Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Two-colour balanced optical cross-correlator using fibre-coupled PPLN waveguides

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read First fibre-coupled two-colour BOXC reaches 5.11 mV/fs sensitivity.

desk verdict A credible first fibre-coupled two-colour BOXC with a directly measured sensitivity; the 5x-over-bulk claim needs a transparent normalization before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01812 v1 pith:4IZ2FYMV submitted 2025-06-02 physics.optics physics.acc-phphysics.ins-det

Jonathan Christie , James R. Henderson , Edward W. Snedden , Laura Corner This is my paper
classification physics.opticsphysics.acc-phphysics.ins-det PACS 42.65.Ky42.65.Wi
keywords balancedopticalcross-correlatorfibre-coupledPPLNwaveguidesum-frequencygenerationfemtosecondsynchronisationtimingjitterlaser
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents the first fully fibre-coupled two-colour balanced optical cross-correlator (BOXC), a device that measures timing jitter between laser pulses of different wavelengths. It uses two periodically poled lithium niobate (PPLN) waveguide crystals to generate sum-frequency light at 528.8 nm from 1560 nm and 800 nm pulses, and reads out the difference signal with a balanced photodetector. The measured sensitivity is 5.11 mV/fs, about five times higher than comparable bulk-optic two-colour BOXCs after accounting for transimpedance gain and detector responsivity. A sympathetic reader would care because an all-fibre BOXC removes free-space alignment instabilities and, if the sensitivity claim holds, offers a practical route to few-femtosecond and possibly sub-femtosecond synchronisation between an optical master oscillator and a different-colour experiment laser.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is sum-frequency generation in type-0 phase-matched PPLN waveguides, where the high nonlinear coefficient and long interaction length produce far stronger cross-correlation signals than bulk crystals. A second, equally important mechanism is chirp engineering: the 800 nm pulses are stretched and positively chirped by fibre dispersion, and the authors deliberately add negative group delay dispersion to the 1560 nm pulses so that the two chirps have opposite signs. This makes the instantaneous sum-frequency shift stay near zero only in a narrow temporal window, which narrows the cross-correlation trace and increases the error-signal slope, as confirmed by SNLO simulations.

What would settle it

Measure a bulk-optic two-colour BOXC under the same pulse wavelengths, durations, powers, and detector settings as used here, and compare the error-signal slopes after the same normalisation; if the ratio to the fibre-coupled value falls below five, the headline comparison is overstated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims the first demonstration of a two-colour fully fibre-coupled BOXC, built from two 5 mm type-0 phase-matched PPLN ridge waveguides. Sum-frequency generation between 1560 nm (OMO) and 800 nm (experiment laser) pulses produces 528.8 nm light; the two waveguides are fed with different relative delays, and the difference of their sum-frequency voltages forms the timing error signal. With the 1560 nm pulses given a large negative group delay dispersion (about -5.4 x $10^{5}$ $fs^{2}$) to counteract the positive chirp acquired by the 800 nm pulses, the cross-correlation traces narrow and the error-signal slope reaches 5.11 mV/fs at 14 dBm EDFA power and 8 m of added fibre. The authors report conversion efficiencies of 4.7% and 8.8% for the two waveguides, more than nine times the approximately 0.5% value quoted for BBO in this interaction, and attribute the improvement to the high effective nonlinear coefficient (16.1 pm/V) and waveguide confinement.

Load-bearing premise

The five-times sensitivity claim assumes that the published bulk-optic BOXC sensitivity can be directly compared once scaled by transimpedance gain and detector responsivity, even though no bulk-optic BOXC was measured in the same apparatus with the same pulse durations and detection bandwidth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the demonstration holds, two-colour fibre-coupled BOXCs can replace bulk-optic designs for laser-to-laser synchronisation in accelerator and X-ray free-electron laser facilities, eliminating free-space alignment drift.
  • The measured sensitivity of 5.11 mV/fs, about five times the normalised bulk-optic value, indicates that few-femtosecond synchronisation between a 1560 nm master oscillator and an 800 nm laser is achievable with an all-fibre package.
  • The conversion efficiencies measured here (4.7% and 8.8%) are more than nine times the quoted BBO value, implying that the sensitivity gain comes from the waveguide nonlinearity and confinement, not from higher input power.
  • The chirp-matching result gives a practical design rule: adding negative GDD to one pulse to oppose the other pulse's positive chirp improves both trace amplitude and width, so dispersion management is a lever for future sensitivity gains.
  • The paper's own optimisation list, including splicing fibre components, using wavelength-matched splitters, and compressing pulses, points to further sensitivity increases beyond the current value.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the factor-of-five comparison rests on normalising the published bulk-optic sensitivity by transimpedance gain and detector responsivity without a same-setup bulk measurement; a direct side-by-side comparison would harden the claim.
  • Inference: if the chirp-gating mechanism is robust, the same two-colour fibre BOXC architecture could be adapted to other wavelength pairs used in timing distribution, not only 1560 nm and 800 nm.
  • Inference: the paper's environmental stability argument is plausible but untested; the real payoff of the fibre-coupled design would be demonstrated by long-term timing-jitter measurements under temperature and vibration changes, which the authors list as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports, for the first time to the authors' knowledge, a two-colour fully fibre-coupled balanced optical cross-correlator (BOXC). The device uses two periodically poled lithium niobate (PPLN) ridge waveguides to generate sum-frequency radiation between 1560 nm and 800 nm pulses, with the 1560 nm pulses chirped negatively and the 800 nm pulses chirped positively through fibre dispersion. The authors present SNLO simulations showing that increasing the negative chirp of the 1560 nm pulse narrows the cross-correlation trace and increases its peak irradiance, and they verify this trend experimentally. They measure conversion efficiencies of η′ = 4.7% and 8.8% for the two waveguides and report a maximum BOXC sensitivity of 5.11 mV/fs, which they state is five times greater than comparable bulk-optic BOXCs after normalizing for transimpedance gain and photodetector responsivity.

Significance. If the claims are correct, this is a meaningful advance: a fully fibre-coupled two-colour BOXC would reduce alignment sensitivity and improve long-term stability for laser-to-laser synchronization at accelerator and FEL facilities. The direct measurement of the error-signal slope (5.11 mV/fs) is a concrete, falsifiable result, and the paper clearly explains the design logic and the role of chirp in shaping the cross-correlation. The use of PPLN waveguides with a large effective nonlinearity (d_eff = 16.1 pm/V) compared with BBO is physically well motivated. However, the quantitative headline comparison to bulk-optic BOXCs is not checkable from the manuscript, and the absolute sensitivity has no reported uncertainty, so the strength of the central claim is currently limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, final paragraph and Abstract] The claim that the measured sensitivity of 5.11 mV/fs is "five times greater than comparable bulk-optic two-colour BOXCs after accounting for TI gain and photodetector responsivity [7]" is not substantiated in the manuscript. The reference sensitivity value from [7], the reference detector parameters, the scaling formula, and the pulse duration/wavelength/bandwidth conditions of the reference measurement are not given, and no bulk-optic BOXC was measured on the same setup. This comparison is load-bearing for the abstract and conclusion. The authors should either provide the full normalization calculation and the reference parameters, or restrict the claim to the directly measured absolute sensitivity.
  2. [§4.3, Fig. 9(b)] The headline sensitivity of 5.11 mV/fs is reported without any uncertainty. The slope is presumably obtained from a linear fit of the error signal around zero crossing; please report the fit uncertainty and systematic contributions such as the scan-rate calibration from Eqs. (8)-(9), oscilloscope timebase accuracy, photodetector nonlinearity, and any drift during the measurement. Without an uncertainty, the factor-of-five claim is unquantified even if the normalization issue in the previous comment is resolved.
  3. [§4.2, conversion efficiency comparison] The conversion-efficiency comparison to BBO (~0.5% from ref. [6]) is presented as supporting evidence for higher BOXC sensitivity, but conversion efficiency is not the same as end-to-end BOXC sensitivity, which also depends on pulse focusing/overlap, cross-correlation trace width, and the detection chain. The BBO value is quoted without the corresponding experimental conditions (pulse duration, wavelength, average power), and the comparison may therefore be misleading. This is a supporting claim, not the central one, but it should be reworded to emphasize that the waveguides have higher conversion efficiency under the specific conditions tested, rather than implying a direct sensitivity equivalence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (3)] The rendered equation for the broadened pulse duration contains stray characters ("vt") that appear to be a LaTeX artifact; please correct the typesetting.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (10)] The factor 0.88 for sech^2-shaped pulses is applied to the 800 nm pulse, which is heavily chirped and far from transform-limited (39 ps versus 24.5 fs bandwidth limit); the resulting peak-power estimate should be flagged as an approximation, and its impact on the quoted conversion efficiencies should be stated.
  3. [§3.1, Figure 4 and surrounding text] The explanation of why positive versus negative chirp leads to different phase-matching behaviour is dense and difficult to follow; a short qualitative summary or a simplified schematic would aid the reader in understanding the key mechanism before the simulation results.
  4. [§5, Conclusion] The conclusion repeats the "five times greater" claim without referencing the normalization details, which are absent from §4.3; this should be made consistent with the revised presentation requested in the major comments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the 5.11 mV/fs sensitivity is a direct measurement and the chirp-gating simulations are genuine predictions; only the conversion-efficiency normalization borrows its SFG pulse duration from the SNLO model.

  1. other [Section 4.2, Eqs. (10)-(12), Table 1 footnote c]
    "To estimate the pulse duration of the 528.8 nm pulse exiting the waveguide, SNLO was used to simulate the nonlinear interaction at the experiment parameters in Table 1 and the FWHM of the sum-frequency irradiance plot was taken."

    η′ (Eq. 12) is normalized by peak powers from Eq. (10), with the 528.8 nm peak power scaling as 1/τ528 and the 1560 nm peak power using the 'expected' 3.9 ps duration from Section 4.1. Neither duration is measured: τ528 ≈ 6 ps is taken from the SNLO simulation, whose inputs are the same measured/expected pulse durations (τ800 = 39 ps, τ1560 ≈ 3.9 ps) and crystal parameters used in the efficiency calculation. The 'measured' η′ values therefore inherit the simulation's assumptions (linear chirp, no SPM) by construction, so the >9× comparison with BBO shifts if the simulated SFG duration is inaccurate. This is a normalization coupling, not a full reduction: the 5.11 mV/fs sensitivity and the Fig. 5 vs Fig. 9 chirp-gating test are independent, and the BBO baseline is external.

full rationale

The central claims are experimental and self-contained. The headline sensitivity (5.11 mV/fs) is a directly measured slope of the balanced-detector voltage versus pulse delay; the delay axis is calibrated by an independent frequency-offset method (Eqs. 8–9: δT ≈ δf/f²₈₀₀, scan rate 1.2 ps/µs) from measured repetition rates, with no parameter fitted to produce the number. The SNLO simulations in Section 3.1 are genuine predictions: varying the 1560 nm GDD predicts that more negative GDD narrows the cross-correlation trace and raises peak SFG irradiance, and the experiment confirms this trend, with maximum sensitivity at GDD ≈ −5.4×10⁵ fs² versus the simulated optimum of −5.0×10⁵ fs² and no adjustable parameter tuned to force agreement; the residual discrepancy (0.8 ps simulated trace width vs 1.1–1.3 ps measured) is explicitly attributed to unmodeled self-phase modulation (Section 4.3), which is an acknowledged limitation, not a circular step. There are no self-citations: the cited waveguide-BOXC prior work (refs. [11]–[13]) and the two-colour BOXC baselines (refs. [6], [7]) are all from other groups, so no 'uniqueness theorem' or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior publications. The 'five times greater than bulk-optic BOXCs' claim rests on an unshown normalization of the external value in ref. [7] (reference sensitivity, detector parameters, and scaling formula are not given, and no bulk BOXC was measured on the same setup); this is a verifiability/correctness risk that the skeptic attack rightly identifies, but it is not circularity because the present value is measured and the benchmark is external. The one mild self-referential coupling is in Section 4.2: the conversion efficiencies η′ are normalized using the SNLO-simulated 528.8 nm pulse duration (~6 ps, Table 1 footnote c) and the expected 3.9 ps 1560 nm duration, so the reported η′ = 4.7%/8.8% are partially defined by the simulation rather than purely measured; this shifts the >9× comparison with BBO if the simulated SFG duration is inaccurate, but it does not affect the headline sensitivity or the chirp-gating prediction test. Overall score 2 reflects this single minor normalization coupling; the paper is otherwise a straightforward experimental demonstration with external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity measurement is direct and needs no fitted parameters. The efficiency claims rely on an SNLO-estimated SFG pulse duration and an expected 1560 nm duration, and the comparison to bulk-optic BOXCs assumes the reference is comparable after normalization. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The linearly chirped pulse model in Equations 5-7, with negligible self-phase modulation, correctly describes the sum-frequency interaction.
    Used throughout Section 3 to explain chirp gating and to select GDD values; the authors later invoke self-phase modulation to explain deviations between measured and simulated trace widths, so the assumption is only approximately valid.
  • domain assumption SNLO plane-wave short-pulse simulations with zero losses and zero nonlinear refractive indices adequately predict the relative performance of the waveguides.
    Section 3.1; the simulation results guide the choice of 1560 nm GDD and estimate the SFG pulse duration used for conversion efficiencies.
  • domain assumption The expected 1560 nm pulse duration of ~3.9 ps and the SNLO-estimated 528.8 nm duration of ~6 ps are accurate enough for the conversion efficiency calculations.
    Used in Equations 10 and 12; the 1560 nm duration is calculated, not measured, and the 528.8 nm duration is a simulation estimate.
  • domain assumption The bulk-optic BOXC result in reference [7] is directly comparable after transimpedance-gain and responsivity normalization.
    Supports the headline '5 times greater' claim; no bulk-optic BOXC was measured in the same setup and the normalization is not fully specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-colour balanced optical cross-correlator using fibre-coupled PPLN waveguides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IZ2FYMV

@misc{pith2026250601812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-colour balanced optical cross-correlator using fibre-coupled PPLN waveguides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IZ2FYMV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01812}
}
abstract

We present a two-colour fully fibre-coupled balanced optical cross-correlator (BOXC) based on sum-frequency generation (SFG) between 1560 nm and 800 nm laser pulses using waveguides implemented in type-0 phase-matched periodically poled LiNbO$_{3}$ (PPLN) crystals. The interaction has an effective nonlinear coefficient of $d_{eff}$ = 16.1 pm/V, many times higher than comparable nonlinear crystals used for this SFG interaction such as barium borate (BBO). The resulting sensitivity of the cross-correlator is measured to be 5.11 mV/fs, five times greater than current bulk-optic BOXCs after accounting for differences in transimpedance gain and photodetector responsivity, with the potential for significantly higher sensitivity after optimisations to the cross-correlator design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Layout of the two-colour fully fibre-coupled BOXC. The fibre delay stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Images of the two-colour fully fibre-coupled BOXC. (a) The polarisation control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SNLO parameters used to simulate the cross-correlation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the irradiances and frequency shifts of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of peak sum-frequency irradiance against pulse delay for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Experiment setup for measuring the sensitivity of the two-colour fully [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Plot of peak cross-correlation trace voltage against temperature for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of increasing EDFA output power on the BOXC voltage error signal. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Effect of increasing 1560 nm single-mode fibre length on the BOXC voltage error signal for an EDFA output power of 14 dBm. (b) Cross-correlation traces and BOXC error signal for an EDFA output power of 14 dBm and 8 m of additional 1560 nm single-mode fibre added be…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Two Color Balanced Optical Cross Correlator to Synchronize Distributed Lasers for SHINE Project,

    C. L. Li, L. Feng, B. Liu,et al., “Two Color Balanced Optical Cross Correlator to Synchronize Distributed Lasers for SHINE Project,” inProc. IBIC’21,(JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2021), no. 10 in International Beam Instrumentation Conference, pp. 370–372.doi:10.18429/JACoW-IBIC2021-WEPP05

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-ibic2021-wepp05 2021

  2. [6]

    Femtosecond all-optical synchronization of an X-ray free-electron laser,

    S. Schulz, I. Grguraš, C. Behrenset al., “Femtosecond all-optical synchronization of an X-ray free-electron laser,” Nat. Commun.6, 5938 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [1]

    Ultrafast structural dynamics of photo-reactions observed by time-resolved x-ray cross-correlation analysis,

    P. Vester, I. A. Zaluzhnyy, R. P. Kurtaet al., “Ultrafast structural dynamics of photo-reactions observed by time-resolved x-ray cross-correlation analysis,” Struct. Dyn.6, 024301 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [2]

    Efficiency and energy spread in laser-wakefield acceleration,

    A. J. Reitsma, R. A. Cairns, R. Binghamet al., “Efficiency and energy spread in laser-wakefield acceleration,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 1–4 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [3]

    Time-resolved pump-probe experiments at the LCLS,

    J. M. Glownia, J. Cryan, J. Andreassonet al., “Time-resolved pump-probe experiments at the LCLS,” Opt. Express 18, 17620 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [4]

    Ultra-precise timing and synchronization for large-scale scientific instruments,

    M. Xin, K. Şafak, and F. X. Kärtner, “Ultra-precise timing and synchronization for large-scale scientific instruments,” Optica 5, 1564 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [5]

    Few-Femtosecond Facility-Wide Synchronization of the European XFEL,

    S. Schulz, M. K. Czwalinna, M. Felberet al., “Few-Femtosecond Facility-Wide Synchronization of the European XFEL,”in Proc.FEL’19, (JACoWPublishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019), no.39inFreeElectronLaserConference, pp. 318–321.https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-FEL2019-WEB04

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-fel2019-web04 2019

  8. [8]

    Attosecond XFEL for pump–probe experiments,

    H.-S. Kang and I. S. Ko, “Attosecond XFEL for pump–probe experiments,” Nat. Photonics14, 7–8 (2020). doi:10.1038/s41566-019-0570-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41566-019-0570-8 2020

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Tunable isolated attosecond X-ray pulses with gigawatt peak power from a free-electron laser,

    J. Duris, S. Li, T. Driver,et al., “Tunable isolated attosecond X-ray pulses with gigawatt peak power from a free-electron laser,” Nat. Photonics14, 30–36 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Attosecond physics,

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, “Attosecond physics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 163–234 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Fiber-coupled balanced optical cross-correlator using PPKTP waveguides,

    P. T. Callahan, K. Safak, P. Battle,et al., “Fiber-coupled balanced optical cross-correlator using PPKTP waveguides,” Opt. Express22, 9749–9758 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Extreme-Timing-Resolution with Waveguide-Based Balanced Optical Cross- Correlators,

    K. Şafak, A. Dai, M. Xin,et al., “Extreme-Timing-Resolution with Waveguide-Based Balanced Optical Cross- Correlators,” inConference on Lasers and Electro-Optics,(Optica Publishing Group, 2022), p. STh5N.3.doi: 10.1364/CLEO_SI.2022.STh5N.3

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Guided wave optics in periodically poled KTP: quadratic nonlinearity and prospects for attosecond jitter characterization,

    A. H. Nejadmalayeri, F. N. C. Wong, T. D. Roberts,et al., “Guided wave optics in periodically poled KTP: quadratic nonlinearity and prospects for attosecond jitter characterization,” Opt. Lett.34, 2522–2524 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-II) Conceptual Design Report,

    J. Stohr, “Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-II) Conceptual Design Report,” OSTI (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Abela, A

    R. Abela, A. Aghababyan, M. Altarelli,et al., XFEL: The European X-Ray Free-Electron Laser - Technical Design Report (DESY, 2006), pp. 456–465

    2006

  8. [16]

    CLARA conceptual design report,

    J. A. Clarke, D. Angal-Kalinin, N. Bliss,et al., “CLARA conceptual design report,” J. Instrum.9, T05001 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    SNLO Classic (Free Version),

    AS-Photonics, “SNLO Classic (Free Version),”https://as-photonics.com/products/snlo/ (2023). Accessed: 2024-10-05

    2023

  10. [18]

    Channel Waveguides,

    R. Paschotta, “Channel Waveguides,” RP Photonics Encyclopedia.https://www.rp-photonics.com/ channel_waveguides.html. Accessed: 2025-02-05

    2025

  11. [19]

    V. G. Dimitriev, G. G. Gurzadyan, and D. N. Nikogosyan,Handbook of Nonlinear Optical Crystals(Springer, 1999), pp. 96–103, 119–126, Springer series in optical sciences; v. 64, 3rd ed.doi:10.1007/978-3-540-46793-9

    1999 doi

  12. [20]

    PPLN Guide: Overview,

    HC Photonics, “PPLN Guide: Overview,”https://www.hcphotonics.com/ppln-guide-overview (2017). Accessed: 2024-10-03

    2017

  13. [21]

    Yariv,Optical Electronics in Modern Communications(Oxford University Press, 1997), chap

    A. Yariv,Optical Electronics in Modern Communications(Oxford University Press, 1997), chap. 3, Oxford series in electrical and computer engineering; v. 1, 5th ed

    1997

  14. [22]

    780-HP Dispersion,

    Coherent, “780-HP Dispersion,” https://www.coherent.com/resources/application-note/ components-and-accessories/specialty-optical-fibers/780-hp-dispersion.pdf .Ac- cessed: 2024-10-02

    2024

  15. [23]

    SMF-28-100 Specifications Sheet,

    Thorlabs, “SMF-28-100 Specifications Sheet,” https://www.thorlabs.com/drawings/ 64ef691ec957b00c-DE4B27E2-DEED-6A67-F1093B31EC3829AB/SMF-28-100-SpecSheet. pdf (2015). Accessed: 2025-02-07

    2015

  16. [24]

    Analyticalinsightsintoself-phasemodulation: beyondthebasictheory,

    A.Zheltikov,“Analyticalinsightsintoself-phasemodulation: beyondthebasictheory,”Opt.Express 26,17571–17577 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Efficient generation of narrow-bandwidth picosecond pulses by frequency doubling of femtosecond chirped pulses,

    F. Raoult, A. C. L. Boscheron, D. Husson,et al., “Efficient generation of narrow-bandwidth picosecond pulses by frequency doubling of femtosecond chirped pulses,” Opt. Lett.23, 1117–1119 (1998)

    1998

  18. [26]

    Balanced Amplified Photodetectors Operation Manual,

    Thorlabs, “Balanced Amplified Photodetectors Operation Manual,” https://www.thorlabs. com/drawings/64ef691ec957b00c-DE4B27E2-DEED-6A67-F1093B31EC3829AB/ PDB450A-Manual.pdf (2019). Accessed: 2025-02-06

    2019

  19. [27]

    A 750-mW, continuous-wave, solid-state laser source at 313 nm for cooling and manipulating trapped 9Be+ ions,

    A. C. Wilson, C. Ospelkaus, A. P. VanDevender,et al., “A 750-mW, continuous-wave, solid-state laser source at 313 nm for cooling and manipulating trapped 9Be+ ions,” Appl. Phys. B105, 741–748 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Sech2-shaped Pulses,

    R. Paschotta, “Sech2-shaped Pulses,” RP Photonics Encyclopedia.https://www.rp-photonics.com/ sech2_shaped_pulses.html. Accessed: 2025-02-07

    2025

  21. [29]

    Ultrafast Laser Systems Product Catalog,

    Coherent, “Ultrafast Laser Systems Product Catalog,” https://www.coherent.com/resources/ training-catalog/lasers/COHR_RLScatalog2021_interactive_lr.pdf (2021). Accessed: 2025-02-07

    2021

  22. [30]

    ORIGAMILP–Ultra-lownoisefemtosecondlasermodule,

    NKTPhotonics,“ORIGAMILP–Ultra-lownoisefemtosecondlasermodule,” https://ara.ae/wp-content/ uploads/2020/12/Onefive-ORIGAMI-Ultra-low-noise-femtosecond-laser.pdf (2019). Accessed: 2025-02-07

    2019

  23. [31]

    Collinear and non-collinear sum-frequency mixing in𝛽-BBO for a tunable 195-198 nm all-solid-state laser system,

    J. Lublinski, M. Müller, F. Laeriet al., “Collinear and non-collinear sum-frequency mixing in𝛽-BBO for a tunable 195-198 nm all-solid-state laser system,” Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt.61, 529–532 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.