Mechanisms for the control of two-mode transient stimulated Raman scattering in liquids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent adaptive feedback control experiments demonstrated control of transient (i.e. nonimpulsive) Stokes emission from two closely spaced Raman-active modes in liquid methanol [e.g., B. J. Pearson et al., Phys. Rev. A 63, 063412 (2001)]. Optimally shaped pulses were found that selectively excited one of the two Stokes lines alone, optimized emission from both modes together, or completely suppressed all Stokes emission. Here, two general control mechanisms capable of affecting the ratio of intensities of the Stokes lines are identified. The first is operational when the duration of the pump pulse $({t}_{p})$ is on the order of the collisional dephasing time $({t}_{d})$. The ratio of the peak heights of the two Stokes lines can then be controlled by simply varying the duration and/or intensity of the pump pulse. The second operates when $1∕{t}_{p}$ is on the order of the energy separation of the two Raman modes, and hence when the two Raman modes are coupled due to overlapping nonlinear polarizations that drive the stimulated Raman scattering. In this regime, asymmetry in the spectral amplitudes within the pump pulse can control the asymmetry in the peak heights of the Stokes emission. Both these mechanisms have the same clear physical interpretation: shaping the pump pulse controls the nonlinear optical response of the medium, which in turn controls the stimulated Stokes emission, itself a ${\ensuremath{\chi}}^{(3)}$ nonlinear effect. In neither mechanism does the ratio of peak heights in the Stokes spectrum reflect directly the ratio of excited-state populations associated with the two Raman modes, as was assumed in the experiments, nor does the control involve coherent quantum interference effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".