## Neuromorphic detection and cooling of microparticle arrays

Yugang Ren , 1 Benjamin Siegel , 2 Ronghao Yin , 1 Muddassar Rashid , 1 James Millen 1,3

- 1 Department of Physics, King's College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.
- 2 Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 06520, USA.
- 3 London Centre for Nanotechnology, Department of Physics, King's College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.

Contributing authors: yugang.ren@kcl.ac.uk; james.millen@kcl.ac.uk;

## Abstract

Micro-objects levitated in a vacuum are an exciting platform for precision sensing due to their low dissipation motion and the potential for control at the quantum level. Arrays of such sensors would allow noise cancellation, directionality, increased sensitivity and in the quantum regime the potential to exploit correlation and entanglement. We use neuromorphic detection via a single event-based camera to record the motion of an array of levitated microspheres. We present a truly scalable method for arbitrary multiparticle control by implementing real-time feedback to cool the motion of three objects simultaneously, the first demonstration of neuromorphic sensing for real-time control at the microscale.

## Introduction

Modern technology relies on mechanical sensors, from accelerometers in mobile devices [1] to wearable health monitors [2]. The performance of a mechanical sensor is inversely proportional to it's volume due to dissipation through thermal contacts and surface strain [3]. By levitating nanoor micro-particles in optical, electrical or magnetic fields, one creates a mechanical oscillator with remarkably low dissipation [4, 5]. Force sensitivities of zeptonewton [6] and torque sensitivities of (4 2 . ± 1 2) . × 10 -27 NmHz -1 / 2 [7] have been achieved, with levitating sensors achieving quality factors in excess of 10 10 [8], motivating researchers to use these systems to search for dark matter [5, 9, 10] and gravitational waves [11, 12].

The control of levitated particles allows the exploration of a wide range of fundamental science [4, 13], and the demonstration of cooling to the ground state of an optical potential [14, 15] opens the door to macroscopic quantum physics [16]. An emerging frontier in this field is the study of arrays of particles, which in the quantum regime would allow generation of entanglement [17] and tests of quantum gravity [18, 19]. Interactions have been observed between pairs of levitated nanoparticles in optical [20-23], electrodynamic (Paul) [24] and magnetic [25] traps. Detecting and controlling multiple particles in vacuum has so far involved single particle control with sympathetic cooling [23, 24, 26], and arrays of optical traps [27]. It will be a challenge to levitate and individually control arrays of tens, or even thousands of objects [9].

We use neuromorphic detection in a truly scalable method for the control of arbitrary particle arrays across a wide field-of-view. Neuromorphic sensors are highly efficient detectors which mimic neurobiological vision [28]. Dynamic vision sensors mimic retinal response [29], detecting changes across a threshold on each pixel in an array asynchronously to produce a stream of events [30]. Together with event-driven processing algorithms [31-33], neuromorphic detection systems can achieve microsecond temporal resolution, sub-millisecond latency and high dynamic range ( &gt; 120 dB) detection with minimal data output at low power consumption [34]. Therefore, neuromorphic detection is highly suited to high-speed and real-time applications requiring low-power in environments with uncontrolled such as robotics [35], autonomous driving [36] and space flight [37], as well as finding applications in microscopy [38] and astronomy [39]. In this work, we use an event-based camera (EBC) with integrated neuromorphic sensor to monitor the motion of an array of levitated particles with a bandwidth high enough to demonstrate real-time simultaneous feedback control of multiple particles in an array.

We implement cold damping feedback to cool the motion of the levitated particles [40], a technique with demonstrated ground state cooling capabilities [41]. We cool a single microsphere to sub-Kelvin temperatures and single degrees-offreedom of multiple particles. In this work, the number of objects we can simultaneously control is only limited by the number of output channels in our feedback electronics. This single-device method for cooling and controlling particle arrays is readily scalable due to the low data output of neuromorphic detection. Arrays of cooled microsensors will lead to enhanced sensitivity [42], force gradient sensing [17], and provide a larger interaction area without increasing the mass of the sensor [9]. Due to the low-power consumption of neuromoprhic detectors our presented methods are ideal for integration into chip-scale technology [43].

## Neuromorphic imaging of levitated particle arrays

We levitate arrays of charged 5 µm diameter silica microspheres in a linear Paul trap under vacuum conditions (see Methods) and record their

Fig. 1 Neuromorphic detection of multiple levitated particles. (a) Schematic of the experimental setup. Neuromorphic imaging is utilized via an Event Based Camera (EBC) which tracks the positions of particles levitated in an array by a Paul trap. An FPGA system processes this data to generate a feedback signal which is applied to an electrode near the particle array. (b) An EBC view of an array of 10 particles, where the coloured box and identification number indicate that each object is being tracked. (c) The PSDs of four levitated particles derived from the output of the EBC, illustrating that each particle is independently tracked, and that the detection method is sensitive to interactions between the particles in the array. Unlabeled peaks are interactions between particles, and there is strong collective behaviour in the x -mode.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00661v2-figure-ea1adae7-78a2-4600-860f-f7aaef79bebb.jpg)

motion using an event-based camers (EBC) [44], see Fig. 1(a). The charged particles form a stable array due to the coulomb repulsion between them. The EBC uses a neuromorphic sensor, which is an array of independent pixels featuring contrast detectors which output an event in response to light levels on the pixel crossing a user-defined threshold. Pixels which do not experience the required level-change output no signal, removing the data-redundancy present in conventional cameras, while allowing the full sensor to be used at all times, sometimes referred to as a dynamic region-of-interest. The EBC hardware bundles asynchronous events into equal-length frames, and uses filters to identify objects within its field-ofview, afterwhich a propritetary generic tracking algorithm (GTA) tracks the motion of each object

independently. For a more detailed explanation in the context of tracking single particles see [44].

The EBC allows the tracking of multiple objects with a high bandwidth and a linear scaling in data output with the number of tracked objects, as compared to a rapid increase in data volume with increased region-of-interest in a conventional camera. Tracking of a single particle using the entire field-of-view of the EBC used ∼ 100 kB s -1 as compared to 64,800 kB s -1 using a standard CMOS camera with the same sensor size.

In Fig. 1(b) we show an example of a single neuromorphic sensor being used to detect 10 levitated particles simultaneously. The EBC identifies each object and tracks it in 2D (illustrated by the coloured box around each image) and assigns each one a stable identification number, allowing us to process the positional data of each particle independently.

Particles levitated by a Paul trap undergo harmonic motion. In Fig. 1(c) we generate the power spectral density (PSD) for each particle in an array of four to analyze their motion in frequency space. Each particle has a different charge-to-mass ratio and is levitated in a different part of the confining field, meaning each particle has different frequency modes of oscillation, which are well separated under vacuum conditions. Below, we use this fact to independently cool the motion of multiple particles. Interactions between the particles are evident, as shown by the unlabelled peaks in Fig. 1(c). The signal-to-noise for the different particles varies due to non-uniform illumination and varying coupling to electronic noise. All data in this work is taken at gas pressures of 2.0-4 5 . × 10 -2 mbar unless otherwise stated.

## Single particle cold damping using a neuromorphic detector

There are many reasons why it is desirable to control the energy of a levitated particle. Although the sensitivity of the levitated sensor does not change through cooling [45], rapid damping of the motion increases the stability and measurement bandwidth of the system. By reducing the position fluctuations interactions between the particles can be minimized. Reduction of the particle energy to the ground-state of the levitating potential [14, 46] opens up a toolbox of quantum control [47] and sensitivity enhancement [6].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00661v2-figure-e2421bb6-2bb0-41aa-8a2f-1f419f01a7d2.jpg)

(

)

Fig. 2 Single particle cooling. (a) Single particle PSDs of the motion along the z -axis with different feedback gain settings. (b) Extracted T CoM relative to initial temperature T 0 with increasing feedback damping rate, showing that we can apply enough feedback gain to saturate the cooling. (c) Effect of the feedback loop phase delay on the temperature of the particle. (d) Variation in single particle temperature under optimal feedback gain and phase conditions, as the pressure (and hence heating rate) is decreased. When the pressure reaches 4 × 10 -4 mBar we cool to the noise floor of our system, as indicated by the grey shaded region, corresponding to T CoM = (0 5 . ± 0 3) K. .

Cold damping is a feedback method whereby a force proportional to the velocity of an oscillator is applied to its motion. Depending on the phase of the feedback signal, this method can cause damping or amplification of the particle motion without adding additional noise, hence the terminology cold damping. In reality, input and output noise of the feedback electronics still limits cooling.

We process the position data from the EBC using a Field Programmable-Gate-Array (FPGA) to generate a feedback signal proportional to velocity, with variable gain and phase. This signal is filtered and applied to an electrode of the levitating apparatus, see Fig. 1(a).

Figure 2(a) shows the PSD of a particle as a single degree-of-freedom (along the z -axis) is cooled via cold damping. The shape of the PSD is given by [4]:

$$S _ { z z } \left ( \omega \right ) = \frac { 2 k _ { B } T _ { \text{CoM} } \Gamma _ { \text{t} } / m } { \left ( \omega ^ { 2 } - \omega _ { z } ^ { 2 } \right ) ^ { 2 } + \Gamma _ { \text{t} } ^ { 2 } \omega ^ { 2 } }, \quad \left ( 1 \right ) \quad \text{co} \\ \text{nc} \\ \text{A.w.}$$

where ω = 2 π × f , m is the particle's mass, ω z is the mode frequency, T CoM is the temperature associated with the mode being analyzed and Γ t = Γ +Γ 0 fb is the total momentum damping rate on the particle's motion, with Γ 0 being the calculable momentum damping rate due to the pressure of the surrounding gas [4] and Γ fb being the additional damping due to feedback. The parameters T CoM and Γ fb can be extracted from a measured PSD by fitting equation (1) to the data. Due to voltage noise from the amplifiers driving our Paul trap, the equilibrium temperature of our particles without cooling is approximately T 0 = 900K.

According to the equipartition theorem, the temperature of a levitated particle experiencing cold damping is [23]:

$$T _ { C o M } = T _ { 0 } \frac { \Gamma _ { 0 } } { \Gamma _ { t } } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \frac { m \omega _ { z } ^ { 2 } } { k _ { B } } \frac { \Gamma _ { \text{fb} } ^ { 2 } } { \Gamma _ { t } } S _ { \text{nn} }, \quad ( 2 ) \quad \text{of} \,.$$

where S nn is noise due to the feedback defined by a constant spectral noise density. In Fig. 2(b) we show the effect of increasing feedback gain on the temperature of a single mode of a single particle, and compare the data to the model in equation (2), with only S nn as a free parameter.

The cooling depends on the phase ϕ between the feedback signal, which is proportional to velocity, and the detected motion of the particle, with the temperature varying as [48]:

$$T _ { \text{CoM} } = \frac { \Gamma _ { 0 } T _ { 0 } } { \Gamma _ { 0 } + \Gamma _ { \text{fb} } \cos \left ( \phi + \phi _ { 0 } \right ) }, \quad \left ( 3 \right ) \quad \underset { \text{H-e} } { \text{p} }$$

where ϕ 0 is the uncontrollable phase delay caused by the electronics. This model is fit to experimental data, Fig. 2(c), with Γ fb and ϕ 0 as free parameters. The fitted value of ϕ 0 is 5 , ◦ noting that one- or two- periods of phase delay do not significantly effect the cooling for an underdamped oscillator as in our system [49].

Finally, we combine the optimized Γ fb and ϕ to push cooling to the limit by reducing Γ 0 through reducing the gas pressure in the experiment, as shown in Fig. 2(d). At low pressures we reach the noise floor of our system, indicated by the grey region, at a temperature corresponding to T CoM = (0 5 . ± 0 3) K, . representing -30 dB of cooling. Further decreasing the pressure leads to noise squashing of our signals (not further cooling) due to our in-loop feedback loop [43]. To improve cooling further we could improve our particle illumination and imaging, decrease the noise in our levitation electronics, and replace the GTA on the EBC with an optimized tracking algorithm.

## Simultaneous cooling of a microparticle array

Our neuromorphic imaging system gives us 2D readout of the motion of every object it identifies. We are able to process this signal, and make a feedback loop for each degree-of-freedom that is detected. Each feedback loop consists of a dedicated FPGA and set of analogue filters, and we are limited in our experiment to three loops in total. We stress that this is not a limitation of detection or processing power, simply the number of FPGA outputs available to us. For each degreeof-freedom the phase and gain of each feedback loop must be optimized, and filters must be set accordingly.

In Fig. 3(a) we cool two orthogonal degrees-offreedom (the x -and z -axes) of a single particle. We are sensitive to all three degrees-of-freedom due to the angle our imaging system makes to the principal axes of the trap. The geometry of our Paul trap allows the control of all degrees-offreedom with a single electrode.

We optimize and fix the feedback parameters, then lower the background pressure to reduce Γ , 0 hence lowering the temperature T CoM . The temperature is limited not by our noise floor, but by imperfect filtering pumping energy from the feedback signal into the y -mode, since it is close in frequency to the z -mode. At low pressures this causes the particle to become unstable, preventing us from further lowering the pressure.

Fig. 3 Simultaneous multi-particle cooling. (a) Cooling of two modes of a single particle's motion along the x -and z -directions. (b) Cooling of two levitated particles' z -motion. (c) Cooling of three levitated particles' z -motion. (d) The PSDs of the motion of three particles along the z -axis before and after cooling.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00661v2-figure-78dede9a-2108-45c8-90fe-f7fe8a5244fc.jpg)

In Fig. 3(b) we extend our cooling to the z -mode of two separate particles, to the best of our knowledge the first direct cooling of two separate particles with a single detector. As we lower the pressure, the temperature of each mode drops, reaching ∼ -10 dB and ∼ -15 dB of cooling. Again, imperfect filtering leads to cross-talk between different modes, and at lower pressures this causes heating of the uncooled modes and particle instability.

In Fig. 3(c) we cool the z -mode of three different particles, with the corresponding PSDs shown in Fig. 3(d). Different particles can have different noise floors, since their coupling to voltage noise depends on the particle charge. The issue of cross-talk is more pronounced when there are more modes of the system, yet we still achieve better than ∼ -7 dB of cooling.

The cross-talk between modes can be minimized through better filtering, use of phaselocked-loops [50], or further separation of the particle modes to enable more effective filtering.

## Conclusions

We have presented a scalable method for the detection and control of arrays of levitated microparticles using a single neuromorphic detector. Neuromorphic imaging is ideally suited to this task, due to its natural affinity with detecting the motion of multiple objects and low data-transfer rate. The tracking speed is limited by the proprietary tracking algorithm of the EBC used in this work, but other work in our lab has achieved neuromorphic imaging at &gt; 100 kHz frame-rates [51].

The work presented here can straightforwardly be extended to arrays of 10s of microparticles, with multi-channel FPGA systems with highquality digital filters being a common tool in research labs. Paul traps are stable at low pressures [52], where the motional frequencies of levitated particles have sub-Hz linewidths [53], meaning that the naturally varying charge-to-mass ratio of charged nanoand micro-particles will enable single-particle control and cooling even for large arrays. It's also worth mentioning that our method is suitable for any object which can carry a charge, unlike optical trapping with intensebeam detection which is limited to low-absorption dielectrics.

Since the motion of levitated sensors is well understood, simple machine-learning [54] could be used to optimize all of the feedback parameters in an array, and optimal tracking algorithms used which have been shown to enable quantum-level control [46]. When combined with the low powerconsumption of neuromorphic imaging technology, and great progress in chip-scale particle levitation [43], integrated devices containing arrays of quantum sensors are closer to being a reality.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Prof David Moore for useful discussions, Dr Ruvi

Lecamwasam for assistance with writing FPGA cose, and Dr John Dale for bringing neuromorphic imaging to our attention. This work is supported by STFC Grant ST/Y004914/1, EPSRC Grant EP/S004777/1 and ERC Starting Grant 803277.

## References

- [1] Derek K. Shaeffer. 'MEMS inertial sensors: A tutorial overview'. In: IEEE Communications Magazine 51.4 (2013), pp. 100-109. doi : 10.1109/MCOM.2013.6495768.
- [2] Cristina Chircov and Alexandru Mihai Grumezescu. 'Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) for biomedical applications'. en. In: Micromachines (Basel) 13.2 (Jan. 2022), p. 164.
- [3] Matthias Imboden and Pritiraj Mohanty. 'Dissipation in nanoelectromechanical systems'. In: Physics Reports 534.3 (2014). Dissipation in nano-electromechanical systems, pp. 89-146. issn : 0370-1573. doi : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2013.09. 003. url : https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0370157313003475.
- [4] James Millen et al. 'Optomechanics with levitated particles'. In: Reports on Progress in Physics 83.2 (2020), p. 026401. doi : 10. 1088/1361-6633/ab6100. url : https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ab6100.
- [5] David C Moore and Andrew A Geraci. 'Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors'. In: Quantum Science and Technology 6.1 (2021), p. 014008. doi : 10. 1088/2058-9565/abcf8a. url : https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/abcf8a.
- [6] Gambhir Ranjit et al. 'Zeptonewton force sensing with nanospheres in an optical lattice'. In: Physical Review A 93.5 (2016), p. 053801.
- [7] Jonghoon Ahn et al. 'Ultrasensitive torque detection with an optically levitated nanorotor'. In: Nature Nanotechnology 15.2 (2020), pp. 89-93.
- [8] Lorenzo Dania et al. 'Ultrahigh Quality Factor of a Levitated Nanomechanical Oscillator'. In: Physical Review Letters 132.13 (2024), p. 133602.
- [9] Gadi Afek, Daniel Carney, and David C Moore. 'Coherent scattering of low mass
- dark matter from optically trapped sensors'. In: Physical review letters 128.10 (2022), p. 101301.
- [10] Peiran Yin et al. 'Experiments with levitated force sensor challenge theories of dark energy'. In: Nature Physics 18.10 (2022), pp. 1181-1185.
- [11] Asimina Arvanitaki and Andrew A Geraci. 'Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with optically levitated sensors'. In: Physical review letters 110.7 (2013), p. 071105.
- [12] George Winstone et al. 'Optical Trapping of High-Aspect-Ratio NaYF Hexagonal Prisms for kHz-MHz Gravitational Wave Detectors'. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (5 2022), p. 053604. doi : 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129. 053604. url : https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.129.053604.
- [13] C. Gonzalez-Ballestero et al. 'Levitodynamics: Levitation and control of microscopic objects in vacuum'. In: Science 374.6564 (2021), eabg3027. doi : 10 . 1126 / science . abg3027. eprint: https://www.science.org/ doi / pdf / 10 . 1126 / science . abg3027. url : https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.abg3027.
- [14] Uroˇ s Deli´ c et al. 'Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state'. In: Science 367.6480 (2020), pp. 892-895.
- [15] Johannes Piotrowski et al. 'Simultaneous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle'. In: Nature Physics 19.7 (2023), pp. 1009-1013. issn : 1745-2481. doi : 10.1038/s41567-02301956- 1. url : https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-023-01956-1.
- [16] James Millen and Benjamin A Stickler. 'Quantum experiments with microscale particles'. In: Contemporary Physics 61.3 (2020), pp. 155-168.
- [17] Henning Rudolph et al. 'Force-gradient sensing and entanglement via feedback cooling of interacting nanoparticles'. In: Physical review letters 129.19 (2022), p. 193602.
- [18] Sougato Bose et al. 'Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity'. In: Physical review letters 119.24 (2017), p. 240401.
- [19] Chiara Marletto and Vlatko Vedral. 'Gravitationally induced entanglement between

two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity'. In: Physical review letters 119.24 (2017), p. 240402.

- [20] Yoshihiko Arita, Ewan M Wright, and Kishan Dholakia. 'Optical binding of two cooled micro-gyroscopes levitated in vacuum'. In: Optica 5.8 (2018), pp. 910-917.
- [21] Jakob Rieser et al. 'Tunable light-induced dipole-dipole interaction between optically levitated nanoparticles'. In: Science 377.6609 (2022), pp. 987-990.
- [22] Vojtˇ ech Liˇ ska et al. 'Cold damping of levitated optically coupled nanoparticles'. In: Optica 10.9 (2023), pp. 1203-1209.
- [23] TW Penny, A Pontin, and PF Barker. 'Sympathetic cooling and squeezing of two colevitated nanoparticles'. In: Physical Review Research 5.1 (2023), p. 013070.
- [24] Dmitry S Bykov et al. '3D sympathetic cooling and detection of levitated nanoparticles'. In: Optica 10.4 (2023), pp. 438442.
- [25] Bradley R. Slezak and Brian D'Urso. 'A microsphere molecule: The interaction of two charged microspheres in a magnetogravitational trap'. In: Applied Physics Letters 114.24 (June 2019), p. 244102. issn : 0003-6951. doi : 10.1063/1.5097615. eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article-pdf/ doi/10.1063/1.5097615/19774174/244102 \ 1 \ online.pdf. url : https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.5097615.
- [26] Yoshihiko Arita et al. 'All-optical subKelvin sympathetic cooling of a levitated microsphere in vacuum'. In: Optica 9.9 (2022), pp. 1000-1002.
- [27] Jayadev Vijayan et al. 'Scalable all-optical cold damping of levitated nanoparticles'. In: Nature Nanotechnology 18.1 (2023), pp. 4954.
- [28] Fuyou Liao, Feichi Zhou, and Yang Chai. 'Neuromorphic vision sensors: Principle, progress and perspectives'. In: Journal of Semiconductors 42.1 (2021), p. 013105. doi : 10 . 1088 / 1674 - 4926 / 42 / 1 / 013105. url : https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-4926/42/ 1/013105.
- [29] Anup Vanarse, Adam Osseiran, and Alexander Rassau. 'A Review of Current Neuromorphic Approaches for Vision, Auditory, and Olfactory Sensors'. In: Frontiers in

|      | Neuroscience 10 (2016). issn : 1662-453X. doi : 10 . 3389 / fnins . 2016 . 00115. url : https : / / www. frontiersin . org / journals / neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2016.                                                                                        |
|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [30] | 00115. Patrick Lichtsteiner, Christoph Posch, and Tobi Delbruck. 'A 128 × 128 120 dB 15 µ s latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor'. In: IEEE journal of solid-                                                                                            |
| [31] | state circuits 43.2 (2008), pp. 566-576. Anh Nguyen et al. 'Real-time 6DOF pose relocalization for event cameras with stacked spatial LSTM networks'. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops . 2019, pp. 0-0. |
| [32] | Henri Rebecq et al. 'High speed and high dynamic range video with an event camera'. In: IEEE transactions on pattern analy- sis and machine intelligence 43.6 (2019), pp. 1964-1980.                                                                                     |
| [33] | Marco Cannici et al. 'Asynchronous con- volutional networks for object detection in neuromorphic cameras'. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops . 2019, pp. 0-0.                                              |
| [34] | Guillermo Gallego et al. 'Event-based vision: A survey'. In: IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 44.1 (2020), pp. 154-180.                                                                                                                    |
| [35] | Le Zhu, Michael Mangan, and Barbara Webb. 'Neuromorphic sequence learning with an event camera on routes through veg- etation'. In: Science Robotics 8.82 (2023), eadg3679.                                                                                              |
| [36] | Daniel Gehrig and Davide Scaramuzza. 'Low-latency automotive vision with event cameras'. In: Nature 629.8014 (2024), pp. 1034-1040.                                                                                                                                      |
| [37] | O. Sikorski, D. Izzo, and Meoni G. 'Event- Based Spacecraft Landing Using Time-To- Contact'. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision. June 2021, pp. 1941-1950.                                                                                    |
| [38] | Rohit Mangalwedhekar et al. 'Achiev- ing nanoscale precision using neuromorphic localization microscopy'. In: Nature Nan- otechnology 18.4 (2023), pp. 380-389.                                                                                                          |
| [39] | Yonhon Ng et al. 'Asynchronous kalman filter for event-based star tracking'. In:                                                                                                                                                                                         |

European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer. 2022, pp. 66-79.

- [40] TWPenny, A Pontin, and PF Barker. 'Performance and limits of feedback cooling methods for levitated oscillators: A direct comparison'. In: Physical Review A 104.2 (2021), p. 023502.
- [41] Felix Tebbenjohanns et al. 'Quantum control of a nanoparticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space'. In: Nature 595.7867 (2021), pp. 378-382.
- [42] Matthew Spletzer et al. 'Ultrasensitive mass sensing using mode localization in coupled microcantilevers'. In: Applied Physics Letters 88.25 (June 2006), p. 254102. issn : 0003-6951. doi : 10.1063/1.2216889. eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article-pdf/ doi/10.1063/1.2216889/14356366/254102 \ 1 \ online.pdf. url : https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.2216889.
- [43] Bruno Melo et al. 'Vacuum levitation and motion control on chip'. In: Nature Nanotechnology (2024). issn : 1748-3395. doi : 10. 1038/s41565-024-01677-3. url : https://doi. org/10.1038/s41565-024-01677-3.
- [44] Yugang Ren et al. 'Event-based imaging of levitated microparticles'. In: Applied Physics Letters 121.11 (2022).
- [45] Fernando Monteiro et al. 'Force and acceleration sensing with optically levitated nanogram masses at microkelvin temperatures'. In: Physical Review A 101.5 (2020), p. 053835.
- [46] Lorenzo Magrini et al. 'Real-time optimal quantum control of mechanical motion at room temperature'. In: Nature 595.7867 (2021), pp. 373-377.
- [47] Johannes Piotrowski et al. 'Simultaneous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle'. In: Nature Physics 19.7 (2023), pp. 1009-1013.
- [48] L. Dania et al. 'Optical and electrical feedback cooling of a silica nanoparticle levitated in a Paul trap'. In: Physical Review Research 3.1 (2021), p. 013018.
- [49] Maxime Debiossac et al. 'Thermodynamics of continuous non-Markovian feedback control'. In: Nature Communications 11.1 (2020), p. 1360. issn : 2041-1723. doi : 10.

1038/s41467-020-15148-5. url : https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-020-15148-5.

- [50] Jialiang Gao et al. 'Feedback cooling a levitated nanoparticle's libration to below 100 phonons'. In: Physical Review Research 6.3 (2024), p. 033009.
- [51] Yugang et al. Ren. 'Neuromorphic imaging of optically levitated nanoparticles'. In: in prep. (2024).
- [52] Dmitry S Bykov et al. 'Direct loading of nanoparticles under high vacuum into a Paul trap for levitodynamical experiments'. In: Applied Physics Letters 115.3 (2019).
- [53] A Pontin et al. 'Ultranarrow-linewidth levitated nano-oscillator for testing dissipative wave-function collapse'. In: Physical Review Research 2.2 (2020), p. 023349.
- [54] Gerard P. Conangla et al. 'Optimal Feedback Cooling of a Charged Levitated Nanoparticle with Adaptive Control'. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (22 2019), p. 223602. doi : 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 122 . 223602. url : https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.223602.
- [55] Maryam Nikkhou et al. 'Direct and Clean Loading of Nanoparticles into Optical Traps at Millibar Pressures'. In: Photonics 8.11 (2021). issn : 2304-6732. doi : 10 . 3390 / photonics8110458. url : https://www.mdpi. com/2304-6732/8/11/458.

## Methods

## Experimental setup

Fig. 4 illustrates the experimental setup surrounding our linear Paul trap. The trap consists of 4 parallel cylindrical trapping electrodes forming a square, with two coaxial cylindrical end-cap electrodes. The distance from trap centre to the surface of the 1 mm-diameter trapping electrodes is r = 1 15 mm, and one opposing-pair are driven . with 360 V amplitude at 1 kHz. The two endcaps are 300 µ m-diameter and separated by 2 z 0 = 800 µ m. The proximity of the electrodes to the centre of the trap mean that a voltage applied to either one will create a field with a significant component in all axes, enabling 3D control with a single electrode.

Laser-induced acoustic desorption (LIAD) [55] is used to launch micro-particles into the trap at

a pressure of 1 mbar and then lower the pressure to carry out the experiments presented in this manuscript. We typically trap particles of positive charge, ranging from 2 × 10 3 e to 2 × 10 4 e.

To image the particles, 18 mW of laser light of wavelength 520 nm is weakly focused onto the array. The scattered light is imaged onto an eventbased camera (Prophesee EVK1 -Gen3.1 VGA (camera sensor: Prophesee PPS3MVCD, 640 × 480 pixels)) using a long-working distance microscope. The camera is precisely calibrated using a method outlined in detail in [44]. When dealing with multiple particles, calibration is performed via displacing a translation stage on which our imaging system is mounted by a known amount.

Generation of feedback signals is described below, but a voltage is added to one endcap electrode to control the motion of the particles.

Fig. 4 Experimental setup for levitating, detecting and controlling arrays of microparticles. A pulsed laser beam is used to launch particles into the trap via LIAD [55]. They are illuminated with a CW laser from above, and imaged onto an EBC from below. The EBC software runs on a PC, and the tracking algorithm outputs data to a series of FPGAs, which process the data to produce a feedback signal for each degree of freedom of each particle. Each signal is then filtered with analogue filters (not shown), and then all signals are summed together and drive one endcap electrode.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00661v2-figure-10cc59cc-577f-4d17-9df0-714fcb8eca38.jpg)

## Data processing

A data pipeline is shown in Fig. 5. The operation of the EBC is described in detail in [44]. The generic tracking algorithm (GTA) of the EBC outputs 2D position data for each object it detects. The EBC is communicated with via a Python script, which separates this 2D information into two 1D data streams for each object. The script passes each data stream to one of three FPGA systems (Red Pitaya STEMlab 125-14) to output the position of each particle which we can monitor. Code on the FPGA computes the velocity from the position data, and adds a variable gain and phase to the signal to generate the feedback signal.

Each feedback signal is filtered with an anaolgue filter to isolate each frequency component of motion: a high-pass filter for the f z signal and a low-pass filter for the f x signal. The filtered feedback signals are combined with a summing amplifier, and sent to one endcap electrode.

Clock synchronization of the FPGA system and the EBC is achieved via enabling the camera clock only.

Fig. 5 Data pipeline for feedback control based on neuromorphic detection. Motion data of the levitated microparticles is first tracked by and EBC and then transferred to a computer. The computer streams the data to several FPGAs, which are used to generate feedback signals for particle control.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00661v2-figure-8e9ec9c8-d580-4951-bb14-304b20516a1b.jpg)
Yugang Ren Benjamin Siegel Ronghao Yin Muddassar Rashid James Millen
Neuromorphic detection and cooling of microparticle arrays
Micro-objects levitated in a vacuum are an exciting platform for precision
sensing due to their low dissipation motion and the potential for control at
the quantum level. Arrays of such sensors would allow noise cancellation,
directionality, increased sensitivity and in the quantum regime the potential
to exploit correlation and entanglement. We use neuromorphic detection via a
single event-based camera to record the motion of an array of levitated
microspheres. We present a truly scalable method for arbitrary multiparticle
control by implementing real-time feedback to cool the motion of three objects
simultaneously, the first demonstration of neuromorphic sensing for real-time
control at the microscale.