ArticleScientific reports2022
Targeted generation of complex temporal pulse profiles.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A targeted shaping of complex femtosecond pulse waveforms and their characterization is essential for many spectroscopic applications. A 4f pulse shaper combined with an advanced pulse characterization technique should, in the idealized case, serve this purpose for an arbitrary pulse shape. This is, however, violated in the real experiment by many imperfections and limitations. Although the complex waveform generation has been studied in-depth, the comparison of the effects of various experimental factors on the actual pulse shape has stayed out of focus so far. In this paper, we present an experimental study on the targeted generation and retrieval of complex pulses by using two commonly-used techniques: spatial-light-modulator (SLM)-based 4f pulse shaper and second-harmonic generation frequency-resolved optical gating (FROG) and cross-correlation FROG (XFROG). By combining FROG and XFROG traces, we analyze the pulses with SLM-adjusted complex random phases ranging from simple to very complex waveforms. We demonstrate that the combination of FROG and XFROG ensures highly consistent pulse retrieval, irrespective of the used retrieval algorithm. This enabled us to evaluate the role of various experimental factors on the agreement between the simulated and actual pulse shape. The factors included the SLM pixelation, SLM pixel crosstalk, finite laser focal spot in the pulse shaper, or interference fringes induced by the SLM. In particular, we observe that including the SLM pixelation and crosstalk effect significantly improved the pulse shaping simulation. We demonstrate that the complete simulation can faithfully reproduce the pulse shape. Nevertheless, even in this case, the intensity of individual peaks differs between the retrieved and simulated pulses, typically by 10-20% of the peak value, with the mean standard deviation of 5-9% of the maximum pulse intensity. We discuss the potential sources of remaining discrepancies between the theoretically expected and experimentally retrieved pulse.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.