We show the laser-driven acceleration of unprecedented, collimated (2 mrad divergence), and quasi-monoenergetic (25% energy spread) electron beams with energy up to 50 MeV at 1 kHz repetition rate. The laser driver is a multi-cycle ( 15 fs) 1 kHz optical parametric chirped pulse amplification system, operating at 26 mJ ( 1.7 TW). The scalability of the driver laser technology and the electron beams reported in this work pave the way toward developing high-brilliance x-ray sources for medical imaging and innovative devices for brain cancer treatment and represent a step toward the realization of a kHz GeV electron beamline.

Electron accelerators are a cornerstone technology of modern society. In their variations, they are daily used as strategic tools at the disposal of the healthcare system for medical imaging and cancer treatment. As an example, medical linear accelerators already use electron beams with energies up to 20 MeV for cancer radiotherapy.1 Radio-frequency acceleration is the backbone of the technology driving these machines; after its first demonstration in 1928,2 it is now generally acknowledged as an extremely reliable technology. Nevertheless, the fundamental limitation of radio-frequency acceleration technology is its maximum achievable accelerating gradient ( 100 MV / m).

As of today, various proven technologies with the potential to overcome these limitations (by withstanding accelerating gradients exceeding 100 MV / mm and drastically reducing the accelerator footprint) exist, such as laser-driven wakefield acceleration (LWFA),3,4 particle-driven (or plasma) wakefield acceleration (PWFA),5,6 structure-based wakefield acceleration,7,8 or a combination of these.9,10 In recent years, the huge wakefield acceleration potential motivated an extensive effort by numerous groups worldwide, leading to remarkable achievements, ranging from the demonstration of the first GeV laser-driven electron beams11–13 to the acceleration of multi-GeV electrons via plasma guiding14,15 and the demonstration of free electron lasing.16 

The desire to translate these exceptional results into working machines resulted in the demonstration of stable electron beam operation over more than 24 h17 and the acceleration of quasi-monoenergetic electron beams at 1 kHz repetition rate.18,19 With the typical charge per pulse of the order of pC,20–23 the resulting average current of a kHz LWFA is of the order of nA, which (provided the electron beam energy is > 40 MeV) would be enough to enable several medical applications.24,25 These groundbreaking achievements were obtained by exploiting nonlinearities through gas-filled hollow core fiber compression down to single-cycle laser pulses in order to reach the relativistic intensity on the target required to drive the wake wave in the plasma, where the injected electrons can be accelerated up to 15 MeV.19 Despite producing very stable electron beams, this technique is limited both by the maximum laser power available and by the maximum coupling efficiency into the hollow core fiber, setting a limit to the maximum electron energy attainable. Moreover, LWFA driven by single-cycle lasers is also sensitive to carrier-envelope phase effects,26,27 posing an additional limit on the achievable electron beam energy and quality.

In this Letter, we show, for the first time, the production of quasi-monoenergetic (25% energy spread), collimated (2 mrad divergence) electron beams with energy up to E 50 MeV with multi-cycle ( 15 fs) laser pulses at 1 kHz repetition rate, overcoming the requirement of single-cycle compression and proving the energy scalability of the technology. This breakthrough was achieved by ELI Beamlines' in-house development of the L1-Allegra multi-TW 1 kHz laser,28 based on the optical parametric chirped pulse amplification (OPCPA) technology.

Some first demonstrations of relativistic electrons accelerated with short-pulsed OPCPA systems29,30 showed the potential of this laser technology, even if at a much lower repetition rate of 10 Hz. The L1-Allegra laser's key features for LWFA are its multi-stage power scalable design (final output expected > 100 mJ), the inherently excellent nanosecond contrast being pumped by 3 ps Yb:YAG thin-disk lasers, and its power and pointing stability (few % level) over many hours of continuous operation. Having a high contrast prevents unwanted detrimental effects due to pre-pulse-induced plasma profile modifications.

The L1-Allegra laser has six amplification stages [as shown in Fig. 1(a)], achieving a pulse energy of 26 mJ, measured inside the interaction chamber. Optimal compression of the output pulses was achieved through a combination of chirped mirrors and initial stretching by a programmable acousto-optic modulator (Dazzler). Ahead of the interaction chamber, the laser pulses were characterized by measuring the near-field profile [Fig. 1(b)] (where the elliptical profile is mainly due to the use of spherical mirrors in the laser telescopes and the little amount of residual spatial chirp from the amplifiers), the time duration [Fig. 1(c)], and the spectrum [Fig. 1(d)]. These were performed by a second harmonic generation frequency-resolved optical gating (SHG FROG) device, resulting in a pulse duration of 15 fs FWHM (with the transform-limited duration being 14.7 fs) and a central wavelength of λ 0 = 820 nm.

FIG. 1.

Simplified scheme of the experimental setup. (a) L1-Allegra laser system as used in this work, based on OPCPA stages and chirped mirror compressor. The pump sources (in green) are Yb:YAG thin-disk lasers. (b) The laser pulse near-field profile measured after the injector with Gaussian-fit diameters, giving an eccentricity 0.8. (c) The pulse time duration measured by SHG FROG device compared to the transform-limited value (in red). (d) Measured spectrum. (e) Focal spot measured with a 20 × apochromatic microscope objective. (f) High-magnification achromatic Thomson scattering spectrally filtered (550-nm longpass) diagnostic. (g) Supersonic gas jet target. (h) Electron spectrometer. (i) Electron beam trace on the Lanex. (j) Simulated target density profiles.

FIG. 1.

Simplified scheme of the experimental setup. (a) L1-Allegra laser system as used in this work, based on OPCPA stages and chirped mirror compressor. The pump sources (in green) are Yb:YAG thin-disk lasers. (b) The laser pulse near-field profile measured after the injector with Gaussian-fit diameters, giving an eccentricity 0.8. (c) The pulse time duration measured by SHG FROG device compared to the transform-limited value (in red). (d) Measured spectrum. (e) Focal spot measured with a 20 × apochromatic microscope objective. (f) High-magnification achromatic Thomson scattering spectrally filtered (550-nm longpass) diagnostic. (g) Supersonic gas jet target. (h) Electron spectrometer. (i) Electron beam trace on the Lanex. (j) Simulated target density profiles.

Close modal

The laser pulses were focused by a 76.2 mm focal length off-axis parabola (nominal f / 1) down to a measured focal spot [Fig. 1(e)] with FHWM of 4.2 and 3.1 μm along the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively. This corresponds to an effective beam waist of 3.1 ± 0.3 μm and to a Rayleigh range of  37 μm. The resulting peak intensity in the focus was I 0 4.8 × 10 18 W / cm 2 (corresponding to a normalized vector potential a 0 1.5). Considering the optimal electron density for this work of n e 5.7 × 10 19 cm 3 (which corresponds to a fraction of the critical plasma density n e / n c 0.034), the available laser power was well above the self-focusing threshold 0.52 TW. This allows for self-guiding4 inside the plasma, as is visible in the Thomson scattering diagnostic [Fig. 1(f)].

The pulses were focused in the first half of the in-house designed and characterized31,32 300 μm diameter flat-top gas jet, 150 μm above the nozzle exhaust [Figs. 1(g) and 1(f)]. The gas target position was optimized in three dimensions with accuracy at the level of the plasma wavelength λp 4.5μm, leading to an optimal focusing position inside the plasma profile. The repeatability and stability of the acceleration process was assured by the laser contrast higher than 1010 at the ps-level (measured by the Sequoia cross-correlator), below detection limit beyond several picoseconds from the main pulse, as well as by the laser pointing stability on the target of 3.6 ± 0.3 μrad (averaged root mean square).

The accelerated electron beams were characterized by a calibrated electron spectrometer [Fig. 1(h)] consisting of a motorized 5-mm collimator aluminum slit, a motorized 39 - mm long 0.1 - T permanent magnetic dipole, and a LANEX Fast Back scintillator screen captured by using a 12-bit CMOS global shutter camera [Fig. 1(i)]. The electron beam spectra were retrieved by simulating the particle tracking in the measured three-dimensional (3D) field. The measured beam energy is conservative, as it is measured by the deflection from the furthermost slit edge.

Due to the limited energy output available from kHz laser systems, it is usually necessary to operate targets at relatively high plasma densities in order to enable relativistic self-focusing.19 This in turn shortens λp to a few micrometers and ultimately results in the need of a comparable resolution in the laser–plasma interaction diagnostics.33 The laser–plasma interaction was first optimized at a reduced laser power of 0.8 TW, by carefully tuning the focus position inside the gas target profile monitored with a 5 × magnification optical side-view and a 2 × achromatic Thomson scattering spectrally filtered (550-nm longpass) top-view diagnostics, both with a resolution smaller than λp. The gas pressure was then tuned by an electronic valve in order to achieve simultaneously relativistic self-focusing and electron injection in the plasma wave.

The laser pulses were delivered on target at 1 kHz repetition rate for the whole duration of the experiment, in order to reach thermal equilibrium in all the components of the system. The gas jet opening time (synchronized with the arrival of the driving pulse by a trigger) was set, depending on the regime of operation, as either pulsed or continuous. In fact, it must be noted that the radiation level achieved by a kHz LWFA machine is well above the typical values for laser facilities. The possibility of running continuous gas flow was enabled by a double differential pumping system, on target and before the compressor, which kept the laser-driven acceleration process unaffected throughout several hours of continuous operation. Typical density profiles for the specific gas jet, along with the relevant gas types and backing pressures used, were computed using the ANSYS Fluent software and are depicted in Fig. 1(j).

After obtaining quasi-monoenergetic beams with 0.8 TW, we gradually ramped the laser energy up to 26 mJ ( 1.7 TW), iteratively optimizing the gas density and the focusing position inside the target density profile. In addition, the second order spectral phase was optimized using an acousto-optic programmable dispersive filter [Dazzler in Fig. 1(a)] to compensate for the plasma medium dispersion and to extend the acceleration.

The most energetic and collimated electron beams were obtained by firing the laser on a gas mixture of helium (98%) and nitrogen (2%), which allowed acceleration at an electron density at the target profile plateau as low as n e / n c 0.034. In this configuration, record-high energy (up to 50 MeV) electron beams were obtained [Fig. 2(a)]. By averaging over thousands of laser shots, we observed the high-energy quasi-monoenergetic distribution to have an average peak of 32 ± 5 MeV, with an average energy spread of 8 MeV (25%) FWHM and a beam divergence of 2.1 ± 0.8 mrad FWHM.

FIG. 2.

Transition to high-energy quasi-monoenergetic beams. (a) Selected “high-energy” spectrum, showing quasi-monoenergetic characteristics, for the nitrogen–helium mixture target operating at a plasma density n e / n c 0.034. (b) Selected spectrum for the higher density case of n e / n c 0.038. Each trace on the spectrometer is integrated over ten consecutive laser shots and has the background noise filtered out, i.e., it represents the electron current, I, per unit of energy, E, and solid angle, θ. (c) 1D normalized averaged spectra for the above-mentioned two cases, where the shaded area represents one standard deviation.

FIG. 2.

Transition to high-energy quasi-monoenergetic beams. (a) Selected “high-energy” spectrum, showing quasi-monoenergetic characteristics, for the nitrogen–helium mixture target operating at a plasma density n e / n c 0.034. (b) Selected spectrum for the higher density case of n e / n c 0.038. Each trace on the spectrometer is integrated over ten consecutive laser shots and has the background noise filtered out, i.e., it represents the electron current, I, per unit of energy, E, and solid angle, θ. (c) 1D normalized averaged spectra for the above-mentioned two cases, where the shaded area represents one standard deviation.

Close modal

The experimental measurements are in agreement with theoretically estimated values (supplementary material). Considering the “best” focusing scenario, where all the available laser energy is concentrated within the focal spot, the anticipated maximum electron energy is 55 MeV. However, taking into account the “average” experimental focusing performance [Fig. 1(e)], the maximum energy drops to 33 MeV.

We observed that small changes in certain laser and plasma parameters can significantly alter the LWFA process away from its optimal configuration. For example, a change in the plasma density from n e / n c 0.034 to 0.038 (13%) results in a significant reduction of the beam energy and in the loss of the quasi-monoenergetic feature [shown as example in Fig. 2(b)]. This transition is readily discernible from the average one-dimensional (1D) electron spectra depicted in Fig. 2(c) for both density profiles.

We investigated the electron acceleration for the “average” experimental laser and plasma parameters also with 3D particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations using the EPOCH34 code. The simulations, which used the mixture of a neutral gas obtained from a hydrodynamic simulation of the gas jet and incorporated the effect of field ionization, showed a negligible contribution from the electrons injected via the ionization mechanism. Therefore, the laser pulse was set to propagate in a cold and collisionless plasma consisting of 5 × ionized nitrogen and fully ionized helium [Fig. 1(j)]. The simulations were evolved over the time interval of 2.2 ps and utilized the technique of moving window with dimensions of 70 λ 0 × 80 λ 0 × 100 λ 0. The underlying Cartesian grid was uniform with the resolution of 30 and 15 cells per λ 0 along the laser propagation direction and the transverse directions, respectively. Closer details regarding the setup of simulations can be found in supplementary material.

In the n e / n c = 0.034 case, the laser pulse self-focuses within the plasma and its peak amplitude attains a value 1.7 × higher than a0. The electron self-injection occurs within the focus at several periods of the wake wave except the first one [Fig. 3(a)]. A second self-injection occurs when the laser enters the region of the electron density down-ramp, corresponding to the mechanism described in Ref. 35. Consequently, two distinct electron populations can be observed in the energy spectrum [Fig. 3(b)]. The electrons with energies in the ranges 5 15 and 20 30 MeV originate from the second and first injection processes, respectively. The electrons originating from the first injection process begin to dephase after  48 μm of propagation within the accelerating phase of the wakefield. The wakefield structure, however, starts to slip back (with respect to the electron beam motion) due to the nonlinear evolution of the driving laser pulse such that the electrons can traverse into the accelerating phase of the preceding wakefield period. Herein, they undergo an additional energy boost, resulting in an increase of 5 MeV compared to their energy after the initial acceleration phase (supplementary material). At the end of the simulation, the energy spectra of both electron beams are quasi-monoenergetic. The cutoff energies of the beams are 16.4 and 31.2 MeV, whereas the energy spread of the higher energy beam is 1.2 MeV (5%) in FWHM. The charge and the FWHM divergence of electrons with kinetic energy 20 MeV are 4 pC and 20 mrad, respectively.

FIG. 3.

Results of PIC simulations. Panel (a) shows the electron number density (black to white colormap), the injected electrons with E 5 MeV (dark to light blue colormap), and the laser pulse intensity (red to yellow colormap) for the n e / n c = 0.034 case at 1.2 ps. Panels (b) and (c) show the electron energy spectra d | Q | / d E (pink), charge density of electrons with respect to the kinetic energy and propagation angle d 2 | Q | / d E d θ (blue to red colormap), and integrated charge density of electrons with respect to the propagation angle d | Q | / d θ including electrons with E 1 MeV (light blue) and E 20 MeV (dark blue), for the n e / n c = 0.034 and 0.038 cases, respectively, at the end of the simulations.

FIG. 3.

Results of PIC simulations. Panel (a) shows the electron number density (black to white colormap), the injected electrons with E 5 MeV (dark to light blue colormap), and the laser pulse intensity (red to yellow colormap) for the n e / n c = 0.034 case at 1.2 ps. Panels (b) and (c) show the electron energy spectra d | Q | / d E (pink), charge density of electrons with respect to the kinetic energy and propagation angle d 2 | Q | / d E d θ (blue to red colormap), and integrated charge density of electrons with respect to the propagation angle d | Q | / d θ including electrons with E 1 MeV (light blue) and E 20 MeV (dark blue), for the n e / n c = 0.034 and 0.038 cases, respectively, at the end of the simulations.

Close modal

By slightly reducing the electron density ( n e / n c = 0.03), the self-injection is suppressed, resulting in a negligible number of electrons being accelerated, which is in agreement with the experimental measurements. In the opposite case, corresponding to a density increase to n e / n c = 0.038, the laser pulse peak amplitude in the focus is 1.8 × higher than a0. This case is characterized by fast laser energy depletion, which manifests itself in the carrier frequency downshift, and slowing down of the pulse front.36 After passing the focus, the laser splits longitudinally into two distinct pulses, each propagating at a different velocity and consisting of only a few cycles. Due to the short duration of both pulses and the relatively dense plasma, the rapid evolution of their carrier-envelope phases causes oscillations of the wake wave cavities in the laser polarization direction as well as their longitudinal modulations, strongly affecting the parameters of self-injected electrons.26 Furthermore, the electrons injected into the first period of the wake wave interact with the rear part of the laser pulse. The resulting electron energy spectrum has a thermal profile [Fig. 3(c)]. The cutoff energy is 39.2 MeV; the majority of electrons in the beam, however, have energy < 20 MeV. The charge of electrons with E 1 and 20 MeV, respectively, is 65 and 2 pC. The FWHM divergence of electrons with E 1 MeV is 100 mrad.

By further increasing the plasma density, i.e., operating at n e / n c = 0.042, the simulations indicate that the regime of laser–plasma interaction does not change substantially. Even though a larger fraction of electrons gets trapped, resulting in a higher beam charge, the pulse depletion is stronger, which reduces both the acceleration length and the maximum reachable electron energy. Overall, the PIC simulations clearly reproduce the transition from the quasi-monoenergetic to the broadband electron energy spectra with the increase in the plasma density over the same values observed experimentally (Fig. 2).

Since the medical applications mentioned above rely on high-current electron beams at relevant energies ( > 20 MeV), we optimize our LWFA source into two main modes of operation that are freely titled “high-energy mode” and “high-power mode.” The high-energy mode, described earlier and shown in Fig. 2(a), has the beam energy and collimation maximized by tweaking the laser–plasma interaction at the lowest possible plasma density (given the available laser power). In the high-power mode (supplementary material), the chosen approach is to optimize the electron beam power by working with pure nitrogen at a higher plasma density of n e 8.4 × 10 19 cm 3 (equivalent to n e / n c 0.05), partially sacrificing the average peak energy and collimation. The fact that higher beam charge can be obtained at lower electron beam energies is likewise observed in other experiments.14 The key parameters of the two modes of operation are summarized in Table I.

TABLE I.

Averaged electron beam parameters for the high-energy (corresponding to the left column of Fig. 2) and the high-power (for n e / n c 0.05) modes.

Feature High-energy mode High-power mode
Energy (MeV)  32 ± 5  22 ± 2 
Energy spread (MeV)  8 (25%)  15 (68%) 
Average current (pA)  12 ± 6  276 ± 28 
Divergence (mrad)  2.1 ± 0.8  7.8 ± 1.2 
Pointing (std) (mrad)  6.9  4.2 
Power (mW)  0.4 
Feature High-energy mode High-power mode
Energy (MeV)  32 ± 5  22 ± 2 
Energy spread (MeV)  8 (25%)  15 (68%) 
Average current (pA)  12 ± 6  276 ± 28 
Divergence (mrad)  2.1 ± 0.8  7.8 ± 1.2 
Pointing (std) (mrad)  6.9  4.2 
Power (mW)  0.4 

With our current setup in the high-power mode, we estimate a dose rate exceeding 1 Gy / s for beam sizes of few mm, which could lead to the first demonstration of laser-driven stereotactic radiosurgery in a similar setup to the one described in Ref. 25, showing that approximately 600 shots were necessary to deposit 1 Gy into 1 cm 3 target volume. While medical devices for clinical use have more stringent requirements on beam stability and variability, other applications relying solely on the dose rate and repetition rate, such as space radiation hardness testing37 and radiobiology,38,39 are already possible.

In conclusion, we demonstrate the generation of quasi-monoenergetic electron beams at 1 kHz repetition rate with an unprecedented energy of tens of MeV (up to 50 MeV), which paves the way toward establishing LWFA technology as an innovative tool for the treatment of small tumors (e.g., brain metastasis) and for the generation of high-flux monoenergetic x-ray beams in the medical imaging range ( 20 50 keV). The latter may represent a unique source for x-ray fluorescent imaging (XFI), phase contrast imaging (PCI), and micro-beam radiotherapy. Consistent work is ongoing to produce a stable and reliable high-energy ( > 100 MeV), high-flux electron beamline for innovative user experiments. Finally, we want to highlight that the all-reflection LWFA setup based on OPCPA technology, shown in this work, is fully scalable in laser power. This paves the way toward the realization of a future GeV-class kHz electron beamline.

See the supplementary material for the following details that support our findings and analysis: (i) the setup of particle-in-cell simulations, (ii) theoretical estimation of the maximum electron energy in the wakefield, (iii) comparison between the analytical estimates and the results of particle-in-cell simulations, and (iv) a brief description of the “high-power mode” introduced in the manuscript.

We thank H. Milchberg for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge helpful feedback on the manuscript from E. Chacon Golcher and J. Limpouch. We also acknowledge M. Favetta, G. Tasselli, F. I. M. Fucilli, and M. Piombino for the availability of the medical linear accelerator used to calibrate the electron spectrometer.

This work was supported by the project “ADONIS – Advanced research using high-intensity photons and particles” (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000789) from the European Regional Development Fund, by the “IMPULSE” project, which receives funding from the European Union Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 under Grant Agreement No. 871161, and by the project “e-INFRA CZ” (No. ID:90254) from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic. The EPOCH code used in this work was in part funded by the UK EPSRC Grant Nos. EP/G054950/1, EP/G056803/1, EP/G055165/1, EP/M022463/1, and EP/P02212X/1.

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

G. M. Grittani contributed equally to this work.

C. M. Lazzarini: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Supervision (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). G. M. Grittani: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). P. Valenta: Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). I. Zymak: Data curation (supporting); Investigation (equal); Visualization (supporting); Writing – original draft (supporting). R. Antipenkov: Investigation (supporting). U. Chaulagain: Investigation (supporting). L. V. N. Goncalves: Investigation (supporting). A. Grenfell: Investigation (supporting). M. Lamac: Investigation (supporting). S. Lorenz: Investigation (supporting). M. Nevrkla: Investigation (supporting). A. Spacek: Investigation (supporting). V. Sobr: Investigation (supporting). W. Szuba: Investigation (supporting). P. Bakule: Investigation (supporting). G. Korn: Conceptualization (equal); Writing – original draft (supporting). S. V. Bulanov: Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (supporting); Supervision (supporting); Writing – original draft (equal).

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

1.
D. E.
Citrin
, “
Recent developments in radiotherapy
,”
New Engl. J. Med.
377
,
1065
1075
(
2017
).
2.
R.
Wideröe
, “
Über ein neues Prinzip zur Herstellung hoher Spannungen
,”
Arch. Elektrotech.
21
,
387
406
(
1928
).
3.
T.
Tajima
and
J. M.
Dawson
, “
Laser electron accelerator
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
43
,
267
270
(
1979
).
4.
E.
Esarey
,
C. B.
Schroeder
, and
W. P.
Leemans
, “
Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
81
,
1229
1285
(
2009
).
5.
P.
Chen
,
J. M.
Dawson
,
R. W.
Huff
, and
T.
Katsouleas
, “
Acceleration of electrons by the interaction of a bunched electron beam with a plasma
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
54
,
693
696
(
1985
).
6.
C.
Joshi
,
S.
Corde
, and
W. B.
Mori
, “
Perspectives on the generation of electron beams from plasma-based accelerators and their near and long term applications
,”
Phys. Plasmas
27
,
070602
(
2020
).
7.
B. D.
O'Shea
,
G.
Andonian
,
S. K.
Barber
,
K. L.
Fitzmorris
,
S.
Hakimi
,
J.
Harrison
,
P. D.
Hoang
,
M. J.
Hogan
,
B.
Naranjo
,
O. B.
Williams
,
V.
Yakimenko
, and
J. B.
Rosenzweig
, “
Observation of acceleration and deceleration in gigaelectron-volt-per-metre gradient dielectric wakefield accelerators
,”
Nat. Commun.
7
,
12763
(
2016
).
8.
C.
Jing
and
G.
Ha
, “
Roadmap for structure-based wakefield accelerator (SWFA) R&D and its challenges in beam dynamics
,”
J. Instrum.
17
,
T05007
(
2022
).
9.
T.
Kurz
,
T.
Heinemann
,
M. F.
Gilljohann
,
Y. Y.
Chang
,
J. P.
Couperus Cabadağ
,
A.
Debus
,
O.
Kononenko
,
R.
Pausch
,
S.
Schöbel
,
R. W.
Assmann
,
M.
Bussmann
,
H.
Ding
,
J.
Götzfried
,
A.
Köhler
,
G.
Raj
,
S.
Schindler
,
K.
Steiniger
,
O.
Zarini
,
S.
Corde
,
A.
Döpp
,
B.
Hidding
,
S.
Karsch
,
U.
Schramm
,
A.
Martinez de la Ossa
, and
A.
Irman
, “
Demonstration of a compact plasma accelerator powered by laser-accelerated electron beams
,”
Nat. Commun.
12
,
2895
(
2021
).
10.
F. M.
Foerster
,
A.
Döpp
,
F.
Haberstroh
,
K. v
Grafenstein
,
D.
Campbell
,
Y.-Y.
Chang
,
S.
Corde
,
J. P.
Couperus Cabadağ
,
A.
Debus
,
M. F.
Gilljohann
,
A. F.
Habib
,
T.
Heinemann
,
B.
Hidding
,
A.
Irman
,
F.
Irshad
,
A.
Knetsch
,
O.
Kononenko
,
A.
Martinez de la Ossa
,
A.
Nutter
,
R.
Pausch
,
G.
Schilling
,
A.
Schletter
,
S.
Schöbel
,
U.
Schramm
,
E.
Travac
,
P.
Ufer
, and
S.
Karsch
, “
Stable and high-quality electron beams from staged laser and plasma wakefield accelerators
,”
Phys. Rev. X
12
,
041016
(
2022
).
11.
W. P.
Leemans
,
B.
Nagler
,
A. J.
Gonsalves
,
C.
Tóth
,
K.
Nakamura
,
C. G. R.
Geddes
,
E.
Esarey
,
C. B.
Schroeder
, and
S. M.
Hooker
, “
GeV electron beams from a centimetre-scale accelerator
,”
Nat. Phys.
2
,
696
699
(
2006
).
12.
X.
Wang
,
R.
Zgadzaj
,
N.
Fazel
,
Z.
Li
,
S. A.
Yi
,
X.
Zhang
,
W.
Henderson
,
Y.-Y.
Chang
,
R.
Korzekwa
,
H.-E.
Tsai
,
C.-H.
Pai
,
H.
Quevedo
,
G.
Dyer
,
E.
Gaul
,
M.
Martinez
,
A. C.
Bernstein
,
T.
Borger
,
M.
Spinks
,
M.
Donovan
,
V.
Khudik
,
G.
Shvets
,
T.
Ditmire
, and
M. C.
Downer
, “
Quasi-monoenergetic laser-plasma acceleration of electrons to 2 GeV
,”
Nat. Commun.
4
,
1988
(
2013
).
13.
H. T.
Kim
,
V. B.
Pathak
,
K.
Hong Pae
,
A.
Lifschitz
,
F.
Sylla
,
J. H.
Shin
,
C.
Hojbota
,
S. K.
Lee
,
J. H.
Sung
,
H. W.
Lee
,
E.
Guillaume
,
C.
Thaury
,
K.
Nakajima
,
J.
Vieira
,
L. O.
Silva
,
V.
Malka
, and
C. H.
Nam
, “
Stable multi-GeV electron accelerator driven by waveform-controlled PW laser pulses
,”
Sci. Rep.
7
,
10203
(
2017
).
14.
A. J.
Gonsalves
,
K.
Nakamura
,
J.
Daniels
,
C.
Benedetti
,
C.
Pieronek
,
T. C. H.
de Raadt
,
S.
Steinke
,
J. H.
Bin
,
S. S.
Bulanov
,
J.
van Tilborg
,
C. G. R.
Geddes
,
C. B.
Schroeder
,
C.
Tóth
,
E.
Esarey
,
K.
Swanson
,
L.
Fan-Chiang
,
G.
Bagdasarov
,
N.
Bobrova
,
V.
Gasilov
,
G.
Korn
,
P.
Sasorov
, and
W. P.
Leemans
, “
Petawatt laser guiding and electron beam acceleration to 8 GeV in a laser-heated capillary discharge waveguide
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
122
,
084801
(
2019
).
15.
B.
Miao
,
J. E.
Shrock
,
L.
Feder
,
R. C.
Hollinger
,
J.
Morrison
,
R.
Nedbailo
,
A.
Picksley
,
H.
Song
,
S.
Wang
,
J. J.
Rocca
, and
H. M.
Milchberg
, “
Multi-GeV electron bunches from an all-optical laser wakefield accelerator
,”
Phys. Rev. X
12
,
031038
(
2022
).
16.
W.
Wang
,
K.
Feng
,
L.
Ke
,
C.
Yu
,
Y.
Xu
,
R.
Qi
,
Y.
Chen
,
Z.
Qin
,
Z.
Zhang
,
M.
Fang
,
J.
Liu
,
K.
Jiang
,
H.
Wang
,
C.
Wang
,
X.
Yang
,
F.
Wu
,
Y.
Leng
,
J.
Liu
,
R.
Li
, and
Z.
Xu
, “
Free-electron lasing at 27 nanometres based on a laser wakefield accelerator
,”
Nature
595
,
516
520
(
2021
).
17.
A. R.
Maier
,
N. M.
Delbos
,
T.
Eichner
,
L.
Hübner
,
S.
Jalas
,
L.
Jeppe
,
S. W.
Jolly
,
M.
Kirchen
,
V.
Leroux
,
P.
Messner
,
M.
Schnepp
,
M.
Trunk
,
P. A.
Walker
,
C.
Werle
, and
P.
Winkler
, “
Decoding sources of energy variability in a laser-plasma accelerator
,”
Phys. Rev. X
10
,
031039
(
2020
).
18.
D.
Guénot
,
D.
Gustas
,
A.
Vernier
,
B.
Beaurepaire
,
F.
Böhle
,
M.
Bocoum
,
M.
Lozano
,
A.
Jullien
,
R.
Lopez-Martens
,
A.
Lifschitz
, and
J.
Faure
, “
Relativistic electron beams driven by kHz single-cycle light pulses
,”
Nat. Photonics
11
,
293
296
(
2017
).
19.
F.
Salehi
,
M.
Le
,
L.
Railing
,
M.
Kolesik
, and
H. M.
Milchberg
, “
Laser-accelerated, low-divergence 15-MeV quasimonoenergetic electron bunches at 1 kHz
,”
Phys. Rev. X
11
,
021055
(
2021
).
20.
A. J.
Goers
,
G. A.
Hine
,
L.
Feder
,
B.
Miao
,
F.
Salehi
,
J. K.
Wahlstrand
, and
H. M.
Milchberg
, “
Multi-MeV electron acceleration by subterawatt laser pulses
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
115
,
194802
(
2015
).
21.
D.
Gustas
,
D.
Guénot
,
A.
Vernier
,
S.
Dutt
,
F.
Böhle
,
R.
Lopez-Martens
,
A.
Lifschitz
, and
J.
Faure
, “
High-charge relativistic electron bunches from a kHz laser-plasma accelerator
,”
Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams
21
,
013401
(
2018
).
22.
F.
Salehi
,
A. J.
Goers
,
G. A.
Hine
,
L.
Feder
,
D.
Kuk
,
B.
Miao
,
D.
Woodbury
,
K. Y.
Kim
, and
H. M.
Milchberg
, “
MeV electron acceleration at 1 kHz with <10 mJ laser pulses
,”
Opt. Lett.
42
,
215
218
(
2017
).
23.
J.
Faure
,
D.
Gustas
,
D.
Guénot
,
A.
Vernier
,
F.
Böhle
,
M.
Ouillé
,
S.
Haessler
,
R.
Lopez-Martens
, and
A.
Lifschitz
, “
A review of recent progress on laser-plasma acceleration at kHz repetition rate
,”
Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion
61
,
014012
(
2018
).
24.
T.
Brümmer
,
A.
Debus
,
R.
Pausch
,
J.
Osterhoff
, and
F.
Grüner
, “
Design study for a compact laser-driven source for medical x-ray fluorescence imaging
,”
Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams
23
,
031601
(
2020
).
25.
K.
Svendsen
,
D.
Guénot
,
J. B.
Svensson
,
K.
Petersson
,
A.
Persson
, and
O.
Lundh
, “
A focused very high energy electron beam for fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy
,”
Sci. Rep.
11
,
5844
(
2021
).
26.
P.
Valenta
,
T. Z.
Esirkepov
,
J. K.
Koga
,
A.
Nečas
,
G. M.
Grittani
,
C. M.
Lazzarini
,
O.
Klimo
,
G.
Korn
, and
S. V.
Bulanov
, “
Polarity reversal of wakefields driven by ultrashort pulse laser
,”
Phys. Rev. E
102
,
053216
(
2020
).
27.
J.
Huijts
,
L.
Rovige
,
I. A.
Andriyash
,
A.
Vernier
,
M.
Ouillé
,
J.
Kaur
,
Z.
Cheng
,
R.
Lopez-Martens
, and
J.
Faure
, “
Waveform control of relativistic electron dynamics in laser-plasma acceleration
,”
Phys. Rev. X
12
,
011036
(
2022
).
28.
R.
Antipenkov
,
R.
Boge
,
E.
Erdman
,
M.
Greco
,
J. T.
Green
,
A.
Grenfell
,
M.
Horáček
,
Z.
Hubka
,
L.
Indra
,
K.
Majer
,
T.
Mazanec
,
P.
Mazurek
,
J.
Naylon
,
J.
Novák
,
V.
Šobr
,
A.
Spaček
,
P.
Strkula
,
W.
Szuba
,
B.
Tykalewicz
,
P.
Bakule
, and
B.
Rus
, “
TW-class Allegra laser system at ELI-Beamlines
,” in
High Power Lasers and Applications
, edited by
T. J.
Butcher
,
J.
Hein
,
P.
Bakule
,
C. L.
Haefner
,
G.
Korn
, and
L. O.
Silva
(
SPIE, Online Only
,
Czech Republic
,
2021
), p.
7
.
29.
K.
Schmid
,
L.
Veisz
,
F.
Tavella
,
S.
Benavides
,
R.
Tautz
,
D.
Herrmann
,
A.
Buck
,
B.
Hidding
,
A.
Marcinkevicius
,
U.
Schramm
,
M.
Geissler
,
J.
Meyer-ter-Vehn
,
D.
Habs
, and
F.
Krausz
, “
Few-cycle laser-driven electron acceleration
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
102
,
124801
(
2009
).
30.
K.
Schmid
,
A.
Buck
,
C. M. S.
Sears
,
J. M.
Mikhailova
,
R.
Tautz
,
D.
Herrmann
,
M.
Geissler
,
F.
Krausz
, and
L.
Veisz
, “
Density-transition based electron injector for laser driven wakefield accelerators
,”
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Accel. Beams
13
,
091301
(
2010
).
31.
S.
Lorenz
,
G.
Grittani
,
E.
Chacon-Golcher
,
C. M.
Lazzarini
,
J.
Limpouch
,
F.
Nawaz
,
M.
Nevrkla
,
L.
Vilanova
, and
T.
Levato
, “
Characterization of supersonic and subsonic gas targets for laser wakefield electron acceleration experiments
,”
Matter Radiat. Extremes
4
,
015401
(
2019
).
32.
S.
Lorenz
,
G.
Grittani
,
L. V. N.
Goncalves
,
C. M.
Lazzarini
,
J.
Limpouch
,
M.
Nevrkla
,
S.
Bulanov
, and
G.
Korn
, “
Tomographic reconstruction algorithms for structured gas density profiles of the targets for laser wakefield acceleration
,”
Meas. Sci. Technol.
31
,
085205
(
2020
).
33.
C. M.
Lazzarini
,
L. V.
Goncalves
,
G. M.
Grittani
,
S.
Lorenz
,
M.
Nevrkla
,
P.
Valenta
,
T.
Levato
,
S. V.
Bulanov
, and
G.
Korn
, “
Electron acceleration at ELI-Beamlines: Towards high-energy and high-repetition rate accelerators
,”
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A
34
,
1943010
(
2019
).
34.
T. D.
Arber
,
K.
Bennett
,
C. S.
Brady
,
A.
Lawrence-Douglas
,
M. G.
Ramsay
,
N. J.
Sircombe
,
P.
Gillies
,
R. G.
Evans
,
H.
Schmitz
,
A. R.
Bell
, and
C. P.
Ridgers
, “
Contemporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma modelling
,”
Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion
57
,
113001
(
2015
).
35.
S.
Bulanov
,
N.
Naumova
,
F.
Pegoraro
, and
J.
Sakai
, “
Particle injection into the wave acceleration phase due to nonlinear wake wave breaking
,”
Phys. Rev. E
58
,
R5257
R5260
(
1998
).
36.
S. V.
Bulanov
,
T. Z.
Esirkepov
,
Y.
Hayashi
,
H.
Kiriyama
,
J. K.
Koga
,
H.
Kotaki
,
M.
Mori
, and
M.
Kando
, “
On some theoretical problems of laser wake-field accelerators
,”
J. Plasma Phys.
82
,
905820308
(
2016
).
37.
B.
Hidding
,
O.
Karger
,
T.
Königstein
,
G.
Pretzler
,
G. G.
Manahan
,
P.
McKenna
,
R.
Gray
,
R.
Wilson
,
S.
Wiggins
,
G.
Welsh
,
A.
Beaton
,
P.
Delinikolas
,
D.
Jaroszynski
,
J.
Rosenzweig
,
A.
Karmakar
,
V.
Ferlet-Cavrois
,
A.
Costantino
,
M.
Muschitiello
, and
E.
Daly
, “
Laser-plasma-based space radiation reproduction in the laboratory
,”
Sci. Rep.
7
,
42354
(
2017
).
38.
D.
Horváth
,
G.
Grittani
,
M.
Precek
,
R.
Versaci
,
S. V.
Bulanov
, and
V.
Olšovcová
, “
Time dynamics of the dose deposited by relativistic ultra-short electron beams
,”
Phys. Med. Biol.
68
,
22NT01
(
2023
).
39.
M.
Cavallone
,
L.
Rovige
,
J.
Huijts
,
É.
Bayart
,
R.
Delorme
,
A.
Vernier
,
P. G.
Jorge
,
R.
Moeckli
,
E.
Deutsch
,
J.
Faure
, and
A.
Flacco
, “
Dosimetric characterisation and application to radiation biology of a kHz laser-driven electron beam
,”
Appl. Phys. B
127
,
57
(
2021
).

Supplementary Material