Moving in on the Action: An Experimental Comparison of Fluorescence Excitation and Photodissociation Action Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photodissociation action spectroscopy is often used as a proxy for measuring gas-phase absorption spectra of ions in a mass spectrometer. Although the potential discrepancy between linear optical and photodissociation spectra is generally acknowledged, direct experimental comparisons are lacking. In this work, we use a quadrupole ion trap that has been modified to enable both photodissociation and laser-induced fluorescence to assess how closely the visible photodissociation action spectrum of a fluorescent dye reflects its fluorescence excitation spectrum. Our results show the photodissociation action spectrum of gaseous rhodamine 110 is both substantially narrower and slightly red-shifted (∼120 cm(-1)) compared to its fluorescence excitation spectrum. Power dependence measurements reveal that the photodissociation of rhodamine 110 requires, on average, the absorption of three photons whereas fluorescence is a single-photon process. These differing power dependences are the key to interpreting the differences in the measured spectra. The experimental results provide much-needed quantification and insight into the differences between action spectra and linear optical spectra, and emphasize the utility of fluorescence excitation spectra to provide a more reliable benchmark for comparison with theory.
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".