- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Accelerators and Beams

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Data-driven modeling of a laser-plasma accelerator-based x-ray source

F. Brogren1, S. Jalas2, L. Hübner2, P. Messner2, M. Schnepp3, M. Trunk2, C. Werle2, P. Winkler2, M. Marklund1 et al.

A. Gonoskov1, W. P. Leemans2,3, A. R. Maier2, and M. Kirchen2

PDF

Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 28, 101302 – Published 21 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/dnnw-lfn5

Abstract

Laser-plasma accelerators (LPAs) enable compact, bright x-ray sources, but their practical application demands a significant reduction of beam instabilities that originate from drive laser fluctuations. Moreover, the complexity of the laser-plasma interaction makes it difficult to disentangle and quantify the impact of individual parameters on machine performance. To address this challenge, we develop a data-driven modeling strategy and apply it to an extensive dataset collected during a daylong operation of the LPA-based x-ray source LUX. By making use of an orthogonal-distance-based training objective, our approach reduces bias originating from measurement errors, which allows us to estimate the functional dependencies between laser, accelerated electrons, and generated undulator radiation. In addition, we demonstrate accurate prediction of the x-ray spectrum based on noninvasive measurements, showcasing the potential of our approach for building virtual diagnostics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (49)

  1. T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Laser electron accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267 (1979).
  2. E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1229 (2009).
  3. A. Picksley, J. Stackhouse, C. Benedetti, K. Nakamura, H. E. Tsai, R. Li, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, E. Rockafellow, H. M. Milchberg, C. B. Schroeder, J. van Tilborg, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, and A. J. Gonsalves, Matched guiding and controlled injection in dark-current-free, 10-GeV-class, channel-guided laser-plasma accelerators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 255001 (2024).
  4. 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, Few femtosecond, few kiloampere electron bunch produced by a laser–plasma accelerator, Nat. Phys. 7, 219 (2011).
  5. Z. Guo, S. Liu, B. Zhou, J. Liu, H. Wang, Y. Pi, X. Wang, Y. Mo, B. Guo, J. Hua, Y. Wan, and W. Lu, Preclinical tumor control with a laser-accelerated high-energy electron radiotherapy prototype, Nat. Commun. 16, 1895 (2025).
  6. J. Wenz, S. Schleede, K. Khrennikov, M. Bech, P. Thibault, M. Heigoldt, F. Pfeiffer, and S. Karsch, Quantitative x-ray phase-contrast microtomography from a compact laser-driven betatron source, Nat. Commun. 6, 7568 (2015).
  7. W. Wang, K. Feng, L. Ke, C. Yu, Y. Xu, R. Qi, Y. Chen, Z. Qin, Z. Zhang, M. Fang et al., Free-electron lasing at 27 nanometres based on a laser wakefield accelerator, Nature (London) 595, 516 (2021).
  8. M. Labat et al., Seeded free-electron laser driven by a compact laser-plasma accelerator, Nat. Photonics 17, 150 (2023).
  9. S. K. Barber, F. Kohrell, C. E. Doss, K. Jensen, C. Berger, F. Isono, Z. Eisentraut, S. Schröder, A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, G. R. Plateau, R. A. van Mourik, M. Gracia-Linares, L. Labun, B. M. Hegelich, S. V. Milton, C. G. R. Geddes, J. Osterhoff, C. B. Schroeder, E. H. Esarey, and J. van Tilborg, Greater than 1000-fold gain in a free-electron laser driven by a laser-plasma accelerator with high reliability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 055001 (2025).
  10. 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).
  11. M. Kirchen, S. Jalas, P. Messner, P. Winkler, T. Eichner, L. Hübner, T. Hülsenbusch, L. Jeppe, T. Parikh, M. Schnepp, and A. R. Maier, Optimal beam loading in a laser-plasma accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 174801 (2021).
  12. 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).
  13. L. Rovige, J. Huijts, I. Andriyash, A. Vernier, V. Tomkus, V. Girdauskas, G. Raciukaitis, J. Dudutis, V. Stankevic, P. Gecys, M. Ouille, Z. Cheng, R. Lopez-Martens, and J. Faure, Demonstration of stable long-term operation of a kilohertz laser-plasma accelerator, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 093401 (2020).
  14. A. Döpp, C. Eberle, S. Howard, F. Irshad, J. Lin, and M. Streeter, Data-driven science and machine learning methods in laser–plasma physics, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 11, e55 (2023).
  15. M. Streeter et al., Laser wakefield accelerator modelling with variational neural networks, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 11, e9 (2023).
  16. S. J. D. Dann et al., Laser wakefield acceleration with active feedback at 5 Hz, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22, 041303 (2019).
  17. A. Hanuka, C. Emma, T. Maxwell, A. S. Fisher, B. Jacobson, M. J. Hogan, and Z. Huang, Accurate and confident prediction of electron beam longitudinal properties using spectral virtual diagnostics, Sci. Rep. 11, 2945 (2021).
  18. S. Jalas, M. Kirchen, P. Messner, P. Winkler, L. Hübner, J. Dirkwinkel, M. Schnepp, R. Lehe, and A. R. Maier, Bayesian optimization of a laser-plasma accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 104801 (2021).
  19. R. J. Shalloo et al., Automation and control of laser wakefield accelerators using Bayesian optimization, Nat. Commun. 11, 6355 (2020).
  20. J. Lin, Q. Qian, J. Murphy, A. Hsu, A. Hero, Y. Ma, A. G. R. Thomas, and K. Krushelnick, Beyond optimization—supervised learning applications in relativistic laser-plasma experiments, Phys. Plasmas 28, 083102 (2021).
  21. O. Convery, L. Smith, Y. Gal, and A. Hanuka, Uncertainty quantification for virtual diagnostic of particle accelerators, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 074602 (2021).
  22. A. Sanchez-Gonzalez et al., Accurate prediction of x-ray pulse properties from a free-electron laser using machine learning, Nat. Commun. 8, 15461 (2017).
  23. C. Emma, A. Edelen, M. Hogan, B. O’Shea, G. White, and V. Yakimenko, Machine learning-based longitudinal phase space prediction of particle accelerators, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 21, 112802 (2018).
  24. G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Taylor, Statistical learning, in An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in python (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023), p. 17, 10.1007/978-3-031-38747-0.
  25. G. Shmueli, To explain or to predict?, Stat. Sci. 25, 289 (2010).
  26. P. Mehta, M. Bukov, C. Wang, A. G. R. Day, C. Richardson, C. K. Fisher, and D. J. Schwab, A high-bias, low-variance introduction to machine learning for physicists, Phys. Rep. 810, 1 (2019).
  27. R. J. Carroll, D. Ruppert, L. A. Stefanski, and C. M. Crainiceanu, Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models, 2nd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 2006), p. 1, 10.1201/9781420010138.
  28. J. A. Hutcheon, A. Chiolero, and J. A. Hanley, Random measurement error and regression dilution bias, Br. Med. J. 340, c2289 (2010).
  29. R. J. Adcock, A problem in least squares, Analyst 5, 53 (1878).
  30. C. H. Kummell, Reduction of observation equations which contain more than one observed quantity, Analyst 6, 97 (1879).
  31. L. Leng, T. Zhang, L. Kleinman, and W. Zhu, Ordinary least square regression, orthogonal regression, geometric mean regression and their applications in aerosol science, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 78, 012084 (2007).
  32. J. A. Hausman, W. K. Newey, H. Ichimura, and J. L. Powell, Identification and estimation of polynomial errors-in-variables models, J. Econom. 50, 273 (1991).
  33. S. Schennach, Estimation of nonlinear models with measurement error, Econometrica 72, 33 (2004).
  34. Z. Hu, Z. T. Ke, and J. S. Liu, Measurement error models: From nonparametric methods to deep neural networks, Stat. Sci. 37, 473 (2022).
  35. K. Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks, Neural Netw. 4, 251 (1991).
  36. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/dnnw-lfn5 for details on choice of model parameters σx,σy and weight regularization in the orthogonal distance model as well as derivation of effects of chromaticity induced measurement errors and additional information on the predictive model.
  37. K. P. Murphy, Machine learning: A probabilistic perspective, in Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning Series (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012), pp. 225–227, 252.
  38. S. C. Hora, Aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in probability elicitation with an example from hazardous waste management, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 54, 217 (1996).
  39. M. H. Shaker and E. Hüllermeier, Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty with random forests, in Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis XVIII (Springer International Publishing, 2020), p. 444, 10.1007/978-3-030-44584-3_35.
  40. B. Efron, Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife, Ann. Stat. 7, 1 (1979).
  41. J. Franke and M. H. Neumann, Bootstrapping neural networks, Neural Comput. 12, 1929 (2000).
  42. C. Molnar, 8.5 permutation feature importance, in Interpretable Machine Learning (Leanpub, 2020), https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/feature-importance.html.
  43. ensemble-pytorch, pytorch (software), version 0.9.1, https://github.com/TorchEnsemble-Community/Ensemble-Pytorch.
  44. R. Lehe, M. Kirchen, I. A. Andriyash, B. B. Godfrey, and J.-L. Vay, A spectral, quasi-cylindrical and dispersion-free particle-in-cell algorithm, Comput. Phys. Commun. 203, 66 (2016).
  45. M. Santarsiero, D. Aiello, R. Borghi, and S. Vicalvi, Focusing of axially symmetric flattened Gaussian beams, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 633 (1997).
  46. M. Tzoufras, W. Lu, F. S. Tsung, C. Huang, W. B. Mori, T. Katsouleas, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Beam loading in the nonlinear regime of plasma-based acceleration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 145002 (2008).
  47. A. Stolow, A. E. Bragg, and D. M. Neumark, Femtosecond time-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy, Chem. Rev. 104, 1719 (2004).
  48. J. Chastain and R. C. King, Jr., Handbook of X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, edited by J. Chastain and R. C. King, Jr(Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN, 1992), Vol. 40, p. 10.
  49. J. Yano and V. K. Yachandra, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, Photosynth. Res. 102, 241 (2009).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 28, 101302– Published 21 October, 2025
  • Received 28 March 2025
  • Accepted 26 September 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation