Self-healing of the Montgomery pattern

Alfonso Palmieri; Athena Xu; Ayman F. Abouraddy; Federico Capasso; Murat Yessenov; Oscar de Vries

arxiv: 2605.18318 · v1 · pith:YBHS746Dnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · ⚛️ physics.optics

Self-healing of the Montgomery pattern

Athena Xu , Oscar de Vries , Alfonso Palmieri , Murat Yessenov , Ayman F. Abouraddy , Federico Capasso This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 23:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics

keywords self-healingMontgomery patternself-imagingBabinet's principlediffraction-free beamsoptical fieldsholographic setupobstruction recovery

0 comments

The pith

The Montgomery pattern recovers its transverse profile only at integer multiples of its self-imaging period after partial obstruction.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper studies self-healing in the Montgomery pattern, a self-imaging beam formed by tightly localized optical fields. Unlike other diffraction-free beams whose recovery distance changes continuously with obstruction size, the authors show that recovery here occurs only at discrete distances. They derive this quantization theoretically by applying Babinet's principle to the obstructed field. The prediction is tested in a programmable holographic setup using circular disk obstructions as large as twenty times the spot size at the self-imaging plane. The result establishes a qualitative distinction from all previously examined self-healing beams and demonstrates robustness to scatterers in the path.

Core claim

Using Babinet's principle, the recovery distance for the Montgomery pattern is quantized in integer multiples of the self-imaging period, a qualitative distinction from all previously studied self-healing beams.

What carries the argument

Babinet's principle applied to partial obstruction of the Montgomery pattern, which forces the reconstructed intensity to appear only after integer multiples of the self-imaging period.

If this is right

Recovery distance depends only on the self-imaging period and not on obstruction size.
The pattern remains intact after obstructions up to twenty times its spot size at the self-imaging plane.
Robustness holds against scatterers and obstructions placed anywhere in the beam path.
The quantization provides a built-in ruler for locating self-imaging planes without continuous scanning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The discrete healing planes could be exploited in multi-layer optical systems to restore signal only at predetermined depths.
Periodic recovery might reduce the need for adaptive optics in free-space links where obstacle locations are known in advance.
Varying the self-imaging period through wavelength or aperture design would shift the healing locations in a predictable way.

Load-bearing premise

Babinet's principle applies directly to the partial obstruction without additional phase or amplitude effects arising from the specific self-imaging geometry or the holographic generation method.

What would settle it

Observation of full profile reconstruction at a propagation distance that is not an integer multiple of the self-imaging period, or absence of reconstruction at those multiples for obstructions up to twenty times the spot size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18318 by Alfonso Palmieri, Athena Xu, Ayman F. Abouraddy, Federico Capasso, Murat Yessenov, Oscar de Vries.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Measured on-axis intensity profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Self-healing distances retrieved from the on-axis mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Self-healing -- the ability of a structured beam to reconstruct its transverse profile after partial obstruction -- has been demonstrated for diffraction-free beams, where the recovery distance varies continuously with obstruction size. Here, we investigate self-healing in the Montgomery pattern, a self-imaging of tightly localized optical fields. Using Babinet's principle, we show theoretically that the recovery distance is quantized in integer multiples of the self-imaging period -- a qualitative distinction from all previously studied self-healing beams. We confirm these predictions experimentally using a programmable holographic setup with circular disk obstructions of size up to $20\times$ of the spot size of the Montgomery pattern at the self-imaging plane, establishing the robustness of the Montgomery pattern against scatterers and obstructions in the beam path.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper's main result is a quantized recovery distance for obstructed Montgomery patterns, set by integer multiples of the self-imaging period rather than varying continuously.

read the letter

Hi, the central claim here is that Montgomery patterns recover after partial obstruction only at distances that are exact integer multiples of their self-imaging period. This comes from applying Babinet's principle to the self-imaging property, and it marks a qualitative split from the continuous recovery distances reported for other diffraction-free beams. They back the idea with both a derivation and an experiment that uses obstructions up to twenty times the spot size in a holographic setup. That size range is a reasonable stress test for robustness against scatterers. The match between the predicted steps and the observed recovery is the part that stands out as new. Prior self-healing work focused on beams without the built-in longitudinal periodicity, so extending the analysis to this class and spotting the quantization is a direct, useful step. The experimental confirmation with large blocks adds some practical weight, showing the pattern holds up under conditions that would destroy many other structured beams. On the softer side, the abstract gives no error bars, no quantitative fit to the predicted distances, and no detail on how they ruled out extra phase or amplitude shifts from the holographic encoding or the self-imaging geometry itself. The stress-test note flags exactly that point: if the complementary-field relation from Babinet does not hold exactly along the axis because of the periodic structure, the quantization could turn out approximate rather than strict. A reader would want to see the full field data or supplementary checks on invariance to settle whether the distinction is as sharp as stated. This work sits in the structured-light niche, so it is mainly for people already thinking about self-imaging or self-healing beams for imaging or propagation through obstacles. It is not a broad redesign of the field, but the specific distinction is clear enough that a serious referee could check the derivation and the experimental controls without wasting time. I would send it to review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the Montgomery pattern, a self-imaging beam, exhibits self-healing after partial obstruction with recovery distance quantized strictly in integer multiples of the self-imaging period. This is derived theoretically via Babinet's principle applied to the complementary field and confirmed experimentally in a holographic setup using circular disk obstructions up to 20 times the spot size at the self-imaging plane.

Significance. If the quantization result holds exactly, the work establishes a qualitative distinction from continuously recovering self-healing beams such as Bessel or Airy beams, with potential utility in robust propagation through scatterers. The application of Babinet's principle to self-imaging fields and the experimental demonstration of robustness against large obstructions are strengths; the manuscript would benefit from explicit checks on phase/amplitude invariance to solidify the central claim.

major comments (1)

Theoretical derivation (Babinet's principle section): the central claim of strict quantization in integer multiples of the self-imaging period assumes that the complementary-field relation from Babinet's principle holds exactly along the propagation axis without residual phase shifts or amplitude distortions induced by the periodic longitudinal structure or holographic encoding. The manuscript should provide an explicit verification (analytic or numerical) that no such distortions arise for the Montgomery pattern, as any violation would render the quantization approximate rather than exact and remove the claimed qualitative distinction.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: quantitative fit metrics, error bars on measured recovery distances, and exclusion criteria for the experimental data are not reported; adding these would strengthen the experimental confirmation of the quantized recovery.
Experimental section: clarify the precise definition of 'recovery distance' (e.g., intensity overlap threshold or centroid shift) and how it is extracted from the recorded profiles to allow direct comparison with the theoretical quantization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Theoretical derivation (Babinet's principle section): the central claim of strict quantization in integer multiples of the self-imaging period assumes that the complementary-field relation from Babinet's principle holds exactly along the propagation axis without residual phase shifts or amplitude distortions induced by the periodic longitudinal structure or holographic encoding. The manuscript should provide an explicit verification (analytic or numerical) that no such distortions arise for the Montgomery pattern, as any violation would render the quantization approximate rather than exact and remove the claimed qualitative distinction.

Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The derivation applies Babinet's principle at the obstruction plane to express the post-obstruction field as the difference between the full Montgomery field and the obstructed contribution. Because the underlying wave equation is linear, this difference propagates exactly as the difference of the two propagated fields. The Montgomery pattern is a discrete superposition of plane-wave components whose longitudinal wave numbers are commensurate, guaranteeing exact intensity self-imaging with period Z. The complementary field is formed from the same set of wave numbers and therefore inherits the identical self-imaging property. Consequently, at distances z = nZ the intensity of the difference field coincides exactly with that of the unobstructed pattern; the shared propagation constants preclude additional phase or amplitude distortions attributable to the longitudinal periodicity. The holographic encoding pertains only to the experimental realization and does not affect the ideal-field analysis. While the analytic argument from linearity and spectral identity already establishes exactness, we will add a concise numerical propagation check in the revised manuscript to make this invariance explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Babinet's principle applied to self-imaging yields independent quantization claim

full rationale

The derivation applies the external, standard Babinet's principle to the known self-imaging property of the Montgomery pattern to conclude that recovery distance after partial obstruction must be an integer multiple of the self-imaging period. This step is not self-definitional, does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction, and invokes no self-citation or author-specific uniqueness theorem. The result follows from the complementarity relation under propagation and is presented as a qualitative distinction testable by experiment; the paper remains self-contained against external benchmarks with no reduction of the central claim to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of Babinet's principle to this self-imaging field and the definition of the self-imaging period as the fundamental repeat distance; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Babinet's principle holds for the partial obstruction of the Montgomery pattern
Invoked to derive the quantized recovery distance from the self-imaging property.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5660 in / 1264 out tokens · 28390 ms · 2026-05-19T23:50:55.292399+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the recovery distance is quantized in integer multiples of the self-imaging period – a qualitative distinction from all previously studied self-healing beams

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

H. F. Talbot, Philos. Mag.9, 401 (1836)

work page
[2]

W. D. Montgomery, J. Opt. Soc. Am.57, 772 (1967)

work page 1967
[3]

Jahns, H

J. Jahns, H. Knuppertz, and A. W. Lohmann, Optics Communications225, 13

work page
[4]

Indebetouw, Journal of the Optical Society of America A9, 549 (1992)

G. Indebetouw, Journal of the Optical Society of America A9, 549 (1992)

work page 1992
[5]

A. W. Lohmann, H. Knuppertz, and J. Jahns, JOSA A 22, 1500 (2005)

work page 2005
[6]

Yessenov, L

M. Yessenov, L. Sacchi, A. Palmieri, L. A. Hall, A. F. Abouraddy, and F. Capasso, Optica13, 195 (2026)

work page 2026
[7]

Kusano, Y

T. Kusano, Y. Nakamura, R. Yokoyama, N. Ozawa, K. Shibata, T. Takano, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Physical Review Research7, L022045 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

Schlosser, S

M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, D. Sch¨ affner, D. O. de Mello, M. Hambach, J. Sch¨ utz, and G. Birkl, Physical Review Letters130, 180601 (2023)

work page 2023
[9]

N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered,et al., Nature , 1 (2025)

work page 2025
[10]

M. d. G. de Herve, Y. Guo, C. De Rossi, A. Kumar, T. Badr, R. Dubessy, L. Longchambon, and H. Per- rin, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics54, 125302 (2021)

work page 2021
[11]

C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, and M. G. Boshier, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 205301 (2013)

work page 2013
[12]

W. Chen, X. Ge, Q. Zhang, R. G. Natan, J. L. Fan, M. Scanziani, and N. Ji, Nature Methods21, 1298 (2024)

work page 2024
[13]

G. A. Siviloglou and D. N. Christodoulides, Opt. Lett. 32, 979 (2007)

work page 2007
[14]

Broky, G

J. Broky, G. A. Siviloglou, A. Dogariu, and D. N. Christodoulides, Opt. Express16, 12880 (2008)

work page 2008
[15]

Durnin, J

J. Durnin, J. J. Miceli, and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1499 (1987)

work page 1987
[16]

Bouchal, J

Z. Bouchal, J. Wagner, and M. Chlup, Optics Commu- nications151, 207 (1998)

work page 1998
[17]

Chu, The European Physical Journal D66, 259 (2012)

X. Chu, The European Physical Journal D66, 259 (2012)

work page 2012
[18]

Aiello and G

A. Aiello and G. S. Agarwal, Opt. Lett.39, 6819 (2014)

work page 2014
[19]

H. E. Kondakci and A. F. Abouraddy, Nat. Photon.11, 733 (2017)

work page 2017
[20]

Yessenov, B

M. Yessenov, B. Bhaduri, H. E. Kondakci, and A. F. Abouraddy, Phys. Rev. A99, 023856 (2019)

work page 2019
[21]

H. E. Kondakci and A. F. Abouraddy, Opt. Lett.43, 3830 (2018)

work page 2018
[22]

Yessenov, L

M. Yessenov, L. A. Hall, K. L. Schepler, and A. F. Abouraddy, Adv. Opt. Photon.14, 455 (2022)

work page 2022
[23]

Y. Shen, Q. Zhan, L. G. Wright, D. N. Christodoulides, F. W. Wise, A. E. Willner, K.-h. Zou, Z. Zhao, M. A. Porras, A. Chong,et al., Journal of Optics25, 093001 (2023)

work page 2023
[24]

Garc´ es-Ch´ avez, D

V. Garc´ es-Ch´ avez, D. McGloin, H. Melville, W. Sibbett, and K. Dholakia, Nature419, 145 (2002)

work page 2002
[25]

F. O. Fahrbach, P. Simon, and A. Rohrbach, Nat. Pho- ton.4, 780 (2010)

work page 2010
[26]

Baliyan and N

M. Baliyan and N. K. Nishchal, JOSA A42, 36 (2025)

work page 2025
[27]

Supplemental material [url],

“Supplemental material [url],”

work page
[28]

Yessenov, B

M. Yessenov, B. Bhaduri, H. E. Kondakci, M. Meem, 6 R. Menon, and A. F. Abouraddy, Optica6, 598 (2019)

work page 2019
[29]

Yessenov, J

M. Yessenov, J. Free, Z. Chen, E. G. Johnson, M. P. J. Lavery, M. A. Alonso, and A. F. Abouraddy, Nat. Com- mun.13, 4573 (2022)

work page 2022
[30]

Ebrahimi, J

V. Ebrahimi, J. Tang, and K. Y. Han, Optics Express 29, 32691 (2021)

work page 2021
[31]

A. H. Dorrah and F. Capasso, Science376, eabi6860 (2022)

work page 2022
[32]

A. H. Dorrah, J.-S. Park, A. Palmieri, and F. Capasso, Nat. Comm.16, 3126 (2025)

work page 2025
[33]

Self-healing of the Montgomery pattern

S. W. D. Lim, J.-S. Park, D. Kazakov, C. M. Sp¨ agele, A. H. Dorrah, M. L. Meretska, and F. Capasso, Nat. Comm.14, 3237. Supplementary material for “Self-healing of the Montgomery pattern” Athena Xu,1, 2 Oscar de Vries,1, 3 Alfonso Palmieri,1 Murat Yessenov,1, 4,∗ Ayman F. Abouraddy,4 and Federico Capasso 1, † 1Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineerin...

work page 2026
[34]

Non-diffracting broadband incoherent space-time fields,

M. Yessenov, B. Bhaduri, H. E. Kondakci, M. Meem, R. Menon, and A. F. Abouraddy, “Non-diffracting broadband incoherent space-time fields,” Optica6, 598–607 (2019)

work page 2019
[35]

Incoherent superposition of polychromatic light enables single-shot nondiffracting light-sheet microscopy,

Vahid Ebrahimi, Jialei Tang, and Kyu Young Han, “Incoherent superposition of polychromatic light enables single-shot nondiffracting light-sheet microscopy,” Optics Express29, 32691–32699 (2021)

work page 2021
[36]

Wave-optics description of self-healing mechanism in Bessel beams,

Andrea Aiello and Girish S. Agarwal, “Wave-optics description of self-healing mechanism in Bessel beams,” Opt. Lett.39, 6819–6822 (2014). S11

work page 2014

[1] [1]

H. F. Talbot, Philos. Mag.9, 401 (1836)

work page

[2] [2]

W. D. Montgomery, J. Opt. Soc. Am.57, 772 (1967)

work page 1967

[3] [3]

Jahns, H

J. Jahns, H. Knuppertz, and A. W. Lohmann, Optics Communications225, 13

work page

[4] [4]

Indebetouw, Journal of the Optical Society of America A9, 549 (1992)

G. Indebetouw, Journal of the Optical Society of America A9, 549 (1992)

work page 1992

[5] [5]

A. W. Lohmann, H. Knuppertz, and J. Jahns, JOSA A 22, 1500 (2005)

work page 2005

[6] [6]

Yessenov, L

M. Yessenov, L. Sacchi, A. Palmieri, L. A. Hall, A. F. Abouraddy, and F. Capasso, Optica13, 195 (2026)

work page 2026

[7] [7]

Kusano, Y

T. Kusano, Y. Nakamura, R. Yokoyama, N. Ozawa, K. Shibata, T. Takano, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Physical Review Research7, L022045 (2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Schlosser, S

M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, D. Sch¨ affner, D. O. de Mello, M. Hambach, J. Sch¨ utz, and G. Birkl, Physical Review Letters130, 180601 (2023)

work page 2023

[9] [9]

N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered,et al., Nature , 1 (2025)

work page 2025

[10] [10]

M. d. G. de Herve, Y. Guo, C. De Rossi, A. Kumar, T. Badr, R. Dubessy, L. Longchambon, and H. Per- rin, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics54, 125302 (2021)

work page 2021

[11] [11]

C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, and M. G. Boshier, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 205301 (2013)

work page 2013

[12] [12]

W. Chen, X. Ge, Q. Zhang, R. G. Natan, J. L. Fan, M. Scanziani, and N. Ji, Nature Methods21, 1298 (2024)

work page 2024

[13] [13]

G. A. Siviloglou and D. N. Christodoulides, Opt. Lett. 32, 979 (2007)

work page 2007

[14] [14]

Broky, G

J. Broky, G. A. Siviloglou, A. Dogariu, and D. N. Christodoulides, Opt. Express16, 12880 (2008)

work page 2008

[15] [15]

Durnin, J

J. Durnin, J. J. Miceli, and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1499 (1987)

work page 1987

[16] [16]

Bouchal, J

Z. Bouchal, J. Wagner, and M. Chlup, Optics Commu- nications151, 207 (1998)

work page 1998

[17] [17]

Chu, The European Physical Journal D66, 259 (2012)

X. Chu, The European Physical Journal D66, 259 (2012)

work page 2012

[18] [18]

Aiello and G

A. Aiello and G. S. Agarwal, Opt. Lett.39, 6819 (2014)

work page 2014

[19] [19]

H. E. Kondakci and A. F. Abouraddy, Nat. Photon.11, 733 (2017)

work page 2017

[20] [20]

Yessenov, B

M. Yessenov, B. Bhaduri, H. E. Kondakci, and A. F. Abouraddy, Phys. Rev. A99, 023856 (2019)

work page 2019

[21] [21]

H. E. Kondakci and A. F. Abouraddy, Opt. Lett.43, 3830 (2018)

work page 2018

[22] [22]

Yessenov, L

M. Yessenov, L. A. Hall, K. L. Schepler, and A. F. Abouraddy, Adv. Opt. Photon.14, 455 (2022)

work page 2022

[23] [23]

Y. Shen, Q. Zhan, L. G. Wright, D. N. Christodoulides, F. W. Wise, A. E. Willner, K.-h. Zou, Z. Zhao, M. A. Porras, A. Chong,et al., Journal of Optics25, 093001 (2023)

work page 2023

[24] [24]

Garc´ es-Ch´ avez, D

V. Garc´ es-Ch´ avez, D. McGloin, H. Melville, W. Sibbett, and K. Dholakia, Nature419, 145 (2002)

work page 2002

[25] [25]

F. O. Fahrbach, P. Simon, and A. Rohrbach, Nat. Pho- ton.4, 780 (2010)

work page 2010

[26] [26]

Baliyan and N

M. Baliyan and N. K. Nishchal, JOSA A42, 36 (2025)

work page 2025

[27] [27]

Supplemental material [url],

“Supplemental material [url],”

work page

[28] [28]

Yessenov, B

M. Yessenov, B. Bhaduri, H. E. Kondakci, M. Meem, 6 R. Menon, and A. F. Abouraddy, Optica6, 598 (2019)

work page 2019

[29] [29]

Yessenov, J

M. Yessenov, J. Free, Z. Chen, E. G. Johnson, M. P. J. Lavery, M. A. Alonso, and A. F. Abouraddy, Nat. Com- mun.13, 4573 (2022)

work page 2022

[30] [30]

Ebrahimi, J

V. Ebrahimi, J. Tang, and K. Y. Han, Optics Express 29, 32691 (2021)

work page 2021

[31] [31]

A. H. Dorrah and F. Capasso, Science376, eabi6860 (2022)

work page 2022

[32] [32]

A. H. Dorrah, J.-S. Park, A. Palmieri, and F. Capasso, Nat. Comm.16, 3126 (2025)

work page 2025

[33] [33]

Self-healing of the Montgomery pattern

S. W. D. Lim, J.-S. Park, D. Kazakov, C. M. Sp¨ agele, A. H. Dorrah, M. L. Meretska, and F. Capasso, Nat. Comm.14, 3237. Supplementary material for “Self-healing of the Montgomery pattern” Athena Xu,1, 2 Oscar de Vries,1, 3 Alfonso Palmieri,1 Murat Yessenov,1, 4,∗ Ayman F. Abouraddy,4 and Federico Capasso 1, † 1Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineerin...

work page 2026

[34] [34]

Non-diffracting broadband incoherent space-time fields,

M. Yessenov, B. Bhaduri, H. E. Kondakci, M. Meem, R. Menon, and A. F. Abouraddy, “Non-diffracting broadband incoherent space-time fields,” Optica6, 598–607 (2019)

work page 2019

[35] [35]

Incoherent superposition of polychromatic light enables single-shot nondiffracting light-sheet microscopy,

Vahid Ebrahimi, Jialei Tang, and Kyu Young Han, “Incoherent superposition of polychromatic light enables single-shot nondiffracting light-sheet microscopy,” Optics Express29, 32691–32699 (2021)

work page 2021

[36] [36]

Wave-optics description of self-healing mechanism in Bessel beams,

Andrea Aiello and Girish S. Agarwal, “Wave-optics description of self-healing mechanism in Bessel beams,” Opt. Lett.39, 6819–6822 (2014). S11

work page 2014