Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 96 references

Diffraction theories for off-Bragg replay: J.T. Sheridan's seminal work and consequences

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that for off-Bragg replay of volume holographic gratings, Uchida's beta-value first-order coupled-wave theory is superior to Kogelnik's K-vector-closure theory, and that recent experiments confirm Sheridan's 1992 analysis.

desk verdict A clear, opinionated review arguing for Uchida's BVM over Kogelnik's KVCM for off-Bragg replay; no new data or derivations, but the tutorial value is real and it deserves refereeing if the venue does reviews. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13495 v1 pith:7T473A26 submitted 2024-11-20 physics.optics

Martin Fally This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords volumeholographicgratingsoff-BraggdiffractioncoupledwavetheoryKogelnikUchidabeta-valuemethodefficiencyBraggdetuningcurvesrigorouscoupled-waveanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the standard choice of Kogelnik's coupled-wave theory for evaluating off-Bragg diffraction from volume holographic gratings is inferior to Uchida's first-order theory, and that this was recognized by Sheridan in 1992 and confirmed experimentally since. The two theories differ only in how they fix the wavevector of the diffracted wave away from the Bragg angle; Uchida's beta-value method keeps the wavevector length equal to the incident wavevector, while Kogelnik's K-vector-closure method does not. That difference changes the predicted direction of the diffracted beam and the positions of the side minima of the angular diffraction-efficiency curve, which are exactly the features used to characterize gratings. The paper's central message is a practical recommendation: within the known limits of first-order theory, use Uchida's formulas rather than Kogelnik's when fitting off-Bragg scans.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the rule for fixing the diffracted wavevector in a two-wave coupled-wave calculation. Kogelnik's K-vector-closure method takes $\vec{k}_1 = \vec{k}_0 + \vec{G}$, so the grating Floquet condition is satisfied but the dispersion relation $|\vec{k}| = 2\pi n_0/\lambda$ is violated as soon as the incidence angle departs from the Bragg angle. Uchida's $\beta$-value method keeps the same in-plane grating equation but adds a component along the grating normal, $\vec{k}_1 = \vec{k}_0 + \vec{G} + \Delta k_1\hat{N}$, fixing $\Delta k_1 = -k_{0,z} \pm \sqrt{k_{0,z}^2 - G(2k_{0,x}+G)}$ so that $|\vec{k}_1| = \beta$. This is the same as intersecting the diffracted-wave circle (Ewald-sphere construction) with the phase-matching line set by the periodic boundary condition. With that wavevector, Uchida's first-order efficiency is $\eta_1(\theta) = (c_R/c_S)\,\nu^2\,\mathrm{sinc}^2(\sqrt{\nu^2+\xi^2})$, where $c_R = \cos\theta$, $c_S = \sqrt{1-(\sin\theta - G/\beta)^2}$, $\nu = n_1\pi d/(\lambda\sqrt{c_Rc_S})$, and $\xi = \beta(c_R-c_S)d/2$; Kogelnik's formula is the same sinc shape but with a different $\xi$ and without the $c_R/c_S$ factor, which is why the two curves separate off-Bragg. The paper uses rigorous coupled-wave analysis as the adjudicator, against which the BVM curve is said to be indistinguishable even far off-Bragg while the KVCM curve becomes increasingly dephased.

What would settle it

Measure $\eta_1(\theta)$ and the exit angle of the +1 beam from a single well-characterized sinusoidal transmission grating with thickness of a few tens of micrometres and index modulation near $\Delta n_1 \approx 5\times10^{-3}$, over a rotation range where the BVM and KVCM minima are clearly separated; if the minima or beam directions follow KVCM, the paper's central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the two standard first-order coupled-wave theories for volume holographic gratings are not interchangeable off the Bragg condition. Kogelnik's theory sets the diffracted wavevector by vector closure, $\vec{k}_1 = \vec{k}_0 + \vec{G}$, which off-Bragg makes $|\vec{k}_1| \neq |\vec{k}_0|$ and thereby implies an unphysical change of the diffracted wavelength. Uchida's theory instead sets $\vec{k}_1 = \vec{k}_0 + \vec{G} + \Delta k_1 \hat{N}$ with $\Delta k_1$ chosen so that $|\vec{k}_1| = \beta = 2\pi n_0/\lambda$, restoring energy conservation while preserving phase matching at the exit boundary. Sheridan's 1992 comparison against second-order coupled-mode theory and rigorous coupled-wave analysis showed that Uchida's choice reproduces the rigorous off-Bragg efficiency curve, and two later experimental studies on nanoparticle-polymer composite gratings found that the direction of the diffracted beam and the positions of the off-Bragg minima follow Uchida, not Kogelnik. The paper therefore concludes that Uchida's first-order approach is the better one within its known limits and should be used in future data evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, from the experimental part of the paper, is that the gratings used in the cited experiments were sufficiently close to ideal sinusoidal, uniform-thickness, weakly absorbing phase gratings that the observed off-Bragg differences can be attributed to the wavevector choice rather than to grating imperfections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The off-Bragg minima of the angular diffraction-efficiency curve become usable fitting features: BVM places them where rigorous theory and measurement put them, while KVCM misplaces them once detuning is large.
  • The direction of the first-order output beam at off-Bragg incidence follows BVM, so experiments that track the beam position can distinguish the two theories without any intensity model.
  • The practical impact grows for thin gratings with high index modulation, where appreciable off-Bragg sidelobes exist; for very thick, weakly coupled gratings the difference between the two theories is negligible.
  • Fitting routines for grating characterization should replace the KVCM formula with Uchida's formula in the Bragg regime, since it is no more complicated and matches the rigorous reference.
  • Use of KVCM off-Bragg implies a wavelength change of the diffracted wave, so any analysis that uses off-Bragg data to infer phase or beam direction inherits that inconsistency; BVM removes it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same wavevector-closure ambiguity should appear in any two-wave dynamical diffraction treatment, including x-ray, neutron, or electron diffraction, where the diffracted wavevector must satisfy both the periodic-boundary condition and the dispersion relation; if BVM is the general rule, off-Bragg dynamical diffraction curves in those fields may deserve the same re-examination.
  • If the recommendation is adopted, published characterizations that used Kogelnik's formula to extract index modulation or thickness from off-Bragg sidelobe data could be systematically biased; re-fitting those datasets with BVM formulas is a low-cost check of the paper's conclusion.
  • Testing on a broader set of materials, such as reflection gratings, gratings with appreciable absorption, and overmodulated gratings near the first-order theory's limit, would map the 'known limits' the paper invokes and reveal where second-order or rigorous theories become necessary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reviews first-order theories of diffraction from volume holographic gratings, concentrating on the off-Bragg regime and on the distinction between Kogelnik's K-vector closure method (KVCM) and Uchida's Beta-value method (BVM). It derives the relevant formulas, illustrates the predicted angular responses with a comparison against a truncated rigorous-coupled-wave calculation, discusses diffraction regimes and grating types, and concludes that Uchida's BVM is superior to Kogelnik's KVCM. The final section recommends that future evaluations of off-Bragg diffraction data should use Uchida's approach, relying on prior work by the author's group for experimental confirmation.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, it would have practical consequences for how experimentalists fit off-Bragg angular scans of volume holographic gratings: many practitioners currently use Kogelnik's formula, which the paper argues gives systematically wrong sidelobe positions. The paper is clearly written and provides a useful pedagogical summary of two wavevector choices, their geometric origin, and their differences, as well as practical checklists for classifying gratings. Its strengths include a transparent presentation of the formulas, an explicit Ewald-sphere argument, and a clear statement of the recommendation. However, the paper is primarily a review of prior work: the experimental support is only cited, not shown, and the theoretical comparison in Fig. 4 is visual, for a single parameter set, and against a truncated RCWA calculation rather than the full rigorous method described in the text. These limitations are load-bearing for the strength of the final recommendation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.A and Fig. 4] The central theoretical claim that Uchida's BVM is "indistinguishable" from rigorous theory rests on a single visual comparison for one parameter set (d = 40 µm, Λ = 0.8 µm, λ = 0.488 µm, Δn1 = 5×10−3). No quantitative error measure is given, such as the maximum relative difference or root-mean-square deviation between BVM and RCWA, and no systematic scan over grating strength, thickness, or angular range is reported. Because this comparison is the main in-paper support for the recommendation in Sec. V.B, it needs to be made quantitative and, ideally, extended over the range of parameters for which the recommendation is made.
  2. [Sec. V.A and Eq. (16)] The experimental support for BVM superiority is cited from Refs. [9,10], but the data, fitted parameters, residuals, and error bars are not included in this manuscript; the text states that the data are "accessible on request in their theses." The inference that the wavevector choice (BVM vs KVCM) is the cause of the observed off-Bragg minima is insecure because the manuscript itself allows non-sinusoidal profiles (Eq. (2)) and shows in Sec. IV.A and Fig. 5 that non-sinusoidal gratings alter the angular response, while Eq. (16) assumes a purely sinusoidal, lossless grating. A KVCM fit with an effective thickness, a second harmonic, or a small absorption term could potentially reproduce the same minima positions, so the cited experiments do not isolate the wavevector choice. Please present the experimental curves and fits, or at least a sensitivity analysis for the effects of profile harmonics, absorption, and thickness nonuniformity.
  3. [Sec. III.D and Fig. 4] The paper describes RCWA as a full rigorous solution with an infinite Fourier expansion, but the comparison in Fig. 4 uses a "3-waves-RCWA" (m = 0, ±1). This truncation is not the full rigorous method, and the paper itself notes that the −1 order can matter near normal incidence and possibly in other off-Bragg regions. The statement that Uchida's result cannot be distinguished from RCWA even far off-Bragg is thus only established with respect to a truncated model. Please either use the full RCWA as defined in Sec. III.D or justify why a three-wave truncation is adequate for the parameter range shown.
  4. [Sec. V.B] The recommendation to "strongly recommend to make use of Uchida's approach in future" is not accompanied by a quantitative statement of the known limits of first-order theories. The text mentions that differences between BVM and KVCM are negligible for very thick gratings with small coupling constants, but no criterion (e.g., a threshold in grating strength, thickness, or detuning) is given for when the BVM becomes necessary or when even first-order theory fails. Adding such a boundary would make the practical guidance in the conclusion more useful and better matched to the paper's stated aim of providing a hitchhiker's guide.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.A] There is a typo: "investiagtion" should be "investigation".
  2. [Sec. III.A] There is a typo: "occuring" should be "occurring".
  3. [Sec. III.B] There is a typo: "simplfication" should be "simplification".
  4. [Sec. IV.C] The heading "Check- and to-do-lists for practicioners" contains a typo: "practicioners" should be "practitioners".
  5. [Sec. V.B] The inclusion of a personal e-mail quotation from J.T. Sheridan, including the phrase "there are no Nobel prizes here," is unusual for a scientific paper and may be better placed in the acknowledgments or removed for a more formal tone.
  6. [Fig. 4] The caption states that dotted black lines are the η−1 from RCWA, but the text and the two panels do not clearly explain why the blue BVM curve is visually indistinguishable from the red RCWA curve while the mint KVCM curve is not; a quantitative inset or residual plot would be much clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Uchida-versus-Kogelnik comparison is validated by an independent RCWA benchmark; the author-group experimental citations are support, not inputs, and no fitted result is relabeled as prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central comparison in Sections III.D and V.A is theoretical: Kogelnik's KVCM formula (Eq. 11) and Uchida's BVM formula (Eq. 16) are evaluated against a rigorous coupled-wave analysis shown in Fig. 4. That benchmark is computed independently of the conclusion and does not use fitted parameters from the experiments. Uchida's wavevector choice (Eq. 14) is derived from the dispersion/phase-matching condition |k1|=|k0|, not from the claim being tested. The experimental confirmations cited as Refs. [9,10] are previously published measurements by the author's group, but they are used as external confirmation of a theoretically already-supported preference, and the present paper does not fit parameters to them or rename a fit as a prediction. The acknowledged limitation that the full data are "accessible on request in their theses" and the lack of reported residuals affect reproducibility and inferential strength, but they do not make any equation reduce to its own input. No load-bearing premise rests solely on a self-citation, no ansatz is smuggled in via a citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation is therefore self-contained; the mild self-citation pattern is not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper; it introduces no new free parameters or entities. The analysis rests on standard electromagnetic theory, the assumption of a sinusoidal unslanted transmission grating, and previously published formulas. The experimental confirmation is cited from the author's earlier work, so the ledger reflects domain assumptions rather than novel postulates.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The grating is unslanted and transmission type; refractive index in regions R1 and R3 equals n0, so no boundary reflections are considered.
    Invoked in Section II.B to define the geometry and neglect surface reflections in the theoretical comparison.
  • domain assumption The slowly varying envelope approximation (SVEA) is valid for the coupling strengths considered, allowing second-order derivatives to be dropped in Kogelnik's derivation.
    Used in Section III.B to justify Kogelnik's two-wave coupled equations; the paper notes it is valid when coupling strength is not too large.
  • domain assumption The grating profile is sinusoidal, so only the first Fourier component contributes for the first-order theories.
    Used throughout Sections III and IV to compare first-order theories; the paper notes non-sinusoidal profiles require RCWA.
  • standard math Maxwell's equations and the scalar Helmholtz equation describe the diffraction.
    The starting point for all theories in Section III.
  • standard math The Floquet theorem (Eq. 22) gives the allowed diffracted wavevectors for a periodic medium.
    Used in Section III.A and III.D to derive the grating equation and to construct the RCWA eigenmode expansion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffraction theories for off-Bragg replay: J.T. Sheridan's seminal work and consequences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7T473A26

@misc{pith2026241113495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffraction theories for off-Bragg replay: J.T. Sheridan's seminal work and consequences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7T473A26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13495}
}
read the original abstract

Based on the seminal work by John T. Sheridan [1] we discuss the usefulness and validity of simple diffraction theories frequently used to determine and characterize optical holographic gratings. Experimental investigations obtained in recent years highlight the correctness of his analysis which favours an alternative approach over the most widely used Kogelnik theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Examples for grating profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diffraction geometry for transmission gratings, see Ref. [20]. (a) sketch for mixed gratings with phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Introductory slides of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Angular dependence of the diffraction efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: top panel. These permitted wavevectors km for the waves which travel along diffraction directions at angles θm are given by the Floquet-condition for periodic potentials: ⃗km = ⃗k0 + mG, ⃗ (22) where ⃗k0 is the wavevector of the incident (and forward diffracted) beam a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Note, that a non-sinusoidal phase grating with three Cosine-Fourier-coefficients ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Angular dependence of the diffraction efficiencies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    the type of the grating (absorption grating, phase grating or mixed grating, respectively)

  2. [2]

    sinusoidal, binary

    the grating profile with its Fourier coefficients (e.g. sinusoidal, binary. . . )

  3. [3]

    the symmetry of the grating with its phases (e.g., rectangular, blazed, sawtooth. . . )

  4. [4]

    Holography and Engineering the Future

    the grating thickness d0. To start with the investiagtion we introduce and consider an important quantity, which can be obtained experimentally as well a theoretically: the diffraction efficiency . From an experimental point of view it is given by the ratio of the diffracted light intensity into order m and the incident light intensity ηm,exp = Im Iin . (...

    2021

  5. [5]

    lossless dielectric gratings

  6. [6]

    lossy dielectric gratings

  7. [7]

    unslanted absorption gratings

  8. [8]

    slanted absorption gratings

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    dynamical theory of diffraction

    mixed gratings The interesting part of his extensive theory is the alternative approach to the “dynamical theory of diffraction” which is called coupled wave theory. He limits his consideration to the case of only two waves propagating at the same time in the sinusoidal gratin...

  2. [10]

    and the full and rigorous solution (rigorous coupled wave analysis, RCW A) [5]. Gaylord and Moharam treated the diffraction problem rigorously by solving the Helmholtz equation in each of the regions, matching the corresponding solutions at the entrance as well as at the exit ...

  3. [11]

    In this case many waves propagate in the grating at the same time along directions (orders) with a variety of wavevectors km having low but considerable amplitudes, see Fig

    the Raman-Nath diffraction regime [60, 62]. In this case many waves propagate in the grating at the same time along directions (orders) with a variety of wavevectors km having low but considerable amplitudes, see Fig. 5 top panel. These permitted wavevectors km for the waves w...

  4. [12]

    Here, only two diffraction orders with reasonable amplitudes propagate at the same time , the 0-th and another one ( m-th order)

    the Bragg diffraction regime. Here, only two diffraction orders with reasonable amplitudes propagate at the same time , the 0-th and another one ( m-th order). This is sometimes also called the “thick” grating regime 9 [60, 61] for which the diffraction efficiency is noticeabl...

  5. [13]

    Borrmann effect

    the intermediate regime for which neither of the cases is true. (Realistic) simulation data illustrating the different diffraction regimes assuming a pure phase grating are shown in Fig. 5. Note, that a non-sinusoidal phase grating with three Cosine-Fourier-coefficients ∆ n1,2...

  6. [14]

    predicts the direction of the diffracted beam correctly which is confirmed by experiments [9]

  7. [15]

    shows the same angular response of the diffraction efficiency η1(θ) as the experimentally obtained one [10],

  8. [16]

    I have always been a strong admirer and promoter of Uchida’s work

    and matches the Bragg-angle detuning curve derived from a rigorous coupled-wave theory (RCW A) as already recognized by JT. Sheridan [1] as well as that derived from the modal theory (dynamical theory of diffraction) [10]. Actually, J.T. Sheridan let me know to have been enthu...

    2012

  9. [17]

    J. T. Sheridan. A comparison of diffraction theories for off-Bragg replay. J. Mod. Optic 39, 1709 (1992). doi: 10.1080/713823578

    1992 doi

  10. [18]

    Kogelnik

    H. Kogelnik. Coupled wave theory for thick hologram gratings. AT&T Tech. J. 48, 2909 (1969). doi:10.1002/j.1538- 7305.1969.tb01198.x

    1969

  11. [19]

    N. Uchida. Calculation of diffraction efficiency in hologram gratings attenuated along the direction perpendicular to the grating vector. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 63, 280 (1973). doi:10.1364/JOSA.63.000280

    1973 doi

  12. [20]

    J. A. Kong. Second-order coupled-mode equations for spatially periodic media. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 67, 825 (1977). doi: 10.1364/JOSA.67.000825

    1977 doi

  13. [21]

    M. G. Moharam and T. K. Gaylord. Rigorous coupled-wave analysis of planar-grating diffraction. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 71, 811 (1981). doi:10.1364/JOSA.71.000811

    1981 doi

  14. [22]

    T. K. Gaylord and M. G. Moharam. Planar dielectric grating diffraction theories. Appl. Phys. B 28, 1 (1982). doi: 10.1007/BF00693885. 13

    1982 doi

  15. [23]

    M. G. Moharam, E. B. Grann, D. A. Pommet, and T. K. Gaylord. Formulation for stable and efficient implementation of the rigorous coupled-wave analysis of binary gratings. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1068 (1995). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.12.001068

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    C. J. R. Sheppard. The application of the dynamical theory of x-ray diffraction to thick hologram gratings Int. J. Electronics 41, 365 (1976). doi:10.1080/00207217608920647

    1976 doi

  17. [25]

    Fally, J

    M. Fally, J. Klepp, and Y. Tomita. An experimental study on the validity of diffraction theories for off-Bragg replay of volume holographic gratings. Appl. Phys. B 108, 89 (2012). doi:10.1007/s00340-012-5090-x

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Prijatelj, J

    M. Prijatelj, J. Klepp, Y. Tomita, and M. Fally. Far-off-Bragg reconstruction of volume holographic gratings: A comparison of experiment and theories. Phys. Rev. A 87, 063810:1 (2013). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.063810

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    E. G. Loewen and E. Popov. Diffraction Gratings and Applications. Optical Science and Engineering. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 1st ed. (1997). doi:10.1201/9781315214849

    1997 doi

  20. [28]

    Popov, ed

    E. Popov, ed. Gratings: Theory and Numeric Applications. ISBN: 978-2-85399-943-4. Presses Universitaires de Provence, second ed. (2014). www.fresnel.fr/numerical-grating-book-2

    2014

  21. [29]

    Bao and P

    G. Bao and P. Li. Maxwell’s Equations in Periodic Structures, vol. 208 of Applied Mathematical Sciences . Springer & Science Press Beijing (2022). doi:10.1007/978-981-16-0061-6

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Guibelalde

    E. Guibelalde. Coupled wave analysis for out-of-phase mixed thick hologram gratings. Opt. Quant. Electron. 16, 173 (1984). doi:10.1007/BF00620135

    1984 doi

  23. [31]

    Sutter and P

    K. Sutter and P. G¨ unter. Photorefractive gratings in the organic crystal 2-cyclooctylamino-5-nitropyridine doped with 7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 7, 2274 (1990). doi:10.1364/JOSAB.7.002274

    1990 doi

  24. [32]

    F. Kahmann. Separate and simultaneous investigation of absorption gratings and refractive-index gratings by beam- coupling analysis. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 10, 1562 (1993). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.10.001562

    1993 doi

  25. [33]

    Carretero, R

    L. Carretero, R. F. Madrigal, A. Fimia, S. Blaya, and A. Bel´ endez. Study of angular responses of mixed amplitude-phase holographic gratings: shifted borrmann effect. Opt. Lett. 26, 786 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    Fally, M

    M. Fally, M. Ellabban, and I. Drevenˇ sek-Olenik. Out-of-phase mixed holographic gratings : a quantative analysis. Opt. Express 16, 6528 (2008). doi:10.1364/OE.16.006528

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    M. A. Ellabban, M. Fally, R. A. Rupp, and L. Kov´ acs. Light-induced phase and amplitude gratings in centrosymmetric gadolinium gallium garnet doped with Calcium. Opt. Express 14, 593 (2006). doi:10.1364/OPEX.14.000593

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    M. A. Ellabban, G. Glavan, J. Klepp, and M. Fally. A comprehensive study of photorefractive properties in poly(ethylene glycol)dimethacrylate - ionic liquid composites. Materials 10, 9 (2017). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma10010009

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Fally, Y

    M. Fally, Y. Tomita, A. Fimia, R. Madrigal, J. Guo, J. Kohlbrecher, and J. Klepp. Experimental determination of nanocomposite grating structures by light- and neutron-diffraction in the multi-wave-coupling regime. Opt. Express 29, 16153 (2021). doi:10.1364/OE.424233

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    C. Darwin. XXXIV. the theory of X-ray reflexion. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 27, 315 (1914). doi:10.1080/14786440208635093

    1914 doi

  31. [39]

    C. Darwin. LXXVIII. the theory of X-ray reflexion. Part II. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 27, 675 (1914). doi: 10.1080/14786440408635139

    1914 doi

  32. [40]

    P. P. Ewald. Zur Begr¨ undung der Kristalloptik. Ann. Phys.-Leipzig 354, 1 (1916). doi:10.1002/andp.19163540102. IV Folge Band 49; Einleitung zu Teil I (Dispersionstheorie) und Teil II (Theorie der Reflexion und Brechung)

    1916 doi

  33. [41]

    P. P. Ewald. Zur Begr¨ undung der Kristalloptik. Ann. Phys.-Leipzig 354, 117 (1916). doi:10.1002/andp.19163540202. IV Folge Band 49; Teil II:Theorie der Reflexion und Brechung

    1916 doi

  34. [42]

    P. P. Ewald. Zur Begr¨ undung der Kristalloptik. Ann. Phys.-Leipzig 359, 557 (1917). doi:10.1002/andp.19173592402. IV Folge Band 54; Teil III: Die Kristalloptik der R¨ ontgenstrahlen (Fortsetzung)

    1917 doi

  35. [43]

    P. P. Ewald. Zur Begr¨ undung der Kristalloptik. Ann. Phys.-Leipzig 359, 519 (1917). doi:10.1002/andp.19173592305. IV Folge Band 54; Teil III: Die Kristalloptik der R¨ ontgenstrahlen

    1917 doi

  36. [44]

    H. Bethe. Theorie der Beugung von Elektronen an Kristallen. Ann. Phys.-Leipzig 392, 55 (1928). doi: 10.1002/andp.19283921704

    1928 doi

  37. [45]

    F. Bloch. ¨Uber die Quantenmechanik der Elektronen in Kristallgittern. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 52, 555 (1928). doi: 10.1007/BF01339455

    1928 doi

  38. [46]

    Sheridan and C

    J. Sheridan and C. Sheppard. An examination of the theories for the calculation of diffraction by square-wave gratings. 1. Thickness and Period Variations for Normal Incidence. Optik 85, 25 (1990)

    1990

  39. [47]

    Sheridan and C

    J. Sheridan and C. Sheppard. An examination of the theories for the calculation of diffraction by square-wave gratings. 2. Angular Variation. Optik 85, 57 (1990)

    1990

  40. [48]

    Sheridan and C

    J. Sheridan and C. Sheppard. An examination of the theories for the calculation of diffraction by square-wave gratings. 3. 14 Approximate Theories. Optik 85, 135 (1990)

    1990

  41. [49]

    J. T. Sheridan and L. Solymar. Diffraction by volume gratings - approximate solution in terms of boundary diffraction coefficients. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 1586 (1992). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.9.001586

    1992 doi

  42. [50]

    Sheridan and L

    J. Sheridan and L. Solymar. Spurious beams in dielectric gratings of the reflection type - a solution in terms of boundary diffraction coefficients. Opt. Commun. 94, 8 (1992). doi:10.1016/0030-4018(92)90396-9

    1992 doi

  43. [51]

    Sheridan and C

    J. Sheridan and C. Sheppard. Coherent imaging of periodic thick fine isolated structures. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 10, 614 (1993). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.10.000614

    1993 doi

  44. [52]

    Sheridan

    J. Sheridan. Stacked volume holographic gratings. 1. Transmission gratings in series. Optik 95, 73 (1993)

    1993

  45. [53]

    Sheridan

    J. Sheridan. Stacked volume holographic gratings. 2. Reflection gratings in series. Optik 96, 1 (1994)

    1994

  46. [54]

    Sheridan and C

    J. Sheridan and C. Sheppard. Modeling of images of square-wave gratings and isolated edges using rigorous diffraction theory. Opt. Commun. 105, 367 (1994). doi:10.1016/0030-4018(94)90411-1

    1994 doi

  47. [55]

    Sheridan

    J. Sheridan. Generalization of the boundary diffraction method for volume gratings. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 649 (1994). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.11.000649

    1994 doi

  48. [56]

    C. V. Raman and N. S. N. Nath. The diffraction of light by high frequency sound waves: Part I. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. (A) A2, 406 (1936). doi:10.1007/BF03035840

    1936 doi

  49. [57]

    C. V. Raman and N. S. N. Nath. The diffraction of light by sound waves of high frequency: Part II. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. (A) A2, 413 (1936). doi:10.1007/BF03035841

    1936 doi

  50. [58]

    J. W. Goodman. Introduction to Fourier Optics. Roberts & Company, Englewood, Colorado (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    W. H. Zachariasen. Theory of X-Ray diffraction in Crystals. John Wiley & Sons (1945)

    1945

  52. [60]

    B. W. Batterman and H. Cole. Dynamical diffraction of x rays by perfect crystals. Rev. Mod. Phys. 36, 681 (1964). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.681

    1964 doi

  53. [61]

    E. N. Leith and J. Upatnieks. Reconstructed wavefronts and communication theory. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1123 (1962). doi:10.1364/JOSA.52.001123

    1962 doi

  54. [62]

    F. S. Chen, J. T. la Macchia, and D. B. Fraser. Holographic storage in lithium niobate. Appl. Phys. Lett. 13, 223 (1968)

    1968

  55. [63]

    W. R. Klein, C. B. Tipnis, and E. A. Hiedemann. Experimental Study of Fraunhofer Light Diffraction by Ultrasonic Beams of Moderately High Frequency at Oblique Incidence. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 38, 229 (1965). doi:10.1121/1.1909641

    1965 doi

  56. [64]

    C. B. Burckhardt. Diffraction of a plane wave at a sinusoidally stratified dielectric grating. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 1502 (1966). doi:10.1364/JOSA.56.001502

    1966 doi

  57. [65]

    C. B. Burckhardt. Efficiency of a dielectric grating. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 601 (1967). doi:10.1364/JOSA.57.000601

    1967 doi

  58. [66]

    Gabor and G

    D. Gabor and G. W. Stroke. The theory of deep holograms. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 304, 275–89 (1968). doi: 10.1098/rspa.1968.0086

    1968

  59. [67]

    Phariseau

    P. Phariseau. On the diffraction of light by progressive supersonic waves. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. (A) 44, 165 (1956)

    1956

  60. [68]

    R. R. A. Syms and L. Solymar. Planar volume phase holograms formed in bleached photographic emulsions. Appl. Optics 22, 1479 (1983). doi:10.1364/AO.22.001479

    1983 doi

  61. [69]

    R. R. A. Syms. Vector effects in holographic optical elements. Opt. Acta 32, 1413 (1985). doi:10.1080/713821663

    1985 doi

  62. [70]

    R. R. A. Syms. Practical Volume Holography. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990)

    1990

  63. [71]

    M. G. Moharam and T. K. Gaylord. Chain-matrix analysis of arbitrary-thickness dielectric reflection gratings. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 187 (1982). doi:10.1364/JOSA.72.000187

    1982 doi

  64. [72]

    M. G. Moharam and T. K. Gaylord. Diffraction analysis of dielectric surface-relief gratings. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 1385 (1982). doi:10.1364/JOSA.72.001385

    1982 doi

  65. [73]

    M. G. Moharam and T. K. Gaylord. Rigorous coupled-wave analysis of metallic surface-relief gratings. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 1780 (1986). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.3.001780

    1986 doi

  66. [74]

    M. G. Moharam, D. A. Pommet, E. B. Grann, and T. K. Gaylord. Stable implementation of the rigorous coupled- wave analysis for surface-relief gratings - enhanced transmittance matrix approach. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1077 (1995). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.12.001077

    1995 doi

  67. [75]

    Lalanne and G

    P. Lalanne and G. M. Morris. Highly improved convergence of the coupled-wave method for TM polarization. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13, 779 (1996). doi:10.1364/JOSAA.13.000779

    1996 doi

  68. [76]

    T. K. Gaylord and M. G. Moharam. Thin and thick gratings: terminology clarification. Appl. Optics 20, 3271 (1981). doi:10.1364/AO.20.003271

    1981 doi

  69. [77]

    M. G. Moharam, T. K. Gaylord, and R. Magnusson. Criteria for Bragg regime diffraction by phase gratings. Opt. Commun. 32, 14 (1980). doi:10.1016/0030-4018(80)90304-1. 15

    1980 doi

  70. [78]

    M. G. Moharam, T. K. Gaylord, and R. Magnusson. Criteria for Raman-Nath regime diffraction by phase gratings. Opt. Commun. 32, 19 (1980). doi:10.1016/0030-4018(80)90305-3

    1980 doi

  71. [79]

    P. S. J. Russell and L. Solymar. Borrmann-like anomalous effects in volume holography. Appl. Phys. 22, 335 (1980)

    1980

  72. [80]

    Montemezzani and M

    G. Montemezzani and M. Zgonik. Light diffraction at mixed phase and absorption gratings in anisotropic media for arbitrary geometries. Phys. Rev. E 55, 1035 (1997). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.55.1035

    1997 doi

  73. [81]

    Neipp, C

    C. Neipp, C. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Mixed phase-amplitude holographic gratings recorded in bleached silver halide materials. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 35, 957 (2002). doi:10.1088/0022-3727/35/10/303

    2002 doi

  74. [82]

    Neipp, I

    C. Neipp, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Experimental evidence of mixed gratings with a phase difference between the phase and amplitude grating in volume holograms. Opt. Express 10, 1374 (2002). doi:10.1364/OE.10.001374

    2002 doi

  75. [83]

    M. A. Ellabban, M. Bichler, M. Fally, and I. Drevenˇ sek Olenik. Role of optical extinction in holographic polymer-dispersed liquid crystals. In: M. Glogarova, P. Palffy-Muhoray, and M. Copic, eds., Liquid Crystals and Applications in Optics , vol. 6587, 65871J:1–65871J:8. SPI...

    2007 doi

  76. [84]

    Flauger, M

    P. Flauger, M. A. Ellabban, G. Glavan, J. Klepp, C. Pruner, T. Jenke, P. Geltenbort, and M. Fally. Light- and neutron- optical properties of holographic transmission gratings from polymer-ionic liquid composites with submicron grating spac- ing. Polymers 11, 1459 (2019). doi:1...

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    Neipp, M

    C. Neipp, M. L. Alvarez, S. Gallego, M. Ortu˜ no, J. D. Sheridan, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Angular responses of the first diffracted order in over-modulated volume diffraction gratings. J. Mod. Optic 51, 1149 (2004). doi: 10.1080/09500340408230413

    2004 doi

  78. [86]

    Neipp, I

    C. Neipp, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Theoretical and experimental analysis of overmodulation effects in volume holograms recorded on BB-640 emulsions. J. Opt. A-Pure Appl. Op. 3, 504 (2001). doi:10.1088/1464-4258/3/6/313

    2001 doi

  79. [87]

    Neipp, I

    C. Neipp, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Effects of overmodulation in fixation-free rehalogenating bleached holograms.Appl. Optics 40, 3402 (2001). doi:10.1364/AO.40.003402

    2001 doi

  80. [88]

    Gallego, M

    S. Gallego, M. Ortu˜ no, C. Neipp, C. Garc ´ ıa, A. Bel´ endez, and I. Pascual. Overmodulation effects in volume holograms recorded on photopolymers. Opt. Commun. 215, 263 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0030-4018(02)02244-7

    2003 doi

  81. [89]

    Neipp, M

    C. Neipp, M. Alvarez, S. Gallego, M. Ortuno, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Comparison between a thin matrix decom- position method and the rigorous coupled wave theory applied to volume diffraction gratings. Optik 114, 529 (2003). doi:10.1078/0030-4026-00306

    2003 doi

  82. [90]

    Neipp, A

    C. Neipp, A. Bel´ endez, S. Gallego, M. Ortu˜ nuo, I. Pascual, and J. Sheridan. Angular responses of the first and second diffracted orders in transmission diffraction grating recorded on photopolymer material. Opt. Express 11, 1835 (2003). doi:10.1364/OE.11.001835

    2003 doi

  83. [91]

    Ortu˜ no, S

    M. Ortu˜ no, S. Gallego, C. Gar´ cia, C. Neipp, and I. Pascual. Holographic characteristics of a 1-mm-thick photopolymer to be used in holographic memories. Appl. Optics 42, 7008 (2003). doi:10.1364/AO.42.007008

    2003 doi

  84. [92]

    Neipp, J

    C. Neipp, J. T. Sheridan, S. Gallego, M. Ortu˜ no, A. M´ arquez, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Effect of a depth attenu- ated refractive index profile in the angular responses of the efficiency of higher orders in volume gratings recorded in a PV A/acrylamide photopolymer. Op...

    2004 doi

  85. [93]

    C. Neipp. Thin and thick diffraction gratings: Thin matrix decomposition method. Optik 115, 385 (2004). doi: 10.1078/0030-4026-00382

    2004 doi

  86. [94]

    Gallego, M

    S. Gallego, M. Ortu˜ no, C. Neipp, A. M´ arquez, A. Bel´ endez, I. Pascual, J. Kelly, and J. Sheridan. Physical and effective optical thickness of holographic diffraction gratings recorded in photopolymers. Opt. Express 13, 1939 (2005). doi: 10.1364/OPEX.13.001939

    2005 doi

  87. [95]

    Hern´ andez, C

    A. Hern´ andez, C. Neipp, A. M´ arquez, S. Gallego, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Grating matrix method to describe a volume transmission diffraction grating. Opt. Commun. 266, 122 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.optcom.2006.04.052

    2006 doi

  88. [96]

    Gallego, C

    S. Gallego, C. Neipp, L. A. Estepa, M. Ortu˜ no, A. M´ arquez, J. Franc´ es, I. Pascual, and A. Bel´ endez. Volume holograms in photopolymers: Comparison between analytical and rigorous theories. Materials 5, 1373 (2012). doi:10.3390/ma5081373

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.