The challenge of attosecond pulse metrology
J. E. Kruse(1), P. Tzallas(1, *), E. Skantzakis(1), C. Kalpouzos(1),, G. D. Tsakiris(3), D. Charalambidis(1)(2) ((1) Foundation for Research and, Technology-Hellas, Institute of Electronic Structure, Laser, Heraklion,, Crete, Greece - (2) Department of Physics
TL;DR
This paper compares two methods for measuring attosecond pulse trains, highlighting their differences and limitations, and discusses how RABITT can estimate electron trajectory contributions despite potential underestimations.
Contribution
It provides a comparative analysis of the 2nd order Intensity Volume Autocorrelation and RABITT methods, clarifying their respective accuracies and applications in attosecond pulse metrology.
Findings
RABITT may underestimate pulse duration due to intensity variations
RABITT, combined with theory, estimates electron trajectory contributions
Different measurement methods yield dissimilar pulse duration results
Abstract
The two basic approaches underlying the metrology of attosecond pulse trains are compared, i.e. the 2nd order Intensity Volume Autocorrelation and the Resolution of Attosecond Beating by Interference of Two photon Transitions (RABITT). They give rather dissimilar results with respect to the measured pulse durations. It is concluded that RABITT may underestimate the duration due to variations of the driving intensity, but in conjunction with theory, allows an estimation of the relative contributions of two different electron trajectories to the extreme-ultraviolet emission.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications · Advanced Fiber Laser Technologies · Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications