Calibration of the pixel crosstalk in spatial light modulators for 4f pulse shaping

High fidelity laser beam shaping using liquid crystal on silicon spatial light modulators as diffractive neural networks

Spatial light modulators (SLMs) based on liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) are powerful tools for laser beam shaping as they can be used to dynamically create almost arbitrary intensity distributions. However, laser beam shaping with LCoS-SLMs often suffers from beam shaping artifacts in part caused by unconsidered properties of the LCoS devices: astigmatism that stems from the non-normal incidence of the laser beam on the SLM and the effect commonly referred to as the '0-th diffraction order' that is caused by both the crosstalk between neighboring pixels and the direct reflection at the cover glass of the SLM. We here present a method to consider and compensate for these inherent properties of LCoS devices by treating the SLM as a diffractive neural network.

Accurate holographic light potentials using pixel crosstalk modelling

Arbitrary light potentials have proven to be a valuable and versatile tool in many quantum information and quantum simulation experiments with ultracold atoms. Using a phase-modulating spatial light modulator (SLM), we generate arbitrary light potentials holographically with measured efficiencies between 15 and 40% and an accuracy of [Formula: see text] root-mean-squared error. Key to the high accuracy is the modelling of pixel crosstalk of the SLM on a sub-pixel scale which is relevant especially for large light potentials. We employ conjugate gradient minimisation to calculate the SLM phase pattern for a given target light potential after measuring the intensity and wavefront at the SLM. Further, we use camera feedback to reduce experimental errors, we remove optical vortices and investigate the difference between the angular spectrum method and the Fourier transform to simulate the propagation of light. Using a combination of all these techniques, we achieved more accurate and efficient light potentials compared to previous studies, and generated a series of potentials relevant for cold atom experiments.

Targeted generation of complex temporal pulse profiles

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.