_u, 
\label{small_K_kick}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_u$ is the number of undulator periods. Intuitively Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\] is just equal to the total energy loss as the electron travels through one undulator. When $K_u$ is increased (thereby resulting in an increased angular deflection) and the finite angular acceptance of the lens, $\theta_m$, taken into account, the on-axis electric field $E_x(x=y=0)$ in the KU is reduced by a factor $F_h(K_u,\gamma \theta_m)\leq1 $. The expression of $F_h(K_u,\gamma \theta_m)$ is derived in [@OSC_val] and its dependence on $K_u$ appears in Fig. \[fig1\] for three cases of $\gamma \theta_m$. There is an additional efficiency factor, $F_u(\kappa_u)=J_0(\kappa_u)-J_1(\kappa_u)$, which accounts the effect of the longitudinal oscillation \[given by $\frac{K_u^2}{8\gamma^2k_u}\sin(2k_u z)$\] of the particle in the KU where $\kappa_u\equiv K_u^2/4(1+K_u^2/2)$. The kick amplitude from Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\] is thus reduced by the factor of $F_h(K_u,\theta_m\gamma)\times F_u(\kappa_u)$.\
The simulation in SRW are performed in the frequency domain: the field frequency components within the PU-radiation bandwidth are propagated and the field amplitude in the time domain inside the KU is computed [@light_optics_ipac16]. This is first done for the case of a single focusing lens using $L_u$ and $\lambda_o$ from Tab. \[tab:TLT\], but varying $N_u$ and other parameters appropriately. For this benchmarking simulation, the distance between the PU and KU centers is taken to be $L_t=19.5$ m (i.e. $L_t\gg L_u$) in order to suppress the depth-of-field effect and the focal length of the lens is $f=L_t/2$.
_ u, 
 \label{small_K_kick}\end{aligned}$$ where $ N_u$ is the number of undulator periods. Intuitively Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\ ] is just equal to the entire department of energy loss as the electron travels through one undulator. When $ K_u$ is increase (thereby leave in an increased angular deflection) and the finite angular credence of the lens, $ \theta_m$, taken into account, the on - bloc electric sphere $ E_x(x = y=0)$ in the KU is reduced by a gene $ F_h(K_u,\gamma \theta_m)\leq1 $. The expression of $ F_h(K_u,\gamma \theta_m)$ is derived in [ @OSC_val ] and its addiction on $ K_u$ appears in Fig.   \[fig1\ ] for three cases of $ \gamma \theta_m$. There is an additional efficiency factor, $ F_u(\kappa_u)=J_0(\kappa_u)-J_1(\kappa_u)$, which accounts the effect of the longitudinal cycle \[given by $ \frac{K_u^2}{8\gamma^2k_u}\sin(2k_u z)$\ ] of the particle in the KU where $ \kappa_u\equiv K_u^2/4(1+K_u^2/2)$. The kick amplitude from Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\ ] is thus reduce by the factor of $ F_h(K_u,\theta_m\gamma)\times F_u(\kappa_u)$.\ 
 The simulation in SRW are perform in the frequency domain: the battlefield frequency components within the PU - radiation bandwidth are propagated and the field amplitude in the time knowledge domain inside the KU is computed [ @light_optics_ipac16 ]. This is first done for the case of a single focusing lens using $ L_u$ and $ \lambda_o$ from Tab.   \[tab: TLT\ ], but varying $ N_u$ and other parameters appropriately. For this benchmarking simulation, the distance between the PU and KU centers is taken to be $ L_t=19.5 $   m (i.e. $ L_t\gg L_u$) in order to suppress the depth - of - field consequence and the focal length of the lens is $ f = L_t/2$.
_u, 
\lwbel{small_K_kick}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_u$ is thg bumber of unsulator oeriods. Intuitively Eq. \[small\_N\_kuck\] iw just equal to the togal energj loss as the wlectron tczvels tmxough lne bnvulator. When $K_u$ is increaved (thereby revuutnng in an increased angular deflectijn) and yhf finite angulwr abcqptahbe of the lens, $\theta_m$, taken intk accouit, the on-axis ekectric field $E_x(x=y=0)$ in the NU id reduced by a fachor $F_h(K_u,\gamna \trwta_m)\leq1 $. The expression of $F_h(K_u,\gamja \theta_m)$ is derived in [@OSC_val] xnd ics dependenxe on $N_u$ appears mn Fig. \[sig1\] for threc cases of $\gamka \theta_m$. Therc is en aeditional efficiency hactor, $F_u(\kappa_u)=J_0(\kappw_u)-J_1(\kappa_u)$, wkich accounts the effwcr of jhe lmngigydival oxcjllatiln \[jiven by $\frzc{K_u^2}{8\gamma^2k_u}\win(2k_u z)$\] of the partocjv in the KU wgere $\kwp[a_u\equiv K_u^2/4(1+K_u^2/2)$. The kick amplitude from Ex. \[sjall\_K\_kick\] is thus reducwd by the factor of $F_j(K_u,\theta_m\damma)\times F_u(\kappa_u)$.\
The simulation in SRW are perfmrmed kn uhc weeeuency domain: the field frequency components rjtnik the PU-radiatiok bandwidth are prppwgsjed and the figld amplithde in the time dolain infide rhe KU is comluted [@light_optics_ipac16]. This us first donv foe the case of a siugle focusiny lens usinb $L_u$ and $\lambda_o$ from Tcb. \[tab:TMT\], but varylng $N_u$ ans other parameterr aipro[riately. For this benchmarhing simuoatipn, the aistsnce bqtween the PU akg KU centers is tanen tl te $L_t=19.5$ m (i.e. $P_t\gg L_u$) in order to suppress thx depth-of-fielc affvct and tke focsl length of ehe lens is $f=L_j/2$.
_u, \label{small_K_kick}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_u$ is the number periods. Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\] just equal to the travels through one When $K_u$ is (thereby resulting in an increased angular and the finite angular acceptance of the lens, $\theta_m$, taken into account, the electric field $E_x(x=y=0)$ in the KU is reduced by a factor $F_h(K_u,\gamma \theta_m)\leq1 The of \theta_m)$ derived in [@OSC_val] and its dependence on $K_u$ appears in Fig. \[fig1\] for three cases of \theta_m$. There is an additional efficiency factor, $F_u(\kappa_u)=J_0(\kappa_u)-J_1(\kappa_u)$, accounts the effect of longitudinal oscillation \[given by $\frac{K_u^2}{8\gamma^2k_u}\sin(2k_u of particle in KU $\kappa_u\equiv The kick amplitude Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\] is thus reduced by the factor of $F_h(K_u,\theta_m\gamma)\times F_u(\kappa_u)$.\ The simulation in SRW are performed the frequency field frequency within PU-radiation are propagated and amplitude in the time domain inside computed [@light_optics_ipac16]. This is first done for the of a focusing lens using $L_u$ and $\lambda_o$ Tab. \[tab:TLT\], but varying $N_u$ and other parameters For this benchmarking simulation, the distance between the PU and KU centers is taken to m (i.e. $L_t\gg L_u$) order to suppress depth-of-field and focal of the is $f=L_t/2$.
_u, 
\label{small_K_kick}\end{aligneD}$$ where $N_u$ is The nuMbeR of UnDulaTor pEriods. IntuitivELy Eq. \[Small\_K\_kick\] is just equal tO the tOtAL eneRGy Loss aS the eleCTrON TraVeLs ThrOuGH oNe undUlaTor. When $k_u$ is increaSed (ThEreby resultiNG iN an increasEd aNgular deflecTioN) and thE fIniTE anguLar AccepTance oF The lenS, $\theta_m$, taKeN Into acCOunt, the ON-AxIs elEctric field $E_x(x=y=0)$ in THe ku is reduced by a fActor $F_H(K_U,\GaMMA \thEta_M)\leq1 $. The expReSsion OF $F_h(K_u,\gaMMa \THETa_m)$ IS derived in [@OSC_Val] and its dePEndEnce on $k_u$ AppEArs in FIg. \[fig1\] FoR ThrEe cases of $\gaMma \tHeta_m$. TherE is an aDDitionaL EfficieNcy facTor, $f_u(\kAppa_U)=j_0(\kApPa_u)-j_1(\kAPpa_U)$, WhIch ACcoUnts the eFfEcT of thE lonGITUDinaL osCillAtion \[Given by $\frac{K_u^2}{8\GamMa^2k_u}\SIn(2k_U z)$\] of tHe parTiclE iN the Ku where $\Kappa_U\eQuiv K_u^2/4(1+K_u^2/2)$. The kick AmplItude from eq. \[sMaLl\_K\_KiCk\] is tHUs reduCed By tHe factoR of $F_h(K_u,\THetA_m\GAMMa)\Times F_u(\kappa_u)$.\
The siMuLATiOn in SRW aRe perfORmEd IN the freqUeNcy DomaIN: The fiEld fREqUency comPonentS WiThIn the PU-RaDiatioN bAndWidTh are PRopaGated aNd the fieLd ampLItude in the time DOmain inside thE kU IS CoMPuteD [@liGht_optics_ipAc16]. ThIS is fIrst DOnE foR The caSe of a SiNGlE Focusing lens using $L_u$ AnD $\lambdA_o$ froM Tab. \[tab:TLT\], but Varying $N_u$ aND OTher paraMeteRS aPPropriately. For This bEnchmarkinG SimulatiOn, the Distance Between thE pu and KU ceNteRs iS taKen TO Be $l_t=19.5$ m (i.e. $L_t\gg L_u$) in ORDer tO sUppress The Depth-of-FieLd eFfeCt aNd The focal lEngth of tHe LeNs Is $F=L_t/2$.
_u, 
\label{small_K_kick}\ end{aligne d}$$whe re$N _u$is t he number of u n dula tor periods. Intuitive ly Eq .\ [sma l l\ _K\_k ick\] i s  j u s t e qu al  to  t h etotal  en ergy lo ss as theele ct ron travelst hr ough one u ndu lator. When$K_ u$ isin cre a sed ( the rebyresult i ng inan increa se d  angul a r defle c t io n) a nd the finite ang u la r  acceptance of  the l en s ,$ \ the ta_ m$, takenin to ac c ount, t h eo n - axi s  electric fie ld $E_x(x=y = 0)$  in th eKUi s redu ced b ya  fa ctor $F_h(K _u,\ gamma \th eta_m) \ leq1 $. The exp ressio n o f $ F_h( K _u ,\ gam ma \th e ta _m) $  is  derived  i n[@OSC _val ] a n d it s d epen dence  on $K_u$ app ear s in Fig . \[f ig1\]  for  t hreecasesof $\ ga mma \theta_m$.Ther e is an a ddi ti ona leffic i ency f act or,  $F_u(\ kappa_u ) =J_ 0( \ k a pp a_u)-J_1(\kappa_u) $, w hi ch accou nts th e  e ff e ct of th elon gitu d i nal o scil l at ion \[gi ven by $\ fr ac{K_u^ 2} {8\gam ma ^2k _u} \sin( 2 k_uz)$\]of the p artic l e in the KU wh e re $\kappa_u\ e qu i v  K _ u^2/ 4(1 +K_u^2/2)$.  The kick  amp l it ude fromEq. \ [s m al l \_K\_kick\] is thus  r educed  by t he factor of$F_h(K_u,\ t h e ta_m\gam ma)\ t im e s F_u(\kappa_u )$.\The simula t ion in S RW ar e perfor med in th e frequenc y d oma in:  th e fi eld frequency c ompo ne nts wit hin  the PU -ra dia tio n b an dwidth ar e propag at ed  a nd  th e fie l d amplit ud e i nthe  time domain  insi de t he  K U  is  comput e d[ @ ligh t_ op tics _ip ac 16].This isfirst d one for t hec aseof  a  single  focusing len susing $L_u $and  $\lam b d a_o$ fro m Tab. \[tab:TLT\], but varying  $N _u$ a nd o ther para met ers ap pro p riatel y. For  this  b enc h m arkin g si mul at ion, the d i s tan ce be tw eenthe PUand KU centers ist ake n to be $L_t= 19. 5$ m ( i. e.$ L_ t \gg  L _ u$) i n order to supp ress the d ep t h- of-field e f fec tand the  focallengt h  of the  lens is$f=L_t/2$ .
_u, 
\label{small_K_kick}\end{aligned}$$_where $N_u$_is the number of_undulator periods._Intuitively_Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\]_is_just equal to_the total energy_loss as the electron_travels through one_undulator._When $K_u$ is increased (thereby resulting in an increased angular deflection) and the finite_angular_acceptance of_the_lens,_$\theta_m$, taken into account, the_on-axis electric field $E_x(x=y=0)$ in_the KU_is reduced by a factor $F_h(K_u,\gamma \theta_m)\leq1 $._The_expression of $F_h(K_u,\gamma_\theta_m)$ is derived in [@OSC_val] and its dependence on_$K_u$ appears in Fig. \[fig1\] for three_cases of $\gamma_\theta_m$._There_is an additional efficiency_factor, $F_u(\kappa_u)=J_0(\kappa_u)-J_1(\kappa_u)$, which accounts the effect_of the longitudinal oscillation \[given by_$\frac{K_u^2}{8\gamma^2k_u}\sin(2k_u z)$\] of the particle in the_KU where $\kappa_u\equiv K_u^2/4(1+K_u^2/2)$. The kick_amplitude from Eq. \[small\_K\_kick\] is_thus reduced_by the factor of $F_h(K_u,\theta_m\gamma)\times_F_u(\kappa_u)$.\
The simulation in_SRW are_performed in the_frequency domain: the field frequency components_within the PU-radiation_bandwidth are propagated and the field_amplitude_in the time_domain_inside_the KU_is computed [@light_optics_ipac16]._This_is first_done_for the case of a single_focusing_lens using $L_u$ and $\lambda_o$ from Tab. \[tab:TLT\],_but varying $N_u$ and_other_parameters appropriately. For this_benchmarking simulation, the distance between_the PU and KU centers is_taken to_be $L_t=19.5$ m_(i.e. $L_t\gg L_u$) in order to suppress the depth-of-field effect and_the focal length of the lens_is $f=L_t/2$.