Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

AOM-based ultra-low noise laser intensity control up to the MHz range

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By pairing two feedback loops with a feedforward branch on acousto-optic modulators, this paper achieves -155 dB/Hz relative intensity noise at hundreds of kHz and about 1.5 MHz control bandwidth.

desk verdict Credible AOM-based intensity control pushes bandwidth into the MHz range, but the headline RIN sits only 3 dB above the detector floor—so the absolute number is an upper bound until cross-checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03547 v1 pith:5XHIYHUP submitted 2026-08-04 physics.optics cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.ins-det

Christian Partes , Jonas Auch , Eduard Heidt , Kirill Karpov , Florian Kiesel , Christian Gro{ss} This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.quant-gasphysics.ins-det
keywords relativeintensitynoiseacousto-opticmodulatorfeedforwardcontrolfeedbacklaserstabilizationopticallatticeMHzbandwidthRINsuppression
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

The paper shows that an acousto-optic modulator (AOM), usually limited to a few hundred kHz of control bandwidth, can stabilize laser intensity up to the MHz range when two standard feedback loops are joined by a feedforward branch and the beam path inside the AOM crystal is shortened and focused. On a titanium-sapphire laser at 841 nm, the combined controller reduces relative intensity noise to about -155 dB/Hz between 10 kHz and 200 kHz, keeps noise below -145 dB/Hz up to 1.2 MHz, and reaches a closed-loop bandwidth of roughly 1.5 MHz. This matters because optical-lattice and quantum-gas experiments need low intensity noise at high Fourier frequencies, and AOMs are attractive because they handle high optical powers and simple drive electronics. The same system also ramps the output from zero to maximum in tens of milliseconds, so it can serve as both stabilizer and power modulator. The authors attribute the result to their particular combination of actuators and control topology, with feedforward supplying the largest share of noise suppression at high frequencies.

What carries the argument

The core object is the two-branch control topology built around two AOMs: a slow DC branch with a digital PI controller and gain-scheduling linearization on a double-pass AOM handles average power and low-frequency drift; a fast AC branch combines an analog PID feedback signal with a feedforward signal on a second AOM, whose zeroth-order transmitted beam is used as the output. The feedforward branch measures noise before a fiber delay line and applies an inverted correction to the same actuator as the feedback, while the beam is focused to a ~50 µm waist near the acoustic transducer to cut the AOM response to 65 ns. The load-bearing relations are the AOM power-transfer response P_out/P_in ∝

What would settle it

Measure the controlled output with a second, independent low-noise detector chain (different photodiode and amplifier) while simultaneously recording beam pointing after the AOM; if the measured floor shifts by more than a few dB or tracks the substitute detector's own noise floor, the -155 dB/Hz level was not the true output RIN.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an acousto-optic modulator, long considered too slow for high-frequency intensity stabilization, can be made to suppress laser relative intensity noise up to the MHz range. The authors build a two-stage controller: a slow digital feedback loop on a double-pass AOM sets and holds the average power, while a fast analog loop and a feedforward branch act together on a second AOM. The feedforward path picks off the noise before a 27 m fiber delay and applies an inverted correction, giving it a head start; the feedback path cleans what remains. Optimizing the beam through the second AOM—a ~50 µm waist close to the acoustic transducer—cuts the actuator response to

Load-bearing premise

The claimed -155 dB/Hz floor rests on the out-of-loop photodiode PD-OUT faithfully measuring the output intensity noise, with no correlated artifact from beam pointing, polarization drift, amplifier noise, or photodiode nonlinearity hiding or creating that level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AOM-based intensity control can reach about 1.5 MHz closed-loop bandwidth, with total noise reduction at or above 29 dB up to 700 kHz.
  • The feedforward branch delivers 23 dB of suppression at 700 kHz, so feedforward, not feedback alone, is the dominant high-frequency noise killer.
  • The RIN spectrum stays below -145 dB/Hz up to 1.2 MHz and at -155 dB/Hz in the 10-200 kHz band, meeting the demands of optical lattice experiments at wavelengths where 1064 nm commercial lasers are not usable.
  • The system can ramp the average output from zero to maximum in tens of milliseconds, and the shown instability on fast falling edges is a fixable control-signal saturation issue.
  • Photodiodes with lower electronic noise and shot noise could lower the achievable RIN below -155 dB/Hz.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the architecture uses only free-space AOMs and a fiber delay, the same controller should transfer directly to other wavelengths and multi-watt powers, limited mainly by AOM damage thresholds and fiber choice; the paper demonstrates 170 mW at 841 nm but states the scaling rationale.
  • The feedforward branch's 23 dB suppression at 700 kHz suggests that a digitally adjustable delay line, instead of a fixed SMA cable, could tune the feedforward timing in situ and push the usable bandwidth even closer to the AOM's 65 ns response limit.
  • If the -155 dB/Hz floor is confirmed by an independent detector, the practical noise bottleneck moves to the photodiode; using lower-gain, higher-power detectors could approach the -158 dB/Hz estimate or lower.
  • For quantum-gas experiments, this single platform could replace the common pair of a slow AOM power servo and a separate fast EOM noise eater, simplifying the optical path and increasing transmission, at the cost of the added complexity of the combined controller.
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 an AOM-based laser intensity stabilization system that combines a slow DC feedback branch with a fast AC branch implementing both feedback and feedforward control on a second AOM. The authors report a relative intensity noise (RIN) suppression down to -155 dB/Hz from 10 kHz to 200 kHz, with the spectrum remaining below -145 dB/Hz up to 1.2 MHz and a claimed closed-loop control bandwidth of approximately 1.5 MHz. They also characterize a gain-scheduling linearization of the DC branch and demonstrate dynamic intensity ramps with 10-50 ms time scales. The measurement relies on an out-of-loop photodiode (PD-OUT) whose estimated noise floor is -158 dB/Hz, only 3 dB below the claimed RIN level.

Significance. If the headline RIN value is robust, this is a significant advance for AOM-based intensity control, extending the usable bandwidth beyond the typical few hundred kHz and combining two feedback loops with feedforward on a single actuator. The paper is careful in several respects: it provides a noise-floor model for the photodiodes, measures step responses of the AOM and summing amplifier, releases data on Zenodo, and compares spectra with and without feedforward. However, the central quantitative claim of -155 dB/Hz rests on a single out-of-loop photodiode whose estimated floor is only 3 dB below the reported value, and no independent verification of the detector floor is presented. This gap must be addressed before the absolute RIN claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 / Methods 8.3] The claimed RIN floor of -155 dB/Hz is only 3 dB above the estimated PD-OUT floor of -158 dB/Hz (S_min = 2(S_el + S_sn), Methods 8.3). The paper itself attributes the 3 dB discrepancy to electronic noise from the summing amplifier or other components, which is exactly the mechanism that would raise the actual detector floor to -155 dB/Hz. No independent out-of-loop verification is shown: there is no calibrated intensity-modulation injection, no second photodiode in the same beam, and no cross-spectral measurement. As the headline result is the absolute RIN level, the measurement must distinguish optical RIN from detector and electronics noise. I recommend adding an in-situ calibration of the measurement floor, e.g., by injecting a known intensity modulation and measuring the photodiode response, or by performing a two-detector cross-spectral measurement, and reporting the resulting confi
  2. [Section 2] PD-OUT and PD-FB2 are placed in the two output ports of the final HWP-PBS (Figure 1a). If the control loop reduces common-mode intensity noise but differential polarization or beam-pointing fluctuations affect the transmitted and reflected ports unequally, the out-of-loop port may not represent the actual stabilized output. This is a load-bearing assumption for the absolute RIN measurement. The manuscript does not quantify the polarization or pointing stability of the output beam or compare the two ports simultaneously. A simple test would be to swap the roles of the two photodiodes or to record the RIN from both ports concurrently and show that they agree within the claimed accuracy.
  3. [Section 4 / Figure 3] Figure 3 shows RIN spectra without error bars or repeated measurements. Given that the spectrum flattens at -155 dB/Hz, only 3 dB above the estimated detector floor, the lack of statistical uncertainty is particularly limiting. The flattening could be a detector-floor artifact rather than an optical noise floor. Please provide multiple traces or a statistical confidence interval, and preferably an in-situ floor measurement as described above, so that the reader can assess whether the -155 dB/Hz level is real optical RIN.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The statement 'the closed-loop control bandwidth is approximately 1.5 MHz, with the servo bump located at around 4.8 MHz' needs a clear definition. Is this the unity-gain frequency, the -3 dB suppression point, or inferred from the step response? The step response in Methods 8.1 measures the AOM-plus-photodiode response, not the closed-loop transfer function. Please clarify how the bandwidth is determined.
  2. [Figure 3] Adding a legend to the figure would improve readability. The colors are described in the caption, but a direct label on the figure would help.
  3. [Methods 8.3] Equation (2) defines S_sn(f) = 2e/I_p, which is white noise and does not depend on frequency. The notation S_sn(f) with a frequency argument is slightly misleading; consider writing S_sn = 2e/I_p and noting that it is frequency-independent.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues such as '0 th' instead of '0th' and 'P opt' inconsistently formatted. Also, 'F ALC' appears without a clear abbreviation expansion; consider defining it at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline RIN is a measured spectrum, not a derived or fitted prediction; stated detector-floor comparison is a limitation, not an input.

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical laser-intensity-noise measurement. The central claim (-155 dB/Hz RIN) is a measured spectrum from PD-OUT (Fig. 3 and Sec. 4), not derived from a fitted model. The feedforward gain K and 7 m cable delay are manually tuned for best suppression, but the resulting noise spectrum is measured, not computed from those settings. The only quoted 'estimate' is S_min = 2(S_el + S_sn) from ref [29], used as a post-hoc comparison: the paper explicitly states that the measured floor is 3 dB above this estimate and attributes it to summing-amplifier electronic noise (Sec. 4). This is a candid measurement-fidelity limitation (could PD-OUT be detector-limited at -155 dB/Hz?), which is a correctness risk, not circularity: the measured spectrum is not equal by construction to S_min, and the claim is not inferred from S_min. Same-author citations [8] and [23] are contextual (tune-out wavelength and dataset availability), not load-bearing. No equation defines the result in terms of its own inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work. Thus no circular step exists.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The ledger captures the tunable control parameters and measurement assumptions on which the demonstrated RIN levels depend. The free parameters are controller calibrations, not fudge factors in a derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • Feedforward gain K = 0.01 to 1 (continuous)
    Adjusted by a potentiometer to match the AC-AOM response efficiency; set for optimal noise suppression.
  • Bias voltage V_b = 160 mV
    Sets the DC operating point of the AC-AOM; chosen to balance transmission loss and dynamic range.
  • Beam waist in AC-AOM = 50 µm
    Empirically found to maximize AOM bandwidth; a free alignment parameter.
  • Feedforward cable length = 7 m
    Chosen to match electronic and optical delays for best feedforward performance.
  • PI gains (DC branch) = G_P=0.02, G_I=60000 (optimized); defaults G_P=0, G_I=3000
    Tuned to optimize DC control performance.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math AOM diffraction efficiency follows P_out/P_in proportional to sin^2(sqrt(P_RF/P_sat)) (Eq. 1).
    Used to characterize the control nonlinearity and justify the linearization algorithm.
  • standard math Shot noise formula S_sn = 2e/I_p (Eq. 2).
    Used to estimate the RIN measurement noise floor of the photodiodes.
  • domain assumption The intensity noise measured by PD-FF before the fiber delay is representative of the noise to be corrected at the output.
    Feedforward relies on this correlation; noise added after PD-FF must be handled by the feedback branch.
  • domain assumption The out-of-loop PD-OUT measurement is not corrupted by electronic or optical artifacts at the claimed RIN level.
    The -155 dB/Hz claim rests on this measurement being faithful.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AOM-based ultra-low noise laser intensity control up to the MHz range." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XHIYHUP

@misc{pith2026260803547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AOM-based ultra-low noise laser intensity control up to the MHz range},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XHIYHUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03547}
}
abstract

High-power laser sources that exhibit low relative intensity noise and allow simultaneous dynamic control of their light level are required for a broad range of applications in various fields of physics. Acousto-optic modulators (AOMs) are widely used for active power stabilization and regulation due to their simple drive electronics requirements and high optical power handling capability in free-space. However, the rather slow propagation speed of the sound wave within the AOM crystal typically limits their control bandwidth to a few hundred kHz. In this work, we present a novel AOM-based control system that is capable of significantly suppressing intensity noise of high-power lasers up to the MHz range. By combining two standard feedback loops with one feedforward control branch and optimizing the beam path in the AOM crystal, ultra-low relative intensity noise levels down to $-155\, \text{dB}\,\text{Hz}^{-1}$ even at several hundred kHz are achieved. Our results are relevant for applications that require ultra-low intensity noise at Fourier frequencies up to the MHz range, such as optical lattice experiments with light ultracold atoms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Optics Express 28(21), 31209 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.405002 16

    Wang, Y., Wang, K., Fenton, E.F., Lin, Y.-W., Ni, K.-K., Hood, J.D.: Reduction of laser intensity noise over 1 MHz band for single atom trapping. Optics Express 28(21), 31209 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.405002 16

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.405002 2020

  2. [1]

    Physical Review A 94(6), 063632 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.063632

    Anisimovas, E., Raˇ ci¯ unas, M., Str¨ ater, C., Eckardt, A., Spielman, I.B., Juzeli¯ unas, G.: Semisynthetic zigzag optical lattice for ultracold bosons. Physical Review A 94(6), 063632 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.063632

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.063632 2016

  3. [2]

    Physical Review A92(2), 021402 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.021402

    Blatt, S., Mazurenko, A., Parsons, M.F., Chiu, C.S., Huber, F., Greiner, M.: Low- noise optical lattices for ultracold Li 6. Physical Review A92(2), 021402 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.021402

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.92.021402 2015

  4. [3]

    Classical and Quantum Gravity 22(20), 4279–4283 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/22/20/009

    Barr, B.W., Strain, K.A., Killow, C.J.: Laser amplitude stabilization for advanced interferometric gravitational wave detectors. Classical and Quantum Gravity 22(20), 4279–4283 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/22/20/009

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/20/009 2005

  5. [4]

    Physical Review Applied23(1), 011005 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.L011005

    Chao, Y.-X., Hua, Z.-X., Liang, X.-H., Yue, Z.-P., Jia, C., You, L., Tey, M.K.: Robust suppression of high-frequency laser phase noise by adaptive Pound- Drever-Hall feedforward. Physical Review Applied23(1), 011005 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.L011005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.l011005 2025

  6. [5]

    Optics Express23(25), 32481 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1364/OE.23.032481

    Duan, L., Fang, J., Li, R., Jiang, L., Ding, M., Wang, W.: Light intensity stabilization based on the second harmonic of the photoelastic modulator detec- tion in the atomic magnetometer. Optics Express23(25), 32481 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1364/OE.23.032481

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.23.032481 2015

  7. [6]

    Review of Scientific Instruments76(6), 063112 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1930095

    Donley, E.A., Heavner, T.P., Levi, F., Tataw, M.O., Jefferts, S.R.: Double-pass acousto-optic modulator system. Review of Scientific Instruments76(6), 063112 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1930095

    doi:10.1063/1.1930095 2005

  8. [7]

    npj Quantum Information8(1), 72 (2022) https://doi

    Day, M.L., Low, P.J., White, B., Islam, R., Senko, C.: Limits on atomic qubit control from laser noise. npj Quantum Information8(1), 72 (2022) https://doi. org/10.1038/s41534-022-00586-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00586-4 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Physical Review A112(5), 051304 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/rykg-qn6s

    De Martino, A., Kiesel, F., Auch, J., Karpov, K., Gross, C.: Dissipationless tune- out trapping for a lanthanide–alkali-metal quantum gas mixture. Physical Review A112(5), 051304 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/rykg-qn6s

    2025 doi

  2. [9]

    Physical Review Research8(2), 023327 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1103/48zr-2t1p

    Dawel, F., Pelzer, L., Dietze, K., Kramer, J., Hild, M., King, S.A., Spethmann, N.C.H., Klose, J., Stahl, K., D¨ orscher, S., Benkler, E., Lisdat, C., Porsev, S.G., Safronova, M.S., Schmidt, P.O.: High-stability optical clock based on a continu- ously ground-state cooled Al + ...

    2026 doi

  3. [10]

    Optics Express26(5), 5275 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.005275 14

    Dong, J., Zhang, L., Jiang, H., Yang, X., Pan, W., Cui, S., Gu, X., Feng, Y.: High order cascaded Raman random fiber laser with high spectral purity. Optics Express26(5), 5275 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.005275 14

    2018 doi

  4. [11]

    Physical Review A58(5), 3914–3921 (1998) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.58.3914

    Gehm, M.E., O’Hara, K.M., Savard, T.A., Thomas, J.E.: Dynamics of noise- induced heating in atom traps. Physical Review A58(5), 3914–3921 (1998) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.58.3914

    1998 doi

  5. [12]

    Version Number: 1 (2026)

    Holman, A., Sun, X., Seo, B., Corn, J., Zhu, Z., Xu, Y., Wu, J., Yu, N., Filin, D., Safronova, M., Will, S.: A Mid-Infrared Platform Based on Strontium Tweezer Arrays. Version Number: 1 (2026). https://doi.org/arXiv:2606.02560

    2026 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Physical Review A107(4), 042611 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042611

    Jiang, X., Scott, J., Friesen, M., Saffman, M.: Sensitivity of quantum gate fidelity to laser phase and intensity noise. Physical Review A107(4), 042611 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042611

    2023 doi

  7. [14]

    Review of Scientific Instruments96(3), 033002 (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Karami, M., Hatefi, M., Ahangaran, Z.G., Heydarinasab, Z., Samadi, D., Tameh, H.S., Tasnim, A., Sarreshtedari, F.: A novel laser intensity stabilization and mod- ulation method based on utilization of Zeeman–Faraday effect in atomic vapor cells. Review of Scientific Instrument...

    2025

  8. [15]

    Review of Scientific Instruments78(10), 103110 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2801012

    Kim, D.I., Rhee, H.-G., Song, J.-B., Lee, Y.-W.: Laser output power stabilization for direct laser writing system by using an acousto-optic modulator. Review of Scientific Instruments78(10), 103110 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2801012

    2007 doi

  9. [16]

    Applied Physics B102(3), 515–522 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00340-011-4399-1

    Kwee, P., Willke, B., Danzmann, K.: New concepts and results in laser power stabilization. Applied Physics B102(3), 515–522 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00340-011-4399-1

    2011

  10. [17]

    Physical Review Applied 18(6), 064005 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.064005

    Li, L., Huie, W., Chen, N., DeMarco, B., Covey, J.P.: Active Cancellation of Servo- Induced Noise on Stabilized Lasers via Feedforward. Physical Review Applied 18(6), 064005 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.064005

    2022 doi

  11. [18]

    Optics & Laser Technology 45, 775–781 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2012.04.037

    Liu, F., Wang, C., Li, L., Chen, L.: Long-term and wideband laser intensity sta- bilization with an electro-optic amplitude modulator. Optics & Laser Technology 45, 775–781 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2012.04.037

    2013 doi

  12. [19]

    Review of Scientific Instruments90(3), 033101 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1063/1.5066623

    Mazurenko, A., Blatt, S., Huber, F., Parsons, M.F., Chiu, C.S., Ji, G., Greif, D., Greiner, M.: Implementation of a stable, high-power optical lattice for quantum gas microscopy. Review of Scientific Instruments90(3), 033101 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1063/1.5066623

    2019 doi

  13. [20]

    Optics Letters40(7), 1334 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.40.001334

    Michael, E.A., Pallanca, L.: Broadband near-to-shot-noise suppression of arbi- trary cw-laser excess intensity noise in the gigahertz range. Optics Letters40(7), 1334 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.40.001334

    2015 doi

  14. [21]

    IEEE Photonics Technology Letters20(18), 1542–1544 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1109/LPT.2008.928838 15

    Nelson, C.W., Hati, A., Howe, D.A.: Relative Intensity Noise Suppression for RF Photonic Links. IEEE Photonics Technology Letters20(18), 1542–1544 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1109/LPT.2008.928838 15

    2008

  15. [22]

    Applied Physics B71(2), 163–168 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1007/s003400000340

    Ottaway, D.J., Veitch, P.J., Hollitt, C., Mudge, D., Hamilton, M.W., Munch, J.: Frequency and intensity noise of an injection-locked Nd:YAG ring laser. Applied Physics B71(2), 163–168 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1007/s003400000340

    2000 doi

  16. [23]

    https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21290198

    Partes, C., Auch, J., Heidt, E., Karpov, K., Kiesel, F., Groß, C.: AOM-based ultra-low noise laser intensity control up to the MHz range [dataset] (2026). https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21290198

    2026 doi

  17. [24]

    Journal of Physics: Conference Series1380(1), 012034 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1380/1/012034

    Phrompao, J., Pongvuthithum, R., Sucharitakul, T., Srakaew, K., Anukool, W.: Real-time and versatile laser-power stabilization with arbitrary amplitude mod- ulation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series1380(1), 012034 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1380/1/012034

    2019 doi

  18. [25]

    Review of Scientific Instruments91(8), 083001 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009524

    Preuschoff, T., Schlosser, M., Birkl, G.: Digital laser frequency and intensity sta- bilization based on the STEMlab platform (originally Red Pitaya). Review of Scientific Instruments91(8), 083001 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009524

    2020 doi

  19. [26]

    Applied Physics B Photophysics and Laser Chemistry39(3), 149–153 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00697412

    Robertson, N.A., Hoggan, S., Mangan, J.B., Hough, J.: Intensity stabilisation of an argon laser using an electro-optic modulator - Performance and limitations. Applied Physics B Photophysics and Laser Chemistry39(3), 149–153 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00697412

    1986 doi

  20. [27]

    Applied Sciences10(2), 659 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/ app10020659

    Sun, R., Wang, X., Zhang, K., He, J., Wang, J.: Influence of Laser Intensity Fluctuation on Single-Cesium Atom Trapping Lifetime in a 1064-nm Microscopic Optical Tweezer. Applied Sciences10(2), 659 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/ app10020659

    2020

  21. [28]

    Journal of Physics: Conference Series122, 012016 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/122/1/012016

    Takahashi, K., Ando, M., Tsubono, K.: Stabilization of laser intensity and fre- quency using optical fiber. Journal of Physics: Conference Series122, 012016 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/122/1/012016

    2008 doi

  22. [29]

    Review of Scientific Instruments89(11), 113112 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046852

    Tricot, F., Phung, D.H., Lours, M., Gu´ erandel, S., De Clercq, E.: Power stabi- lization of a diode laser with an acousto-optic modulator. Review of Scientific Instruments89(11), 113112 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046852

    2018 doi

  23. [30]

    Review of Scientific Instru- ments68(1), 1–7 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1147810

    Talvitie, H., Pietil¨ ainen, A., Ludvigsen, H., Ikonen, E.: Passive frequency and intensity stabilization of extended-cavity diode lasers. Review of Scientific Instru- ments68(1), 1–7 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1147810

    1997 doi

  24. [31]

    Version Number: 2 (2026)

    Villenas, F., G¨ ultekin, Y.C., Alvarado, A.: Optical Communications with Relative Intensity Noise: Channel Modeling and Information Rates. Version Number: 2 (2026). https://doi.org/arXiv:2603.08411

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Optics Communications569, 130850 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2024.130850

    Wang, P., Wang, C., Li, J.: Relative intensity noise reduction for noise-like pulses based on synchronous intensity modulation. Optics Communications569, 130850 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2024.130850

    2024

  26. [34]

    Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (2024)

    Xu, M.: Quantum phases in Fermi Hubbard systems with tunable frustration. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (2024). https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37378930 17

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.