Extended Data Figure 4: Effects of the attosecond pulse configuration and the carrier envelope phase.
From: Reconstruction and control of a time-dependent two-electron wave packet
a, Simulated absorbance plots (top) for different XUV pulse configurations: two attosecond pulses, φCEP = π/2 (left); one attosecond pulse, φCEP = 0 (middle); one attosecond pulse, φCEP = π/2 (right). The VIS pulse duration was 7 fs with 3 × 1012 W cm−2 peak intensity, where the respective XUV/VIS pulse configurations are illustrated at zero time delay (bottom). b, Experimentally measured absorbance plots for CEP stabilization (top left; with root mean squared residual statistical noise of 0.38 rad) and CEP non-stabilization (top right). The observed time-dependent features, including the lineout at photon energy 63.66 eV (bottom) are practically identical for the CEP-stabilized and the non-CEP-stabilized measurements. Any significant temporal jitter between the attosecond pulses and the VIS carrier wave in the HHG process, for the case of statistical CEP, would correspond approximately to an averaging over a range of time delays for the case of a CEP-stable measurement, smearing out subcycle oscillations in the absorbance. This is clearly not observed.
