Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Matched Guiding and Controlled Injection in Dark-Current-Free, 10-GeV-Class, Channel-Guided Laser Plasma Accelerators

A. Picksley apicksley@lbl.gov Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    J. Stackhouse Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    C. Benedetti Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    K. Nakamura Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    H. E. Tsai Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    R. Li Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    B. Miao Institute of Research in Electronics and Applied Physics and Dept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA    J. E. Shrock Institute of Research in Electronics and Applied Physics and Dept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA    E. Rockafellow Institute of Research in Electronics and Applied Physics and Dept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA    H. M. Milchberg Institute of Research in Electronics and Applied Physics and Dept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA    C. B. Schroeder Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    J. van Tilborg Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    E. Esarey Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    C. G. R. Geddes Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA    A. J. Gonsalves Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
(August 1, 2024)
Abstract

We measure the high intensity laser propagation throughout meter-scale, channel-guided LPAs by adjusting the length of the plasma channel on a shot-by-shot basis, showing high quality guiding of 500 TWtimes500TW500\text{\,}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{W}start_ARG 500 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_TW end_ARG laser pulses over 30 cm in a hydrogen plasma of density n01×1017 cm3subscript𝑛0times1E17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx$1\text{\times}{10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. We observed transverse energy transport of higher-order modes in the first 12 cmabsenttimes12cm\approx$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$≈ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG of the plasma channel, followed by quasi-matched propagation, and the gradual, dark-current-free depletion of laser energy to the wakefield. We quantify the laser-to-wake transfer efficiency limitations of currently available PW-class laser systems, and demonstrate via simulation how control over the laser mode can significantly improve accelerated beam parameters. Using just 21.3 Jtimes21.3J21.3\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG 21.3 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG of laser energy, and triggering localized electron injection into the accelerator, we observed electron bunches with single, quasimonoenergetic peaks, relative energy spreads as low as 3 %times3percent3\text{\,}\%start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG and energy up to 9.2 GeVtimes9.2GeV9.2\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 9.2 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG with charge extending beyond 10 GeVtimes10GeV10\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG.

preprint: APS/123-QED

Acceleration of particles in plasma waves driven by intense laser pulses Tajima and Dawson (1979); Esarey et al. (9 08); Hooker (2013) has attracted significant attention due to the ultra-high accelerating gradients that can be achieved (up to 100s GV/m). These compact accelerators are attractive for applications such as free-electron lasers Wang et al. (2021); Labat et al. (2023), Thomson sources Powers et al. (2013), and high-energy physics colliders Schroeder et al. (2010, 2023). Significant progress has been made towards producing high-energy (>1 GeVabsenttimes1GeV>$1\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$> start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG) Leemans et al. (2006); Clayton et al. (2010); Lu et al. (2011); Wang et al. (2013); Leemans et al. (2014); Gonsalves et al. (2019); Miao et al. (2022); Aniculaesei et al. (2024), high-quality Faure et al. (2006); Lundh et al. (2011); Plateau et al. (2012); Wang et al. (2016) electron bunches in laser-plasma accelerators (LPAs).

Maximizing electron beam energy for a given laser energy is critical for these applications. This requires maintaining laser intensity over several tens of centimeters, much longer than the typical Rayleigh length zR1 cmsimilar-tosubscript𝑧Rtimes1cmz_{\mathrm{R}}\sim$1\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG of focused PW-class laser systems. Hence, laser pulses must be guided via relativistic self-focusing Sprangle et al. (1990a) or using a preformed plasma channel Sprangle and Esarey (1992); Durfee and Milchberg (1993). The former requires operating in the bubble regime of the LPA Pukhov and Meyer-ter Vehn (2002); Lu et al. (2006), at a plasma density n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT high enough to remain above the critical power for self-focusing. High-energy electrons can be produced but high laser pulse energy is required Esarey et al. (9 08); for example Aniculaesei et al. Aniculaesei et al. (2024) demonstrated an energy gain of 10 GeVsimilar-toabsenttimes10GeV\sim$10\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$∼ start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG using 118 Jtimes118J118\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG 118 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG of laser energy. Preformed plasma channels have transverse electron density profiles with a minimum on-axis such that the refractive index is peaked, much like gradient-index optical fibers. They allow operation of LPAs at lower n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where the product of acceleration gradient and accelerator length is higher.

Matching the drive laser to the fundamental transverse mode of the plasma channel maximises the efficiency of laser-to-wake energy transfer without degrading the accelerated bunch parameters, and minimizes the accelerator dark current. For a parabolic plasma channel where ne(r)n0r2proportional-tosubscript𝑛e𝑟subscript𝑛0superscript𝑟2n_{\mathrm{e}}(r)-n_{0}\propto r^{2}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_r ) - italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∝ italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, a low-intensity laser pulse with a Gaussian transverse profile is perfectly matched to the fundamental channel mode and propagates at constant spot-size if w0=wmsubscript𝑤0subscript𝑤mw_{0}=w_{\mathrm{m}}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where wmsubscript𝑤mw_{\mathrm{m}}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the matched spot-size, a measure of the steepness of the parabolic profile Sprangle and Esarey (1992); Esarey et al. (9 08). Future applications of 10-GeV-class LPAs require matched propagation of PW-class lasers with wm50 µmless-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝑤mtimes50µmw_{\mathrm{m}}\lesssim$50\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_ARG 50 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG at n01.0×1017 cm3subscript𝑛0times1.0E17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx$1.0\text{\times}{10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG 1.0 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG Schroeder et al. (2010, 2023).

Capillary-discharge waveguides Butler et al. (2002); Spence et al. (2003) have previously been employed in multi-GeV LPAs Leemans et al. (2006, 2014). Whilst they are approximately parabolic, and can provide per-mille level stability of wmsubscript𝑤mw_{\mathrm{m}}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Turner et al. (2021), wmsubscript𝑤mw_{\mathrm{m}}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is too large for sufficient confinement at n01017 cm3subscript𝑛0timesE17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx${10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ⁢ end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. Even with the addition of an auxillary laser to reduce wmsubscript𝑤mw_{\mathrm{m}}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Bobrova et al. (2013); Pieronek et al. (2020), effective guiding was only achieved above optimal n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, limiting energy gain to 7.8 GeVtimes7.8GeV7.8\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 7.8 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG Gonsalves et al. (2019).

Building upon the previous demonstrations of hydrodynamically formed channels that employed collisional heating Durfee and Milchberg (1993); Volfbeyn et al. (1999) and were limited to n01019 cm3similar-tosubscript𝑛0timesE19superscriptcm3n_{0}\sim${10}^{19}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ start_ARG start_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ⁢ end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 19 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, laser heating with 100 fsless-than-or-similar-toabsenttimes100fs\lesssim$100\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{s}$≲ start_ARG 100 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_fs end_ARG pulses has been employed Lemos et al. (2013a, b); Shalloo et al. (2018, 2019). The heating mechanism, optical field ionization, is effective at lower density Shalloo et al. (2018, 2019). A cylindrical column of plasma is formed in the line focus of an ultrashort laser pulse, and expands radially. When an intense drive laser is focused into the plasma channel, the leading edge ionizes the neutral gas surrounding the expanding shock front to create a deep, thick-walled plasma channel Shalloo (2018); Morozov et al. (2018); Picksley et al. (2020a); Feder et al. (2020). Steep channels formed by hydrodynamic expansion of optical field-ionized (HOFI) plasmas (20 µmwm50 µmless-than-or-similar-totimes20µmsubscript𝑤mless-than-or-similar-totimes50µm$20\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$\lesssim w_{\mathrm{m}}% \lesssim$50\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$start_ARG 20 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG ≲ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_ARG 50 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG) with n01017 cm3less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝑛0timesE17superscriptcm3n_{0}\lesssim${10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_ARG start_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ⁢ end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG can be generated Shalloo et al. (2018); Shalloo (2018); Picksley et al. (2020a); Miao et al. (2020); Feder et al. (2020); Mewes et al. (2023). Guiding of high intensity pulses Shalloo et al. (2019); Smartsev et al. (2019); Picksley et al. (2020b, a); Feder et al. (2020); Ross et al. (2024), and electron acceleration Oubrerie et al. (2022); Miao et al. (2022); Picksley et al. (2023) have been previously demonstrated, with 5 GeVsimilar-toabsenttimes5GeV\sim$5\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$∼ start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG the highest energy to date Miao et al. (2022). In such experiments, guiding is assessed at the end of the accelerator, and propagation of the laser pulse throughout the plasma is inferred from simulations. Laser mode beating and evolution theory Esarey and Leemans (1999); Esarey et al. (2000); Benedetti et al. (2012, 2015) was recently analyzed by Shrock et al. Shrock et al. (2024) via PIC simulations showing mismatched laser guiding linked to measured electron spectra.

In this Letter, we measure high-intensity laser propagation throughout meter-scale LPAs by adjusting the length of the accelerator on a shot-by-shot basis for the first time, showing high quality guiding of 500 TWtimes500TW500\text{\,}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{W}start_ARG 500 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_TW end_ARG laser pulses throughout a 30-cm-long hydrogen plasma of density n01×1017 cm3subscript𝑛0times1E17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx$1\text{\times}{10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. Using extensive optical diagnostics, we show laser pulse coupling into the higher-order channel modes and energy loss through mode-filtering, followed by quasi-matched propagation of the fundamental mode, and the gradual, dark-current-free depletion of laser energy to the plasma wave. Then, by triggering electron injection via the localized addition of nitrogen to the plasma, electron bunches with single, quasi-monoenergetic peaks up to 9.2 GeVtimes9.2GeV9.2\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 9.2 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG and charge extending to >10 GeVabsenttimes10GeV>$10\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$> start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG is achieved using just 21.3±0.3 Jtimesuncertain21.30.3J21.3\pm 0.3\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG start_ARG 21.3 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.3 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG of laser energy. We quantify the laser-to-wake transfer efficiency limitations of currently available PW-class laser systems, and demonstrate via simulation how control over the laser mode can result in 13 GeVgreater-than-or-equivalent-toabsenttimes13GeV\gtrsim$13\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$≳ start_ARG 13 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG bunches for the same plasma channel. This work provides in-depth understanding of non-linear laser evolution and electron acceleration in 10-GeV-class LPA stages suitable for future compact accelerators.

The Ti:Sapphire-based BELLA petawatt laser Nakamura et al. (2017) produces pulses of full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) duration 40 fssimilar-toabsenttimes40fs\sim$40\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{s}$∼ start_ARG 40 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_fs end_ARG at a central wavelength λ0=815 nmsubscript𝜆0times815nm\lambda_{0}=$815\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{m}$italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG 815 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_nm end_ARG. Recent upgrades allow the amplified laser to be split into two separately compressed beamlines Turner et al. (2022) with control over the relative timing, wavefront, and focusing geometry. Figure 1(a) shows a schematic of the experimental setup. In the channel-forming beamline, 1.3±0.3 Jtimesuncertain1.30.3J1.3\pm 0.3\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG start_ARG 1.3 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.3 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG was focused by an axicon lens and reflected by a mirror with a hole drilled in the center into the gas target Shalloo et al. (2019); Picksley et al. (2020b, a); Miao et al. (2022). The peak intensity Iaxsubscript𝐼axI_{\mathrm{ax}}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ax end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a function of distance from the entrance of the gas jet, z𝑧zitalic_z, is shown (black) in figure 1(b). The drive pulse was focused to a spot-size w0=53±1. µmsubscript𝑤0timesuncertain531.µmw_{0}=$53\pm 1.\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 53 end_ARG ± start_ARG 1 . end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG at the entrance of the gas target. The energy was varied up to a maximum of 0=21.3±0.3 Jsubscript0timesuncertain21.30.3J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$21.3\pm 0.3\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 21.3 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.3 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG, corresponding to a peak normalized vector potential a00.85λ[ µm]I0[1018 Wcm2]subscript𝑎00.85𝜆delimited-[]timesabsentµmsubscript𝐼0delimited-[]timesE18Wsuperscriptcm2a_{0}\approx 0.85\lambda[$\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$]% \sqrt{I_{0}[${10}^{18}\text{\,}\mathrm{W}\,\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-2}$]}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ 0.85 italic_λ [ start_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG ] square-root start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ start_ARG start_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ⁢ end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 18 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_W roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] end_ARG of up to a02.2subscript𝑎02.2a_{0}\approx 2.2italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ 2.2. Here, I0subscript𝐼0I_{0}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the peak intensity of the drive pulse.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (a) Schematic of the experimental setup. Inset: Measured vacuum mode of the drive laser pulse. (b) Measured molecular density of the gas jet (blue and orange), and peak intensity of the channel-forming pulse along the length of the gas (black). (c) Measured electron and neutral density n=ne+nn𝑛subscript𝑛esubscript𝑛nn=n_{\mathrm{e}}+n_{\mathrm{n}}italic_n = italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the HOFI plasma channel at Δτ=6 nsΔ𝜏times6ns\Delta\tau=$6\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG.

The drive laser and electron diagnostics have been described previously Nakamura et al. (2017); Gonsalves et al. (2019). The input and guided mode of the drive laser could be imaged over a range of 60 cmsimilar-toabsenttimes60cm\sim$60\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$∼ start_ARG 60 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG; the propagated drive was also imaged at the plane of the third wedge 10 mabsenttimes10m\approx$10\text{\,}\mathrm{m}$≈ start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_m end_ARG downstream of the channel exit. The optical spectrum was measured using fiber-based spectrometers covering the range 400 nmλ2200 nmless-than-or-similar-totimes400nm𝜆less-than-or-similar-totimes2200nm$400\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{m}$\lesssim\lambda\lesssim$2200\text{\,}\mathrm% {n}\mathrm{m}$start_ARG 400 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_nm end_ARG ≲ italic_λ ≲ start_ARG 2200 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_nm end_ARG. The energy transmission T(z)=(z)/0𝑇𝑧𝑧subscript0T(z)=\mathcal{E}(z)/\mathcal{E}_{0}italic_T ( italic_z ) = caligraphic_E ( italic_z ) / caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT was retrieved by integrating the counts on the detector at z10 m𝑧times10mz\approx$10\text{\,}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≈ start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_m end_ARG, and then using the measured optical spectrum to correct for the spectral response of the detector.

For this experiment, a 30-cm-long gas target was developed Krishnan et al. (2011); Zhou et al. (2021); Miao et al. (2022). The jet comprised an elongated, converging-diverging nozzle operated with hydrogen, or hydrogen with a 5 %absenttimes5percent\leq$5\text{\,}\%$≤ start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG nitrogen dopant. The length could be varied by blocking the flow of gas above the nozzle. Figure 1(b) shows the molecular density as a function of distance along the gas jet measured using method outlined in Miao et al. (2022). The delay between the channel-forming beam and the drive beam was set to Δτ=6 nsΔ𝜏times6ns\Delta\tau=$6\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG, and the jet was operated 12 mmtimes12mm12\text{\,}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_mm end_ARG below the laser axis to avoid blocking the channel-forming beam (which had a radius of 12 mmabsenttimes12mm\approx$12\text{\,}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}$≈ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_mm end_ARG at z=0𝑧0z=0italic_z = 0). For these conditions, two-color interferometry measurements Gonsalves et al. (2007); Point et al. (2014); Feder et al. (2020) shown in figure 1(c) indicated an axial plasma density n01×1017 cm3subscript𝑛0times1E17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx$1\text{\times}{10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG and matched spot-size wm37 µmsubscript𝑤mtimes37µmw_{\mathrm{m}}\approx$37\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 37 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG. We note that due to the large uncertainties associated with two-color interferometry, even though the channel expanded further with increasing ΔτΔ𝜏\Delta\tauroman_Δ italic_τ, the calculated wmsubscript𝑤mw_{\mathrm{m}}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT was unchanged for delays 5 ns to 7 nsrangetimes5nstimes7ns5\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}7\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}start_ARG start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG end_ARG to start_ARG start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG end_ARG used in this work.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Evolution of the drive laser in HOFI plasma channels with n01×1017 cm3subscript𝑛0times1E17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx$1\text{\times}{10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG and wm37 µmsubscript𝑤mtimes37µmw_{\mathrm{m}}\approx$37\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 37 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG. (a) Propagated mode z10 m𝑧times10mz\approx$10\text{\,}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≈ start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_m end_ARG downstream. (b) Lineouts of the exit mode for 0=6.0±0.1 Jsubscript0timesuncertain6.00.1J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$6.0\pm 0.1\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 6.0 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.1 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG for short channel lengths. The dashed line indicates the measured peak of the neutral density profile. (c) Exit modes for 0=6.0±0.1 Jsubscript0timesuncertain6.00.1J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$6.0\pm 0.1\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 6.0 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.1 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG and 19.6±0.4 Jtimesuncertain19.60.4J19.6\pm 0.4\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG start_ARG 19.6 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.4 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG. (d) Measured energy transmission averaged over 20absent20\approx 20≈ 20 shots.

The evolution of key drive laser parameters for two different laser energies 0=6.0±0.1 Jsubscript0timesuncertain6.00.1J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$6.0\pm 0.1\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 6.0 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.1 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG (a01.3subscript𝑎01.3a_{0}\approx 1.3italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ 1.3) and 19.6±0.4 Jtimesuncertain19.60.4J19.6\pm 0.4\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG start_ARG 19.6 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.4 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG (a02.2subscript𝑎02.2a_{0}\approx 2.2italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ 2.2) is shown in figure 2. Only shots for which the transverse position of the laser focus with respect to the channel entrance ΔR<25 µmΔ𝑅times25µm\Delta R<$25\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$roman_Δ italic_R < start_ARG 25 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG were included, inferred from a non-destructive centroid diagnostic Isono et al. (2021). This condition was satisfied for 71 %times71percent71\text{\,}\%start_ARG 71 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG of shots. Figure  2(a) shows representative transverse fluence profiles of the drive laser for several different channel lengths 10 mabsenttimes10m\approx$10\text{\,}\mathrm{m}$≈ start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_m end_ARG downstream of the waveguide exit. For Lch7 cmsubscript𝐿chtimes7cmL_{\mathrm{ch}}\approx$7\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ch end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG the drive laser mode had transformed from the top-hat-like input mode (that is typical of currently available PW-class systems based on bulk crystal) to near-Gaussian; the super-Gaussian sup fit order reduced from 6absent6\approx 6≈ 6 to 2absent2\approx 2≈ 2. Through z12 cm𝑧times12cmz\approx$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≈ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, the propagated mode exhibited rings outside the central fluence peak. As the channel was lengthened, a single, approximately Gaussian transverse fluence profile was always observed when the drive laser was well-aligned to the channel. Figure 2(b) shows a waterfall plot of lineouts from the re-imaged exit mode, with the channel length varied in steps of 0.2 cmtimes0.2cm0.2\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}start_ARG 0.2 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG up to Lch5 cmsubscript𝐿chtimes5cmL_{\mathrm{ch}}\approx$5\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ch end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG. The dashed line indicates the measured peak of n(r)𝑛𝑟n(r)italic_n ( italic_r ). Figure 2(c) shows re-imaged exit mode images for channel lengths up to Lcm30 cmsubscript𝐿cmtimes30cmL_{\mathrm{cm}}\approx$30\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_cm end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 30 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG. For z12 cmgreater-than-or-equivalent-to𝑧times12cmz\gtrsim$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≳ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, a well-confined, near-Gaussian drive mode was observed for all channel lengths and for both laser intensities.

The dominant mechanisms behind laser pulse propagation Esarey and Leemans (1999); Esarey et al. (2000); Clark and Milchberg (2000); Shrock et al. (2024) can be understood from guiding measurements presented in figure 2. The channel supports several quasi-bound transverse modes which we denote as (p,m)𝑝𝑚(p,m)( italic_p , italic_m ) referring to the radial and azimuthal mode number respectively. Their structure are determined by ne(r)subscript𝑛e𝑟n_{\mathrm{e}}(r)italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_r ). HOFI plasma channels are finite in extent and not radially parabolic; only a finite number of low-order modes can propagate, of which the fundamental (0,0)00(0,0)( 0 , 0 ) mode is close to Gaussian. Since the input laser mode [shown in figure 1(a)] was not the fundamental channel mode, energy was coupled into higher-order modes, observed directly from the ring structure in figure 2(a) for Lch7 cmsubscript𝐿chtimes7cmL_{\mathrm{ch}}\approx$7\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ch end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG. Figure 2(b) shows rapid leakage of higher-order modes out of the bound region at oblique angles over a few cm Clark and Milchberg (2000). These modes do not contribute to wakefield generation. After this initial period of mode-filtering, which occurred over z12 cmless-than-or-similar-to𝑧times12cmz\lesssim$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≲ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, higher-order mode content in the guided mode was severely reduced, evidenced by figure 2(c,i). Remaining higher-order modes slip behind the fundamental due to group velocity dispersion, and eventually become separated longitudinally such that they also do not contribute to wakefield generation Esarey and Leemans (1999); Esarey et al. (2000); Schroeder et al. (2011); Cormier-Michel et al. (2011); Van Tilborg et al. (2014); Djordjević et al. (2019, 2018); Shrock et al. (2024). The distance over which the (1,0)10(1,0)( 1 , 0 ) and (2,0)20(2,0)( 2 , 0 ) modes separate by 40 fstimes40fs40\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{s}start_ARG 40 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_fs end_ARG was calculated to be 21.6 cmtimes21.6cm21.6\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}start_ARG 21.6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, and 9.4 cmtimes9.4cm9.4\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}start_ARG 9.4 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG respectively. For z12 cmgreater-than-or-equivalent-to𝑧times12cmz\gtrsim$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≳ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, the measured exit mode remained approximately Gaussian with measured spot-size oscillation 6%less-than-or-similar-toabsentpercent6\lesssim 6\%≲ 6 %, demonstrating approximately matched propagation of the drive in the fundamental mode.

Coupling and propagation losses were evaluated quantitatively for the laser and channel used here. The mode coupling efficiency η𝜂\etaitalic_η of the input drive laser into the measured fundamental mode was calculated as the overlap integral between the two modes. For the measured input spot (w053 µmsubscript𝑤0times53µmw_{0}\approx$53\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 53 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG), η60 %𝜂times60percent\eta\approx$60\text{\,}\%$italic_η ≈ start_ARG 60 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG. The focus of a perfect flat-top-like laser with the same w0subscript𝑤0w_{0}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT yields η72 %𝜂times72percent\eta\approx$72\text{\,}\%$italic_η ≈ start_ARG 72 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG, and for a size of w047 µmsubscript𝑤0times47µmw_{\mathrm{0}}\approx$47\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 47 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG, η𝜂\etaitalic_η can be as high as 85 %absenttimes85percent\approx$85\text{\,}\%$≈ start_ARG 85 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG. Measured propagation loss [see figure 2(d)] occurred when light exited the channel outside the acceptance angle of our diagnostics (0.75 deggreater-than-or-equivalent-toabsenttimes0.75deg\gtrsim$0.75\text{\,}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}$≳ start_ARG 0.75 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_deg end_ARG) or when higher-order modes that remained at the end of the channel diffracted. For the latter, it was calculated that >99 %absenttimes99percent>$99\text{\,}\%$> start_ARG 99 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG, 85 %times85percent85\text{\,}\%start_ARG 85 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG and 28 %times28percent28\text{\,}\%start_ARG 28 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG of light remaining in the (0,0)00(0,0)( 0 , 0 ), (1,0)10(1,0)( 1 , 0 ) and (2,0)20(2,0)( 2 , 0 ) modes respectively was captured inside the diagnostic acceptance angle. For 0=6.0±0.1 Jsubscript0timesuncertain6.00.1J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$6.0\pm 0.1\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 6.0 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.1 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG, measured T(z)𝑇𝑧T(z)italic_T ( italic_z ) indicates 31±4. %timesuncertain314.percent31\pm 4.\text{\,}\%start_ARG start_ARG 31 end_ARG ± start_ARG 4 . end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG losses in the first 16 cmtimes16cm16\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}start_ARG 16 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, consistent with our predicted coupling losses. Further losses for 16 cmz30 cmless-than-or-similar-totimes16cm𝑧less-than-or-similar-totimes30cm$16\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$\lesssim z\lesssim$30\text{\,}\mathrm{c}% \mathrm{m}$start_ARG 16 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG ≲ italic_z ≲ start_ARG 30 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG were 10 %less-than-or-similar-toabsenttimes10percent\lesssim$10\text{\,}\%$≲ start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG indicating mild coupling of remaining energy to the wake. The calculated attenuation through leakage of light remaining in the (1,0)10(1,0)( 1 , 0 ) and (0,0)00(0,0)( 0 , 0 ) modes was small over 16 cmz30 cmless-than-or-similar-totimes16cm𝑧less-than-or-similar-totimes30cm$16\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$\lesssim z\lesssim$30\text{\,}\mathrm{c}% \mathrm{m}$start_ARG 16 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG ≲ italic_z ≲ start_ARG 30 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG. Since wakefield generation is mainly driven by energy in the (0,0)00(0,0)( 0 , 0 ) mode, and higher-order modes are filtered, control over the channel length directly illustrates how laser-to-wake transfer efficiency is limited in LPAs due to currently available PW-class systems, and can be maximized by careful matching of the laser size to the channel.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Measured (a) and simulated (b) optical spectra as a function of propagation distance for 0=19.6 Jsubscript0times19.6J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$19.6\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG 19.6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG, n01×1017 cm3subscript𝑛0times1E17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx$1\text{\times}{10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG and wm37 µmsubscript𝑤mtimes37µmw_{\mathrm{m}}\approx$37\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\mathrm{m}$italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 37 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_µ roman_m end_ARG. Measured (averaged over 20absent20\approx 20≈ 20 shots) and calculated λRsubscript𝜆R\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is overlaid in black. (c) Calculated normalized peak laser intensity a^^𝑎\hat{a}over^ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG as a function of propagation distance for the experiment input spot, linearly matched, and super-matched spots.

Driving a wakefield suitable of generating multi-GeV beams on the length scales of our gas jet required increased laser intensity Esarey et al. (9 08). Similar behavior of the drive laser evolution for laser energy 19.6±0.4 Jtimesuncertain19.60.4J19.6\pm 0.4\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG start_ARG 19.6 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.4 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG is observed in figure 2(b, ii), with the exception of decreased transmission associated with wakefield generation. This was confirmed by gradual laser redshifting shown in figure 3(a). Simulations of this case were performed using the code INF&RNO Benedetti et al. (2010, 2017). The measured parameters for the energy, temporal profile, and transverse profile of the drive laser (which was recovered using a Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm) were input, and n(r)𝑛𝑟n(r)italic_n ( italic_r ) was set to the measured channel for ΔτΔ𝜏\Delta\tauroman_Δ italic_τ [see figure 1(c)]. Figure 3(b) shows the calculated optical spectrum during propagation. The wavelength at which the spectrum reduces to 5 %times5percent5\text{\,}\%start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG of the peak, λRsubscript𝜆R\lambda_{\mathrm{R}}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is shown in black and matched closely to experiment for all Lchsubscript𝐿chL_{\mathrm{ch}}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ch end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, explicitly demonstrating continual depletion of energy from the laser to the plasma wave. The calculated average field was Ez30 GVm1subscript𝐸𝑧times30GVsuperscriptm1E_{z}\approx$30\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{V}\,\mathrm{m}^{-1}$italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 30 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GV roman_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. Unlike for 0=6.0±0.1 Jsubscript0timesuncertain6.00.1J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$6.0\pm 0.1\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 6.0 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.1 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG, at high-intensity T(z)𝑇𝑧T(z)italic_T ( italic_z ) continuously reduced as energy was coupled to the wake Shadwick et al. (2009); Benedetti et al. (2015); Picksley et al. (2020a); Miao et al. (2022).

Figure 3(c, blue) shows the calculated evolution of the normalized peak laser intensity a^(z)^𝑎𝑧\hat{a}(z)over^ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG ( italic_z ) for parameters of figure 3(b). Oscillations in a^(z)^𝑎𝑧\hat{a}(z)over^ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG ( italic_z ) are due to mode beating and cause periodic changes in the longitudinal and transverse structure of the wakefield Esarey and Leemans (1999); Benedetti et al. (2012, 2015); Shrock et al. (2024). Changes in the longitudinal structure result from relativistic effects (i.e., the dependence of the plasma wavelength on the laser peak strength), while changes in the transverse structure result from laser mode evolution (i.e., the shape of the laser mode varies because of mode beating, and this affects the transverse component of the ponderomotive force). The latter can result in a wakefield that is unsuitable for the transport of electron beams if, for instance, the laser mode acquires a sufficiently deep minimum on axis. Mode filtering and subsequent mode dispersion reduce the visibility of oscillations for z12 cmgreater-than-or-equivalent-to𝑧times12cmz\gtrsim$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≳ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, consistent with the diminishing ring structures in figure 2(a). Low visibility oscillations caused by beating between the (0,0)00(0,0)( 0 , 0 ) and (1,0)10(1,0)( 1 , 0 ) modes are present as the laser self-steepens and redshifts.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Example electron beams generated in 30-cm-long HOFI plasma channels with 0=21.3±0.3 Jsubscript0timesuncertain21.30.3J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$21.3\pm 0.3\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 21.3 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.3 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG. For each row, the charge measured by the spectrometer within the quasimonoegergetic bunch and percent captured by the spectrometer is given. (a) Δτ=6 nsΔ𝜏times6ns\Delta\tau=$6\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG, no nitrogen, (b) Δτ=7 nsΔ𝜏times7ns\Delta\tau=$7\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG, 1 %times1percent1\text{\,}\%start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG nitrogen, Ldop30 cmsubscript𝐿doptimes30cmL_{\mathrm{dop}}\approx$30\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dop end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 30 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, (c) Δτ=5 nsΔ𝜏times5ns\Delta\tau=$5\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG, 1 %times1percent1\text{\,}\%start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG nitrogen, Ldop12 cmsubscript𝐿doptimes12cmL_{\mathrm{dop}}\approx$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dop end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, (d) Δτ=6 nsΔ𝜏times6ns\Delta\tau=$6\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG, 5 %times5percent5\text{\,}\%start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG nitrogen, Ldop12 cmsubscript𝐿doptimes12cmL_{\mathrm{dop}}\approx$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dop end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG.

No electron beams were generated for the experiments presented above [see figure 4(a)], demonstrating that laser pulses can be well-guided for densities below the self-trapping threshold at laser intensities sufficient to generate high amplitude plasma waves. Electron beams were generated by introducing a nitrogen dopant to the gas jet Pak et al. (2010); McGuffey et al. (2010); Chen et al. (2012). A 1 %times1percent1\text{\,}\%start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG dopant extending throughout the jet triggered injection at several points, and resulted in electron bunch spectra with a broad distribution. Electrons injected after short propagation distance experience the plasma wave over a longer distance and reach higher energies, whilst electrons injected later in the plasma channel experience less energy gain. An example bunch with conditions similar to figure 2 (but with Δτ=7 nsΔ𝜏times7ns\Delta\tau=$7\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG) is shown in figure 4(b). A peak in the tail of the distribution was observed at 9.4 GeVsimilar-toabsenttimes9.4GeV\sim$9.4\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$∼ start_ARG 9.4 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG with charge extending 10 GeVgreater-than-or-equivalent-toabsenttimes10GeV\gtrsim$10\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$≳ start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG.

To study the acceleration of single, quasimonoenergetic bunches, we restricted the dopant region 0zLdop0𝑧less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝐿dop0\leq z\lesssim L_{\mathrm{dop}}0 ≤ italic_z ≲ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dop end_POSTSUBSCRIPT within the gas jet Gonsalves et al. (2020); Kirchen et al. (2020); Shrock et al. (2024). For Ldop6 cmsubscript𝐿doptimes6cmL_{\mathrm{dop}}\approx$6\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dop end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, high energy electrons were not observed. Figure 4(c) shows generated beams for Ldop12 cmsubscript𝐿doptimes12cmL_{\mathrm{dop}}\approx$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_dop end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, Δτ=5 nsΔ𝜏times5ns\Delta\tau=$5\text{\,}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}$roman_Δ italic_τ = start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_ns end_ARG, and 0=21.3±0.3 Jsubscript0timesuncertain21.30.3J\mathcal{E}_{0}=$21.3\pm 0.3\text{\,}\mathrm{J}$caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = start_ARG start_ARG 21.3 end_ARG ± start_ARG 0.3 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG. Singly-peaked electron bunches were observed, indicating injection in the region 6 cmz12 cmless-than-or-similar-totimes6cm𝑧less-than-or-similar-totimes12cm$6\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$\lesssim z\lesssim$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}% \mathrm{m}$start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG ≲ italic_z ≲ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG. The mean energy, and FWHM spread for the examples in figure 4(c) were 8.67(0.48) GeVtimes8.670.48GeV8.67(0.48)\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 8.67 ( 0.48 ) end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG, 7.70(0.88) GeVtimes7.700.88GeV7.70(0.88)\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 7.70 ( 0.88 ) end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG, 7.96(0.44) GeVtimes7.960.44GeV7.96(0.44)\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 7.96 ( 0.44 ) end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG and 9.15(1.80) GeVtimes9.151.80GeV9.15(1.80)\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 9.15 ( 1.80 ) end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG. Shot-to-shot stability was dominated by transverse offset of the laser focus at the plasma channel entrance, and by variations of 20 %greater-than-or-equivalent-toabsenttimes20percent\gtrsim$20\text{\,}\%$≳ start_ARG 20 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG in the pulse duration. Due to pointing variations and limited acceptance of the spectrometer, not all of the charge recorded by the phosphor screen was captured by the magnetic spectrometer. For each example, the measured charge within the quasimonoenergetic bunch and percentage of charge captured is shown. The bottom panel in figure 4(c) shows results from INF&RNO simulations with the same conditions. The simulation confirmed ionization of nitrogen occurred throughout the dopant region, z12 cm𝑧times12cmz\leq$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≤ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, however changes in the wake structure noted in figure 3(a) prevented the trapping of electron bunches with a significant charge for z8.6 cmless-than-or-similar-to𝑧times8.6cmz\lesssim$8.6\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≲ start_ARG 8.6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG Picksley et al. (2023); Shrock et al. (2024). A portion of the electrons ionized within 8.6 cmz12 cmless-than-or-similar-totimes8.6cm𝑧less-than-or-similar-totimes12cm$8.6\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$\lesssim z\lesssim$12\text{\,}\mathrm{c}% \mathrm{m}$start_ARG 8.6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG ≲ italic_z ≲ start_ARG 12 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG were accelerated to 9.3 GeVtimes9.3GeV9.3\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 9.3 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG (FWHM energy spread 1.3 GeVtimes1.3GeV1.3\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 1.3 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG, bunch charge 6 pCtimes6pC6\text{\,}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{C}start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_pC end_ARG).

Maximal wake-to-bunch energy transfer also requires beam loading of the bunch current Katsouleas et al. (1987); Esarey et al. (9 08). For bunch currents with strong beamloading, the overall acceleration gradient is reduced. Increasing the dopant concentration to 5 %times5percent5\text{\,}\%start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG % end_ARG evidenced this [see figure 4(d)]. The estimated total charge increased by a factor of 3greater-than-or-equivalent-toabsent3\gtrsim 3≳ 3, but resulted in a maximum bunch energy of 7.44 GeVtimes7.44GeV7.44\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 7.44 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG (0.25 GeVtimes0.25GeV0.25\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 0.25 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG FWHM energy spread).

We note that future, high repetition-rate laser systems (e.g., those based on fiber lasers Jauregui et al. (2013)) allow for precise control over the transverse laser modes as opposed to bulk-crystal flat-top-like beams currently available. For the same laser energy and channel density, although with the pulse length optimized for electron beam trapping (70 fsabsenttimes70fs\approx$70\text{\,}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{s}$≈ start_ARG 70 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_fs end_ARG) Chen et al. (2012), the orange curve in figure 3(c) shows the laser intensity evolution for a linearly-matched input mode. Mode beating was greatly reduced, but not eliminated because at these intensities the plasma refractive index itself is modified, slice-by-slice along the pulse, by relativistic self-focusing and ponderomotive self-channeling Sprangle et al. (1990b); Sprangle and Esarey (1992); Benedetti et al. (2012). This simulation resulted in the production of a 13.0 GeVtimes13.0GeV13.0\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 13.0 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG, 65 pCtimes65pC65\text{\,}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{C}start_ARG 65 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_pC end_ARG electron bunch, trapped in the region z4 cmless-than-or-similar-to𝑧times4cmz\lesssim$4\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≲ start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG, after a 50 cmtimes50cm50\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}start_ARG 50 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG propagation in plasma. This was then compared to the green curve of figure 3(c) where the transverse laser mode on each longitudinal slice of the pulse was varied so that it remained matched to the ponderomotively perturbed channel (super-matching) Benedetti et al. (2015). Mode beating, and oscillations in a^(z)^𝑎𝑧\hat{a}(z)over^ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG ( italic_z ) were completely eliminated, permitting the wake structure to remain constant throughout. The simulated electron bunch was 13.1 GeVtimes13.1GeV13.1\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 13.1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG, 102 pCtimes102pC102\text{\,}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{C}start_ARG 102 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_pC end_ARG after a z50 cm𝑧times50cmz\approx$50\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}$italic_z ≈ start_ARG 50 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm end_ARG. This demonstrates clearly that control over the laser mode maximizes coupling efficiency to the (0,0)00(0,0)( 0 , 0 ) channel mode, and minimizes the distance over which over which the wakefield is unsuitable for electron beam transport. The marginal difference in energy gain between a laser pulses initiated with a super-matched or a linearly-matched input mode is critically encouraging, since it could mitigate the necessity for super-matching. We also note that tailoring of the plasma channel at the entrance of the plasma channel Antonsen Jr and Mora (1995); Kim et al. (2002); Picksley et al. (2020b, 2023) to filter p,m>0𝑝𝑚0p,m>0italic_p , italic_m > 0 modes more rapidly could also reduce the mode-beating distance in current systems.

In conclusion, unprecedented insight into the mechanisms of laser propagation in meter-scale LPAs has been gained through varying the accelerator length on a shot-by-shot basis for the first time. Using extensive optical diagnostics, we observed laser coupling into high-order channel modes and their energy loss through mode-filtering, followed by quasi-matched propagation of the fundamental mode, and non-linear depletion of laser energy to the wakefield. We quantified the reduction in laser-to-wake efficiency and electron energy gain caused by the laser mode of currently available PW-class laser systems, and showed how precise control over the mode can result in a significant increase of the bunch energy and charge for the same channel. Matched guiding at n01017 cm3subscript𝑛0timesE17superscriptcm3n_{0}\approx${10}^{17}\text{\,}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^{-3}$italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_ARG start_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ⁢ end_ARG start_ARG power start_ARG 10 end_ARG start_ARG 17 end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG suppressed self-trapping of electrons throughout the structure. With the introduction of nitrogen dopant, electron beams were with single, quasimonoenergetic peaks to 9.2 GeVtimes9.2GeV9.2\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}start_ARG 9.2 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG were generated with 21.3 Jtimes21.3J21.3\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG 21.3 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG of laser energy. We note that previous demonstrations of acceleration to 7.8 GeVsimilar-toabsenttimes7.8GeV\sim$7.8\text{\,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$∼ start_ARG 7.8 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_GeV end_ARG using the same laser required energy of 31 Jtimes31J31\text{\,}\mathrm{J}start_ARG 31 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_J end_ARG and produced electron spectra containing several lower energy peaks Gonsalves et al. (2019). This work opens the door for advanced injection techniques to trap ultra-low emittance bunches Yu et al. (2014) using plasma structures well-suited to repetition rates exceeding 1 kHztimes1kHz1\text{\,}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG times end_ARG start_ARG roman_kHz end_ARG Shalloo et al. (2018); Alejo et al. (2022), meeting vital requirements for future compact accelerators.

Acknowledgements.
This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and used the computational facilities at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC). E. Rockafellow is supported by NSF GRFP (DGE 1840340). We greatly acknowledge technical support from Zac Eisentraut, Mark Kirkpatrick, Federico Mazzini, Nathan Ybarrolaza, Derrick McGrew, Teo Maldonado Mancuso, Art Magana and Joe Riley. The authors would like to thank Nathan Cook, Jens Osterhoff, Davide Terzani, Remi Lehe, Liona Fan-Chiang, Lieselotte Obst-Huebl, Marlene Turner, and Aodhan McIlvenny for useful discussions. We thank Samantha Trieu (LBNL Creative Services) and Chetanya Jain for design support in Figure 1.

References

  • Tajima and Dawson (1979) T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Physical Review Letters 43, 267 (1979).
  • Esarey et al. (9 08) E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder,  and W. P. Leemans, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1229 (2009-08).
  • Hooker (2013) S. M. Hooker, Nature Photonics 7, 775 (2013).
  • Wang et al. (2021) 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, Nature 595, 516 (2021).
  • Labat et al. (2023) M. Labat, J. C. Cabadağ, A. Ghaith, A. Irman, A. Berlioux, P. Berteaud, F. Blache, S. Bock, F. Bouvet, F. Briquez, Y.-Y. Chang, S. Corde, A. Debus, C. De Oliveira, J.-P. Duval, Y. Dietrich, M. El Ajjouri, C. Eisenmann, J. Gautier, R. Gebhardt, S. Grams, U. Helbig, C. Herbeaux, N. Hubert, C. Kitegi, O. Kononenko, M. Kuntzsch, M. LaBerge, S. Lê, B. Leluan, A. Loulergue, V. Malka, F. Marteau, M. H. N. Guyen, D. Oumbarek-Espinos, R. Pausch, D. Pereira, T. Püschel, J.-P. Ricaud, P. Rommeluere, E. Roussel, P. Rousseau, S. Schöbel, M. Sebdaoui, K. Steiniger, K. Tavakoli, C. Thaury, P. Ufer, M. Valléau, M. Vandenberghe, J. Vétéran, U. Schramm,  and M.-E. Couprie, Nature Photonics 17, 150 (2023).
  • Powers et al. (2013) N. D. Powers, I. Ghebregziabher, G. Golovin, C. Liu, S. Chen, S. Banerjee, J. Zhang,  and D. P. Umstadter, Nature Publishing Group 8, 28 (2013).
  • Schroeder et al. (2010) C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, C. Benedetti,  and W. P. Leemans, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams 13, 101301 (2010)1302.1775 .
  • Schroeder et al. (2023) C. Schroeder, F. Albert, C. Benedetti, J. Bromage, D. Bruhwiler, S. Bulanov, E. Campbell, N. Cook, B. Cros, M. Downer, et al., Journal of Instrumentation 18, T06001 (2023).
  • Leemans et al. (2006) 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, Nature Physics 2, 696 (2006).
  • Clayton et al. (2010) C. E. Clayton, J. Ralph, F. Albert, R. Fonseca, S. Glenzer, C. Joshi, W. Lu, K. Marsh, S. F. Martins, W. B. Mori, et al., Physical review letters 105, 105003 (2010).
  • Lu et al. (2011) H. Lu, M. Liu, W. Wang, C. Wang, J. Liu, A. Deng, J. Xu, C. Xia, W. Li, H. Zhang, et al., Applied Physics Letters 99 (2011).
  • Wang et al. (2013) 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, Nature Communications 4 (2013), 10.1038/ncomms2988.
  • Leemans et al. (2014) W. P. Leemans, A. J. Gonsalves, H. S. Mao, K. Nakamura, C. Benedetti, C. B. Schroeder, C. Toth, J. Daniels, D. E. Mittelberger, S. S. Bulanov, J. L. Vay, C. G. R. Geddes,  and E. Esarey, Physical Review Letters 113, 245002 (2014).
  • Gonsalves et al. (2019) A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. C. 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, Physical Review Letters 122, 84801 (2019).
  • Miao et al. (2022) B. Miao, J. Shrock, L. Feder, R. Hollinger, J. Morrison, R. Nedbailo, A. Picksley, H. Song, S. Wang, J. Rocca, et al., Physical Review X 12, 031038 (2022).
  • Aniculaesei et al. (2024) C. Aniculaesei, T. Ha, S. Yoffe, L. Labun, S. Milton, E. McCary, M. M. Spinks, H. J. Quevedo, O. Z. Labun, R. Sain, et al., Matter and Radiation at Extremes 9 (2024).
  • Faure et al. (2006) J. Faure, C. Rechatin, A. Norlin, A. Lifschitz, Y. Glinec,  and V. Malka, Nature 444, 737 (2006).
  • Lundh et al. (2011) O. Lundh, J. Lim, C. Rechatin, L. Ammoura, A. Ben-Ismaïl, X. Davoine, G. Gallot, J. P. Goddet, E. Lefebvre, V. Malka,  and J. Faure, Nature Physics 7, 219 (2011).
  • Plateau et al. (2012) G. R. Plateau, C. G. R. Geddes, D. B. Thorn, M. Chen, C. Benedetti, E. Esarey, A. J. Gonsalves, N. H. Matlis, K. Nakamura, C. B. Schroeder, S. Shiraishi, T. Sokollik, J. van Tilborg, C. Toth, S. Trotsenko, T. S. Kim, M. Battaglia, T. Stöhlker,  and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 064802 (2012).
  • Wang et al. (2016) W. T. Wang, W. T. Li, J. S. Liu, Z. J. Zhang, R. Qi, C. H. Yu, J. Q. Liu, M. Fang, Z. Y. Qin, C. Wang, Y. Xu, F. X. Wu, Y. X. Leng, R. X. Li,  and Z. Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 124801 (2016).
  • Sprangle et al. (1990a) P. Sprangle, E. Esarey,  and A. Ting, Physical Review Letters 64, 2011 (1990a).
  • Sprangle and Esarey (1992) P. Sprangle and E. Esarey, Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics 4, 2241 (1992).
  • Durfee and Milchberg (1993) C. G. Durfee and H. M. Milchberg, Physical Review Letters 71, 2409 (1993).
  • Pukhov and Meyer-ter Vehn (2002) A. Pukhov and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Applied Physics B 74, 355 (2002).
  • Lu et al. (2006) W. Lu, C. Huang, M. Zhou, W. B. Mori,  and T. Katsouleas, Physical Review Letters 96, 165002 (2006).
  • Butler et al. (2002) A. Butler, D. J. Spence,  and S. M. Hooker, Physical Review Letters 89 (2002), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.185003.
  • Spence et al. (2003) D. J. Spence, A. Butler,  and S. M. Hooker, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 20, 138 (2003).
  • Turner et al. (2021) M. Turner, A. J. Gonsalves, S. S. Bulanov, C. Benedetti, N. A. Bobrova, V. A. Gasilov, P. V. Sasorov, G. Korn, K. Nakamura, J. van Tilborg, et al., High Power Laser Science and Engineering 9 (2021).
  • Bobrova et al. (2013) N. A. Bobrova, P. V. Sasorov, C. Benedetti, S. S. Bulanov, C. G. R. Geddes, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey,  and W. P. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas 20, 020703 (2013)1303.2124 .
  • Pieronek et al. (2020) C. Pieronek, A. Gonsalves, C. Benedetti, S. Bulanov, J. Van Tilborg, J. Bin, K. Swanson, J. Daniels, G. Bagdasarov, N. Bobrova, et al., Physics of plasmas 27 (2020).
  • Volfbeyn et al. (1999) P. Volfbeyn, E. Esarey,  and W. P. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas 6, 2269 (1999).
  • Lemos et al. (2013a) N. Lemos, T. Grismayer, L. Cardoso, J. Geada, G. Figueira,  and J. M. Dias, Physics of Plasmas 20, 103109 (2013a).
  • Lemos et al. (2013b) N. Lemos, T. Grismayer, L. Cardoso, G. Figueira, R. Issac, D. A. Jaroszynski,  and J. M. Dias, Physics of Plasmas 20, 063102 (2013b).
  • Shalloo et al. (2018) R. J. Shalloo, C. Arran, L. Corner, J. Holloway, J. Jonnerby, R. Walczak, H. M. Milchberg,  and S. M. Hooker, Physical Review E 97, 053203 (2018)1801.00695 .
  • Shalloo et al. (2019) R. J. Shalloo, C. Arran, A. Picksley, A. V. Boetticher, L. Corner, J. Holloway, G. Hine, J. Jonnerby, H. M. Milchberg, C. Thornton, R. Walczak,  and S. M. Hooker, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 22, 41302 (2019).
  • Shalloo (2018) R. Shalloo, Hydrodynamic optical-field-ionized plasma waveguides for laser plasma accelerators, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford (2018).
  • Morozov et al. (2018) A. Morozov, A. Goltsov, Q. Chen, M. Scully,  and S. Suckewer, Physics of Plasmas 25 (2018), 10.1063/1.5021795.
  • Picksley et al. (2020a) A. Picksley, A. Alejo, R. J. Shalloo, C. Arran, A. von Boetticher, L. Corner, J. A. Holloway, J. Jonnerby, O. Jakobsson, C. Thornton, R. Walczak,  and S. M. Hooker, Physical Review E 102, 53201 (2020a)2008.13683 .
  • Feder et al. (2020) L. Feder, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, A. Goffin,  and H. M. Milchberg, Physical Review Research 2, 43173 (2020)2008.06771 .
  • Miao et al. (2020) B. Miao, L. Feder, J. E. Shrock, A. Goffin,  and H. M. Milchberg, Physical Review Letters 125, 74801 (2020).
  • Mewes et al. (2023) S. M. Mewes, G. J. Boyle, A. F. Pousa, R. J. Shalloo, J. Osterhoff, C. Arran, L. Corner, R. Walczak, S. M. Hooker,  and M. Thévenet, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033112 (2023).
  • Smartsev et al. (2019) S. Smartsev, C. Caizergues, K. Oubrerie, J. Gautier, J.-P. Goddet, A. Tafzi, K. T. Phuoc, V. Malka,  and C. Thaury, Optics Letters 44, 3414 (2019).
  • Picksley et al. (2020b) A. Picksley, A. Alejo, J. Cowley, N. Bourgeois, L. Corner, L. Feder, J. Holloway, H. Jones, J. Jonnerby, H. M. Milchberg, L. R. Reid, A. J. Ross, R. Walczak,  and S. M. Hooker, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 23, 81303 (2020b)2006.00810 .
  • Ross et al. (2024) A. J. Ross, J. Chappell, J. J. van de Wetering, J. Cowley, E. Archer, N. Bourgeois, L. Corner, D. R. Emerson, L. Feder, X. J. Gu, O. Jakobsson, H. Jones, A. Picksley, L. Reid, W. Wang, R. Walczak,  and S. M. Hooker, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L022001 (2024).
  • Oubrerie et al. (2022) K. Oubrerie, A. Leblanc, O. Kononenko, R. Lahaye, I. A. Andriyash, J. Gautier, J.-P. Goddet, L. Martelli, A. Tafzi, K. Ta Phuoc, et al., Light: Science & Applications 11, 1 (2022).
  • Picksley et al. (2023) A. Picksley, J. Chappell, E. Archer, N. Bourgeois, J. Cowley, D. R. Emerson, L. Feder, X. J. Gu, O. Jakobsson, A. J. Ross, W. Wang, R. Walczak,  and S. M. Hooker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 245001 (2023).
  • Esarey and Leemans (1999) E. Esarey and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. E 59, 1082 (1999).
  • Esarey et al. (2000) E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, B. A. Shadwick, J. S. Wurtele,  and W. P. Leemans, Physical Review Letters 84, 3081 (2000).
  • Benedetti et al. (2012) C. Benedetti, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey,  and W. P. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas 19, 053101 (2012).
  • Benedetti et al. (2015) C. Benedetti, F. Rossi, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey,  and W. P. Leemans, Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 92, 023109 (2015).
  • Shrock et al. (2024) J. E. Shrock, E. Rockafellow, B. Miao, M. Le, R. C. Hollinger, S. Wang, A. J. Gonsalves, A. Picksley, J. J. Rocca,  and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 045002 (2024).
  • Nakamura et al. (2017) K. Nakamura, H. S. Mao, A. J. Gonsalves, H. Vincenti, D. E. Mittelberger, J. Daniels, A. Magana, C. Toth,  and W. P. Leemans, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 53, 1 (2017).
  • Turner et al. (2022) M. Turner, S. Bulanov, C. Benedetti, A. Gonsalves, W. Leemans, K. Nakamura, J. Van Tilborg, C. Schroeder, C. Geddes,  and E. Esarey, The European Physical Journal D 76, 205 (2022).
  • Krishnan et al. (2011) M. Krishnan, K. W. Elliott, C. G. R. Geddes, R. A. van Mourik, W. P. Leemans, H. Murphy,  and M. Clover, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, 033502 (2011).
  • Zhou et al. (2021) O. Zhou, H.-E. Tsai, T. M. Ostermayr, L. Fan-Chiang, J. Van Tilborg, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey,  and C. G. Geddes, Physics of Plasmas 28 (2021).
  • Gonsalves et al. (2007) A. J. Gonsalves, T. P. Rowlands-Rees, B. H. P. Broks, J. J. A. M. Van Der Mullen,  and S. M. Hooker, Physical Review Letters 98, 025002 (2007).
  • Point et al. (2014) G. Point, Y. Brelet, L. Arantchouk, J. Carbonnel, B. Prade, A. Mysyrowicz,  and A. Houard, Review of Scientific Instruments 85 (2014), 10.1063/1.49025331408.6956 .
  • Isono et al. (2021) F. Isono, J. van Tilborg, S. K. Barber, J. Natal, C. Berger, H.-E. Tsai, T. Ostermayr, A. Gonsalves, C. Geddes,  and E. Esarey, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 9, e25 (2021).
  • (59) A super-Gaussian laser intensity profile is defined as I=Aexp[(x/w)n]𝐼𝐴superscript𝑥𝑤𝑛I=A\exp[-(x/w)^{n}]italic_I = italic_A roman_exp [ - ( italic_x / italic_w ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] where n𝑛nitalic_n is the order of the fit; n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2 represents a Gaussian, and n1much-greater-than𝑛1n\gg 1italic_n ≫ 1 indicates a top-hat profile .
  • Clark and Milchberg (2000) T. R. Clark and H. M. Milchberg, Physical Review E 61, 1954 (2000).
  • Schroeder et al. (2011) C. B. Schroeder, C. Benedetti, E. Esarey, J. Van Tilborg,  and W. P. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas 18 (2011), 10.1063/1.3609778.
  • Cormier-Michel et al. (2011) E. Cormier-Michel, E. Esarey, C. Geddes, C. Schroeder, K. Paul, P. Mullowney, J. Cary,  and W. Leemans, Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams 14, 031303 (2011).
  • Van Tilborg et al. (2014) J. Van Tilborg, J. Daniels, A. Gonsalves, C. Schroeder, E. Esarey,  and W. Leemans, Physical Review E 89, 063103 (2014).
  • Djordjević et al. (2019) B. Djordjević, C. Benedetti, C. Schroeder, E. Esarey,  and W. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas 26 (2019).
  • Djordjević et al. (2018) B. Djordjević, C. Benedetti, C. Schroeder, E. Esarey,  and W. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas 25 (2018).
  • Benedetti et al. (2010) C. Benedetti, C. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. Geddes,  and W. Leemans, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1299 (American Institute of Physics, 2010) pp. 250–255.
  • Benedetti et al. (2017) C. Benedetti, C. B. Schroeder, C. G. R. Geddes, E. Esarey,  and W. P. Leemans, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60, 014002 (2017).
  • Shadwick et al. (2009) B. A. Shadwick, C. B. Schroeder,  and E. Esarey, Physics of Plasmas 16 (2009), 10.1063/1.3124185.
  • Pak et al. (2010) A. Pak, K. Marsh, S. Martins, W. Lu, W. Mori,  and C. Joshi, Physical review letters 104, 025003 (2010).
  • McGuffey et al. (2010) C. McGuffey, A. G. R. Thomas, W. Schumaker, T. Matsuoka, V. Chvykov, F. J. Dollar, G. Kalintchenko, V. Yanovsky, A. Maksimchuk, K. Krushelnick, V. Y. Bychenkov, I. V. Glazyrin,  and A. V. Karpeev, Physical Review Letters 104, 025004 (2010).
  • Chen et al. (2012) M. Chen, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, C. G. R. Geddes,  and W. P. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas 19, 033101 (2012).
  • Gonsalves et al. (2020) A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, C. Benedetti, C. V. Pieronek, S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, S. S. Bulanov, J. van Tilborg, C. G. R. Geddes, C. B. Schroeder, J. Daniels, C. Tóth, L. Obst-Huebl, R. G. W. van den Berg, G. Bagdasarov, N. Bobrova, V. Gasilov, G. Korn, P. Sasorov, W. P. Leemans,  and E. Esarey, Physics of Plasmas 27, 053102 (2020).
  • Kirchen et al. (2020) M. Kirchen, P. Messner, P. Winkler, T. Eichner, H. Thomas, L. Jeppe, M. Schnepp,  and A. R. Maier, Draft 126, 1 (2020).
  • Katsouleas et al. (1987) T. Katsouleas, S. Wilks, J. Dawson,  and J. Su, Part. Accel. 22, 81 (1987).
  • Jauregui et al. (2013) C. Jauregui, J. Limpert,  and A. Tünnermann, Nature photonics 7, 861 (2013).
  • Sprangle et al. (1990b) P. Sprangle, E. Esarey,  and A. Ting, Physical Review A 41, 4463 (1990b).
  • Antonsen Jr and Mora (1995) T. M. Antonsen Jr and P. Mora, Physical review letters 74, 4440 (1995).
  • Kim et al. (2002) K. Y. Kim, I. Alekseev, J. Fan, E. Parra,  and H. M. Milchberg, AIP Conf. Proc. 647, 646 (2002).
  • Yu et al. (2014) L. L. Yu, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, J. L. Vay, C. Benedetti, C. G. R. Geddes, M. Chen,  and W. P. Leemans, Physical Review Letters 112, 125001 (2014).
  • Alejo et al. (2022) A. Alejo, J. Cowley, A. Picksley, R. Walczak,  and S. Hooker, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 25, 011301 (2022).