Phase-synchronous undersampling in nonlinear spectroscopy

Lukas Bruder,∗ Marcel Binz, and Frank Stienkemeier Institute of Physics, University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany (Dated: November 9, 2018) We introduce the concept of phase-synchronous undersampling in nonlinear spectroscopy. The respective theory is presented and validated experimentally in a phase-modulated quantum beat experiment by sampling high phase frequencies with low laser repetition rates. The advantage of undersampling in terms of signal quality and reduced acquisition time is demonstrated and breakdown conditions are identified. The presented method is particularly beneficial for exper- imental setups with limited signal/detection rates.

Ultrafast nonlinear spectroscopy in the time domain conditions and show explicitly how PSU improves the has emerged as a powerful tool to study photophysi- signal quality in nonlinear spectroscopy. In particular, cal and photochemical processes in real-time with high we demonstrate undersampling by more than two orders spectro-temporal resolution [1, 2]. To meet the demand of magnitude without loss of performance in signal re- on interferometric phase stability, necessary in this type covery, hence, providing the opportunity to use the PM of spectroscopy, numerous stabilization methods have technique with sampling rates down to the 10 Hz regime. been developed in the past years [3]. Among these, one Our work makes the PM approach thus accessible to a particularly efficient concept is the phase modulation much wider range of experimental setups. (PM) technique, as demonstrated in pump-probe and To demonstrate and characterize the PSU concept, we multidimensional spectroscopy [4–11]. This method com- performed quantum beat measurements utilizing the PM bines acousto-optical PM with lock-in detection which technique in pump-probe configuration (Fig. 1). An am- drastically reduces the demands on phase stability and plified femtosecond (fs) laser system of variable repeti- greatly improves the overall sensitivity. As an additional tion rate (ωrep ≤ 5 kHz) was used, tuned to λ = 795 nm advantage, it can be combined with ’action’ signals for to drive the D1 transition in a low density rubidium va- detection, e.g. fluorescence [6–8], photocurrent [9–11] and por. The vapor was contained in a spectroscopy cell of mass-resolved photoion detection [5], which improves se- which the fluorescence was detected with a photo mul- lectivity and facilitates studies at low particle densities. tiplier tube (PMT). The PM technique and the experi- An integral part of the PM technique is the lock-in mental setup is described in detail elsewhere [4, 6]. detection which relays on modulating a signal with a Briefly, a collinear pump-probe pulse sequence is gener- well-defined frequency, followed by demodulation with a ated in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Thereby, a signal lock-in amplifier (LIA). This scheme works most efficient modulation (Ω) is introduced with two acousto-optical with high modulation frequencies. However, due to the modulators (AOMs) driven phase-locked at the frequency Nyquist theorem, the modulation frequency is generally difference Ω. The demodulation of the signal S is done limited by the sampling rate of the experimental appa- with a digital LIA, Stanford Research Systems, model SR ratus. In spectroscopy, limiting factors typically are the 810. To this end, a reference waveform R is constructed signal count rate, the speed of detectors or the laser repe- from a continuous wave (cw) laser (λ = 780 nm) superim- tition rate. This constrains the combination of lock-in de- tection with CCD camera based detection schemes (e.g. dispersed fluorescence [12], velocity map imaging detec- diode laser tion [13]) and, more severely, limits the technique to high BS repetition rate laser systems (ω > 100 kHz [4, 7]). Yet, Ω1 DL rep fs laser PMT many applications still require operation at low sampling AOM1 S PH rates (ωsa < 5 kHz). In particular, in the XUV spectral BS SR sample Ω2 LIA

arXiv:1712.09109v2 [physics.chem-ph] 4 Jan 2018 range, where the PM technique shows great promise in facilitating nonlinear spectroscopy [14], laser sources op- AOM2 PH R erate mostly at 0.01-1 kHz. PD A common strategy to overcome the Nyquist limit FIG. 1. Optical PM setup. The pump-probe signal S is mod- is undersampling, as proposed in some lock-in detec- ulated using two AOMs driven at the frequency difference tion schemes, e.g. in lock-in thermography [15], electrical Ω = Ω2 − Ω1. A cw reference signal R is generated with a impedance spectroscopy [16], in combination with ran- diode laser and detected with a photo diode (PD). Pinholes dom sampling [17] and in case of very low signal count (PHs) block the diode/fs laser at either of the beam splitter’s rates [18, 19]. In this letter, we add to this work by (BS) exit port, respectively. Signal demodulation is done with introducing phase-synchronous undersampling (PSU) to a LIA, referenced to the cw waveform R. The pump-probe the PM technique. We identify optimum undersampling delay is controlled with a motorized delay line (DL). 2

a) LIA dominant Lock-In sampling S(τ,Ωt) sources bandpass filter LP SR(τ,t) SR (τ) R(τ,Ωt) 푆(휏) 푆(휏, Ω푡)

1/f noise Tavg

b) 휔 SR up shift Ω 휔Nyquist 휔sa a

FIG. 2. Signal-to-noise advantage by up-shifting S from low SR frequencies to Ω where the noise floor is much smaller and S SR is not dominated by lab noise. SRus posed with the optical path with a slight vertical offset t (Fig. 1), as also done in Ref. [9]. Throughout the data SR 1/2Ω 1/Ωa 1/ωsa run, the pump-probe delay τ is incremented in discrete c) steps ∆τ and the demodulated signal is recorded as a function of τ. This yields the temporal evolution of elec- tronic coherences induced in the system and a provides the system’s absorption spectrum. t d) As an important feature, the phase-synchronous detec- tion of S and R leads to cancellation of phase δφS. Thus, yielding passive phase stabilization while the de- sired information is deduced from the relative phase shift t of S and R, denoted φ (τ). As a second signal-to-noise SR FIG. 3. a) Schematic description of the lock-in amplifica- advantage, the imprinted modulation Ω shifts S from the tion scheme. LP denotes low-pass filter. b) Representa- low frequency spectrum, which is often dominated by lab tion of the product signal SR, as constructed in the LIA. noise, to a spectral region with less noise, where filtering Green: fully sampled signal (SR), black: undersampled sig- is much more efficient (Fig. 2). For this purpose, suf- nal (SRus), dashed black: resulting aliased waveform (SRa), ficiently large modulation frequencies (Ω & 1 kHz) are and red: mean value of SRus scaled according to the sampling highly desirable. However, if the sampling rate is small, duty cycle (hSRi). Undersampling of SR yields the correct average value/output signal, if the averaging interval T is i.e. ω ≤ 2Ω, the modulation is effectively shifted to its avg sa sufficiently large. c) Optimum undersampling case. d) Break- aliased frequency, that is down case: the output value hSRi strongly depends on the relative phase between the signal modulation and the sam- Ωa = min|nωsa − Ω| ≤ 0.5ωsa, n ∈ Z , (1) pling points. and the signal-to-noise advantage of using large Ω would vanish. In our PSU scheme, this case is circumvented due frequency component: to the cw reference waveform used for the demodulation. SR(t, τ) ∝ cos [2Ωt + φS(τ) + φR(τ)] + cos [φSR(τ)] , (4) For a more detailed discussion of the PSU concept, see also Fig. 3b. While the modulation vanishes in the it is sufficient to consider the excitation of a model two- difference-frequency component, the sum-frequency term level system and exemplary examine the demodulation of exhibits a 2Ω-modulation. The subsequent RC-type low the in-phase signal component. In this case, the relevant pass filter can be described by a moving average over a signals S and R are given by [4] given time interval, denoted Tavg [17]. This removes the sum frequency component and thus the residual demod- S(t, τ) = A(τ) cos [Ωt + φ (τ)] (2) S ulated signal is R(t, τ) = cos [Ωt + φR(τ)] , (3) hSRi(τ) = 0.5A(τ) cos [φSR(τ)] . (5) where A(τ) and φS(τ) reflect the system properties and φR(τ) denotes the pump-probe dependent phase func- Note, that hSRi contains the desired information, that is tion of the reference. In the standard lock-in algorithm, A(τ) and φSR(τ), while correlated phase jitter is removed S and R are multiplied and subsequently low-pass fil- (δφS(t) − δφR(t) ≈ 0). tered (Fig. 3a). The multiplication of the two waveforms Now, if operating in the undersampling regime, S yields a signal SR that consists of a sum- and difference- would appear at the respective aliased frequency (ΩS = 3

a) Ωa) and since R exhibits a different frequency (ΩR = Ω), 250 one would intuitively expect that the LIA blocks S with 225 high extinction ratio. However, in the lock-in amplifi- 200 cation process, undersampling of S simply leads to an 175 undersampled product waveform of SR (Fig. 3b). The 150 resulting aliased waveform SR exhibits the correct av- 125 a SNR erage value of SR, scaled according to the sampling duty 100 cycle. Hence, as long as the mean value is calculated over 75 SR 50 a sufficient number of aliased periods, i.e. Tavg  1/Ωa , the LIA will return a correct output signal hSRi. This 25 0 explains why the PSU approach works in the PM tech- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 nique. Ω [kHz] Note, even though S is undersampled, the lock-in de- b) 200 modulation is performed with respect to the fully sam- TLI=3ms pled frequency Ω. Whereas, in case S and R are both 150 TLI=10ms undersampled, the phase-locked loop of the LIA will syn- TLI=100ms 100 thesize a reference waveform oscillating with Ωa  Ω. SNR Hence, the demodulation will be performed at the aliased 50 frequency, which is of disadvantage in the signal recovery 0 process (cf. Fig.2). Therefore, using a cw reference signal 9.90 9.92 9.94 9.96 9.98 10.00 is essential. Ω [kHz] From the presented model, one may derive the opti- mum and breakdown conditions for undersampling. The FIG. 4. a) SNR as a function of the modulation frequency Ω, SR recorded for a fixed sampling frequency of ωsa = 5 kHz. b) PSU scheme works best if Ωa is maximized and breaks Comparison of different averaging intervals T , varied via SR avg down if Ωa ≈ 0. Since SR is modulated at 2Ω, its under- the lock-in filter time TLI. sampled frequency follows from Eq. 1 under consideration of a factor of 2, which yields two extreme cases: time constant TLI and keeping the filter roll-off at 6 dB. SR (i) : 4Ω = (2n + 1)ωsa → Ωa = 0.5ωsa (6) At first, the undersampling cases (i) and (ii) are char- SR acterized. Fig. 4a shows a scan of the modulation fre- (ii) : 2Ω = nωsa → Ωa = 0, (7) quency Ω for a fixed laser repetition rate of ωrep = 5 kHz n ∈ Z. (i) describes the optimum undersampling condi- and a lock-in time constant of TLI = 10 ms. As expected, SR tion, where Ωa reaches its maximum value and the LIA for condition (ii), the SNR drastically decreases. This will recover the original signal correctly for minimal av- gives rise to ’forbidden’ sampling frequencies at multi- eraging times Tavg (Fig. 3c). (ii) is the breakdown case. plies of the , in accordance to previous Here, each sampling point of SR will be at the same phase reports [20]. In between, the SNR forms a plateau cen- position, leading to an output signal hSRi that strongly tered at condition (i). The fairly large scattering of SNR depends on the phase offset between the imprinted phase values in the plateau region stems from fluctuating exper- modulation and the sampling points (Fig. 3d). imental conditions. These induce significant variations in The discussed model for PSU has been systemati- the signal, due to the relatively short filter time constant cally investigated in our experimental setup. To this used in this measurement series. end, we performed pump-probe scans of 0-10 ps, Fourier Fig. 4b shows the comparison of different filter times transformed the time-domain traces and evaluated their for a zoom on a forbidden frequency. With increasing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), defined as the ratio of the filter time, i.e. increasing averaging time interval Tavg, peak amplitude (D1 line) divided by the noise floor. The the slope becomes steeper. This is in accordance with noise floor was deduced by calculating the mean value the PSU model, as it predicts, that with increasing Tavg, SR of the background signal in the Fourier spectrum and smaller aliased frequencies Ωa will still lead to a correct adding three times its standard deviation. Error bars demodulated output signal (cf. Fig. 3b-d). Note, that in were estimated from the scattering of a single data point general, lower sampling rates lead to more narrow SNR exemplary measured for ten consecutive times. While all plateaus, making it more difficult to find ideal undersam- other parameters were kept fixed in the experiment, the pling conditions. This can be diminished to some extend influence of the parameters Ω, ωsa and Tavg was inves- using larger lock-in time constants (Fig. 4b). As such, we tigated. In our setup, signal rates were sufficiently high were able to work also at ωrep = 50 Hz, TLI = 1 s without and a fast photo detector was used, therefore ωsa is de- significant loss of performance. fined by the laser repetition rate ωrep which was varied In overall, with this measurement series we have con- by pulse picking. Tavg was varied by changing the lock-in firmed the theory of PSU. For the discussed extreme 4

1 0 1 1 2 5 0 the lab noise spectrum was deduced from a Fourier anal- ysis of the reference signal R at a fixed pump-probe de- 1 0 1 0 lay (Fig. 5). Note, the noise spectrum is plotted in a 2 0 0 log scale while the SNR is given in a linear scale. In

9 ] 1 0 .

u nonlinear spectroscopy, low frequency noise sources com-

.

1 5 0 b

r ing, for instance, from the power line, harmonics thereof, R 8 a

1 0 [ N

l ground loops or mechanical vibrations, can easily domi-

S 5 k H z r e p . r a t e e

1 0 0 5 0 0 H z r e p . r a t e ( x 1 0 ) v nate the signal at low frequencies. In this regard, shifting

7 e l

f u l l y 1 0

e the signal to higher frequencies clearly improves the data

s a m p l e d u n d e r s a m p l e d s i

o quality, as confirmed by our measurements. 5 0 6

1 0 N For high modulation frequencies, we find, that the sig- 5 0 1 0 nal amplitude is damped due to the bandwidth limit of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 0 2 1 2 2 4 0 4 1 4 2 the detection electronics (not shown). This is surpris- Ω [ k H z ] ing, since the electronics should only sense the aliased FIG. 5. SNR for fully and undersampled signal modulation, frequency Ωa < 0.5ωrep of the signal S. We explain measured for laser repetition rates of ωrep = 5 and 0.5 kHz. this by phase jitter in the signal modulation caused by The latter data set was scaled by a factor of 10 for better phase fluctuations in the optical interferometer. This visibility. Blue and red shaded areas indicate the fully sam- phase/timing jitter relative to the laser shots can lead pled regime for the two data sets, respectively. Grey: noise to high frequency signal components which are damped spectrum of the lab, as picked up in the experiment. according to the bandwidth limitation of detection elec- tronics, thus reducing the overall signal. cases (i) and (ii), the experiment behaves as predicted We point out, that in the applied lock-in detection, and the qualitatively correct dependency on the average the signal quality depends in a non-trivial way on two time interval/lock-in filter time constant has been shown. factors, that is the general signal recovery capability of In a second study, we focused on the actual signal-to- the lock-in algorithm and the accompanied phase sta- noise advantage of PSU. To this end, we compared for bilization effect. As such, results from undersampling two sampling rates (ωrep = 0.5 and 5 kHz) a scan of Ω strategies proposed in other fields [15, 16] are not directly from 50 Hz to 41.25 kHz. The ratio Ω/ωrep was chosen transferable. Our work thus introduces a new detection such, that condition (i) was always met. Furthermore, concept in phase-modulated nonlinear spectroscopy. In we used TLI = 100 ms, i.e. Tavg = const. and at low the presented study, the sampling rate was determined by modulation frequencies (Ω ≤ 200 Hz), the LIA was set to the laser repetition rate, however, the PSU scheme also sync mode. works if the sampling rate is limited by other factors, e.g. Fig. 5 shows the result. At low modulation frequencies detector speeds or low signal count rates. (Ω 250 Hz) the SNR decreases whereas at high frequen- . In conclusion, phase synchronous detection with a LIA cies the data quality remains constant, even for very high has particular advantages in nonlinear spectroscopy as it undersampling factors (demonstrated up to a factor of greatly improves sensitivity and at the same time intro- 166). Thus, the PSU concept allows choosing very high duces passive phase stabilization. In this context, we modulation frequencies without loss of performance. In- have introduced the concept of PSU for nonlinear spec- terestingly, for ω = 5 kHz (blue), the optimum SNR rep troscopy which facilitates efficient lock-in detection at value can be reached within the fully sampled regime, high modulation frequencies (∼kHz) while using sam- however, this is not the case for the ω = 0.5 kHz data rep pling rates down to the 10 Hz regime. We have identi- (red). Hence, in case of low sampling/laser repetition fied and experimentally verified the optimum and break- rates, undersampling clearly improves the signal quality. down conditions in this approach and demonstrated that PSU improves the signal quality and increases acquisition The reduction of the SNR at low frequencies has two speed, especially if the experimental apparatus is limited reasons. One is due to the forbidden frequency at 0 Hz. to low sampling rates (≤ 500 Hz). Limiting factors are of- As discussed, larger lock-in time constants would attenu- ten the laser repetition rate, slow detectors or low signal ate this effect. However, this comes at the price of longer count rates, hence, our concept makes the PM technique lock-in settling times and hence, increasing acquisition feasible for much more experimental setups. In particu- times. For instance, in order to reach in the fully sampled lar, the application in nonlinear XUV spectroscopy may regime the same SNR as obtained in the undersampled have great potential [14]. case (referring to red data, Fig 5), the acquisition time would increase by roughly an order of magnitude. Funding. Bundesministerium f¨ur Bildung und The other and more important reason, however, is the Forschung (BMBF), project 05K16VFB; Deutsche increasing lab noise at low frequencies. To visualize this, Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), program IRTG 2079 5

Acuna, and E. R. Bittner, Chemical Physics Quantum Dynamics and Femtosecond Spectroscopy dedicated to Prof. Vladimir Y. Chernyak on the occasion of his 60th ∗ [email protected] birthday, 481, 281 (2016). [1] M. Cho, Chem. Rev. 108, 1331 (2008). [12] R. Augulis and D. Zigmantas, Opt. Express 19, 13126 [2] P. Nuernberger, S. Ruetzel, and T. Brixner, Angew. (2011). Chem. Int. Ed. 54, 11368 (2015). [13] A. T. J. B. Eppink and D. H. Parker, Review of Scientific [3] F. D. Fuller and J. P. Ogilvie, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. Instruments 68, 3477 (1997). 66, 667 (2015). [14] L. Bruder, U. Bangert, and F. Stienkemeier, Opt. Ex- [4] P. F. Tekavec, T. R. Dyke, and A. H. Marcus, J. Chem. press 25, 5302 (2017). Phys. 125, 194303 (2006). [15] O. Breitenstein and M. Langenkamp, Lock-in thermog- [5] L. Bruder, M. Mudrich, and F. Stienkemeier, Phys. raphy: basics and use for functional diagnostics of elec- Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 23877 (2015). tronic components, Springer series in advanced microelec- [6] L. Bruder, M. Binz, and F. Stienkemeier, Phys. Rev. A tronics (Springer, New York, 2003). 92, 053412 (2015). [16] A. Hartov, R. A. Mazzarese, F. R. Reiss, T. E. Kerner, [7] P. F. Tekavec, G. A. Lott, and A. H. Marcus, J. Chem. K. S. Osterman, D. B. Williams, and K. D. Paulsen, Phys. 127, 214307 (2007). IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 47, 49 (2000). [8] J. R. Widom, N. P. Johnson, P. H. v. Hippel, and A. H. [17] M. Sonnaillon, R. Urteaga, and F. Bonetto, IEEE Trans. Marcus, New J. Phys. 15, 025028 (2013). Instrum. Meas. 57, 616 (2008). [9] G. Nardin, T. M. Autry, K. L. Silverman, and S. T. [18] M. C. Fink, K. V. Adair, M. G. Guenza, and A. H. Cundiff, Opt. Express 21, 28617 (2013). Marcus, Biophys. J 91, 3482 (2006). [10] K. J. Karki, J. R. Widom, J. Seibt, I. Moody, M. C. Lon- [19] C. Phelps, W. Lee, D. Jose, P. H. v. Hippel, and A. H. ergan, T. Pullerits, and A. H. Marcus, Nat. Commun. Marcus, PNAS 110, 17320 (2013). 5, 5869 (2014). [20] J. C. Krapez, in Proc. of the Eurotherm Seminar, Vol. 60 [11] H. Li, A. Gauthier-Houle, P. Gregoire, E. Vella, C. Silva- (1998) pp. 7–10 .