ac- cessed: 2025-08-07

    2022

  50. [51]

    Reiche and C

    S. Reiche and C. Lechner, inProc. 15th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC’24)(JACoW,

  51. [52]

    Xie, inProceedings of the Particle Accelerator Con- ference (PAC), Vol

    M. Xie, inProceedings of the Particle Accelerator Con- ference (PAC), Vol. 1 (IEEE, Dallas, TX, USA, 1995) pp. 183–185

    1995

  52. [53]

    Bonifacio, N

    R. Bonifacio, N. Piovella, and G. Robb, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment543, 645 (2005)

    2005

  53. [54]

    An ultra- stable hard x-ray attosecond split-delay line,

    Y. Sun, H. Li, Y. Ichii, and D. Zhu, “An ultra- stable hard x-ray attosecond split-delay line,” (2025), arXiv:2505.06865 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [55]

    Huang, M

    Z. Huang, M. Borland, P. Emma, J. Wu, C. Limborg, G. Stupakov, and J. Welch, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams7, 074401 (2004)

    2004

  55. [56]

    Ferrario, M

    M. Ferrario, M. Migliorati, and L. Palumbo, inProceed- ings of the CAS–CERN Accelerator School: Advanced Accelerator Physics, Vol. 331, edited by W. Herr (Trond- heim, Norway, 2014) cERN-2014-009

    2014

  56. [57]

    Saldin, E

    E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller, and M. Yurkov, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment398, 373 (1997)

    1997

  57. [58]

    E. L. Saldin, E. A. Schneidmiller, and M. V. Yurkov, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams9, 050702 (2006)

    2006

  58. [59]

    Huang, Y

    S. Huang, Y. Ding, Y. Feng, E. Hemsing, Z. Huang, J. Krzywinski, A. A. Lutman, A. Marinelli, T. J. Maxwell, and D. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 154801 (2017)

    2017

  59. [60]

    Emma and Z

    P. Emma and Z. Huang, inFree Electron Lasers 2003, edited by E. J. Minehara, R. Hajima, and M. Sawamura (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004) pp. 458–462

    2003

  60. [61]

    E. Prat, F. L¨ ohl, and S. Reiche, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams18, 100701 (2015)

    2015

  61. [62]

    Lutman, T

    A. Lutman, T. Maxwell, J. MacArthur,et al., Nat. Pho- ton.10, 745 (2016)

    2016

  62. [63]

    M. W. Guetg, A. A. Lutman, Y. Ding, T. J. Maxwell, and Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 264802 (2018)

    2018

  63. [64]

    Dijkstal, A

    P. Dijkstal, A. Malyzhenkov, S. Reiche, and E. Prat, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams23, 030703 (2020)

    2020

  64. [65]

    Di Mitri, M

    S. Di Mitri, M. Cornacchia, and S. Spampinati, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 014801 (2013)

    2013

  65. [66]

    Y. Jiao, X. Cui, X. Huang, and G. Xu, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams17, 060701 (2014)

    2014

  66. [67]

    T. L. et al., inProc. FEL2022, International Free Electron Laser Conference No. 40 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2022) pp. 246–250

    2022

  67. [68]

    Tanaka, Y

    T. Tanaka, Y. W. Parc, Y. Kida, R. Kinjo, C. H. Shim, I. S. Ko, B. Kim, D. E. Kim, and E. Prat, J. Syn- chrotron Radiat.23, 1273 (2016)

    2016

  68. [69]

    E. Prat, Z. Geng, C. Kittel, A. Malyzhenkov, F. Mar- cellini, S. Reiche, T. Schietinger, and P. Craievich, Ad- vanced Photonics7, 026002 (2025)

    2025

  69. [70]

    Pile, Nature Photonics5, 456 (2011)

    D. Pile, Nature Photonics5, 456 (2011)

    2011

  70. [71]

    E. Prat, R. Abela, M. Aiba, A. Alarcon, J. Alex, Y. Ar- belo, C. Arrell, V. Arsov, C. Bacellar, C. Beard,et al., Nature Photonics14, 748 (2020)

    2020

  71. [72]

    J. F. Schmerge, A. Brachmann, D. H. Dowell, A. R. Fry, R. Li, Z. Li, T. O. Raubenheimer, T. Vecchione, F. Zhou, A. Bartnik, I. Bazarov, B. M. Dunham, C. Gul- liford, C. Mayes, U. Cornell, A.Lunin, N. A. Solyak, A. Vivoli, D. Filippetto, R. Huang, C. F. Papadopou- los, G. J. Portmann, and B. Lbnl (2015)

    2015

  72. [73]

    F. Zhou, C. Adolphsen, A. Benwell, G. Brown, D. H. Dowell, M. Dunning, S. Gilevich, K. Grouev, G. Huang, B. Jacobson,et al., Physical Review Accelerators and Beams24, 073401 (2021)

    2021

  73. [74]

    Zhao and H

    Z. Zhao and H. Ding, inProceedings of the 15th In- ternational Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC’24), Nashville, TN(2024) pp. 967–972

    2024

  74. [75]

    Zheng, H

    L. Zheng, H. Chen, B. Gao, Z. Dong, Z. Li, Y. Jia, Q. Tian, Q. Xia, Y. Zhu, J. You,et al., Physical Review Accelerators and Beams26, 103402 (2023)

    2023

  75. [76]

    X. Wang, L. Zeng, J. Shao, Y. Liang, H. Yi, Y. Yu, J. Sun, X. Li, C. Feng, Z. Wang,et al., inProceedings of the 14th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC’23), Venice, Italy(2023) pp. 1852–1855

    2023

  76. [77]

    Z. Zhu, D. Gu, J. Yan, Z. Wang, H. Yang, M. Zhang, H. Deng, and Q. Gu, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1026, 166172 (2022)

    2022

  77. [78]

    Yamada, S

    J. Yamada, S. Matsuyama, I. Inoue,et al., Nat. Photon. 18, 685 (2024)

    2024

  78. [79]

    Inoue, T

    I. Inoue, T. Sato, R. Robles,et al., Optica12, 309 (2025)

    2025

  79. [80]

    Duris, Z

    J. Duris, Z. Zhang, J. MacArthur, Z. Huang, and A. Marinelli, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams23, 020702 (2020)

    2020

  80. [81]

    Yan and H

    J. Yan and H. Deng, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 090701 (2019)

    2019

Showing first 80 references.