Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Modeling of optical scattering from topographic surface measurements of high-quality mirrors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 From measured surface maps of KAGRA's core mirrors, the paper derives a scattering profile that puts the arm's scattered-light noise below the design-phase estimate.

desk verdict Useful engineering estimate of KAGRA mirror scattering, but the headline profile is an extrapolated worst-case envelope, not a validated prediction for coated mirrors. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15733 v3 pith:3SDHFADT submitted 2024-11-24 physics.optics astro-ph.IM

Tomotada Akutsu , Hiroaki Yamamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsastro-ph.IM
keywords opticalscatteringRayleigh-RicetheorypowerspectraldensityABCmodelsurfaceroughnessgravitational-wavedetectorsKAGRAraytracing
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

Using topographic height maps measured on the KAGRA core mirrors, this paper derives a ready-to-use angular profile for the light those mirrors scatter. The central quantitative claim is that the scattering probability per unit solid angle is $dP/d\Omega_s \simeq 2.5\times 10^{2}\,[1+(\theta_s/(7.1\times10^{-5}\,\mathrm{rad}))^2]^{-1.6}\ \mathrm{sr}^{-1}$, with an equivalent power-law form $dP/d\Omega_s \simeq 1.3\times 10^{-11}/\theta_s^{3.2}\ \mathrm{sr}^{-1}$. That profile is the first model-based scattering estimate for the KAGRA arm mirrors, and it places the scattered-light noise below the earlier $2\times10^{-6}/\theta_s^2$ assumption used for baffle design. The authors also organize derivations of the Rayleigh-Rice, Abel-transform, and spectral-model equations so the whole flow can be reused for other mirrors.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Rayleigh-Rice relation, Eq. (2), which links the two-sided 2D power spectral density $S_2(f_x,f_y)$ of surface height errors to the scattering probability density per unit solid angle. With normal incidence, small scattering angles, and $P_s\simeq P_i$, it reduces to $dP/d\Omega_s \simeq 16\pi^2 S_2(f)/\lambda^4$, where $f\simeq\theta_s/\lambda$. To turn measured maps into a model, the paper circularly averages the raw 2D PSD, fits an ABC/K-correlation form $S_2(f)=A'/[1+(Bf)^2]^{(C+1)/2}$, and converts the fitted PSD into the angular profile analytically. An independent branch compresses the 2D PSD to a one-sided 1D PSD through the Abel transform, fits the corresponding spectral model, and cross-checks the 2D result. Together these pieces carry the argument from raw interferometric maps to Eq. (17).

What would settle it

Measure the actual scattering distribution of one KAGRA core mirror with a goniometer over $\theta_s$ from roughly $4\times10^{-5}$ to $10^{-3}$ rad; if the measured profile falls off more slowly than $\theta_s^{-3.2}$ or lies above Eq. (17) beyond the fitted uncertainties, the central claim fails. A second, less direct check is measuring the surface PSD up to $\sim100\ \mathrm{mm}^{-1}$ with a microscope; if the power-law slope changes beyond the measured $\sim1\ \mathrm{mm}^{-1}$ band, the extrapolation underlying the full-angle profile is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is Eq. (17): after cropping, detrending, windowing, and circularly averaging the two-sided 2D power spectral density (PSD) of the four KAGRA core mirror maps, a worst-case ABC/K-correlation fit gives $dP/d\Omega_s \simeq 2.5\times 10^{2}\,[1+(\theta_s/(7.1\times10^{-5}\,\mathrm{rad}))^2]^{-1.6}\ \mathrm{sr}^{-1}$. An equivalent inverse-power-law limit, Eq. (18), is $dP/d\Omega_s \simeq 1.3\times10^{-11}/\theta_s^{3.2}\ \mathrm{sr}^{-1}$. These formulas describe an isotropic scattering envelope that bounds the actual mirror behavior for ray-tracing studies. Compared with the design-phase profile $2\times10^{-6}/\theta_s^2$, the new profile scatters less light at $\theta_s > 48\,\mu\mathrm{rad}$, and also less than the design curve between 37 and 48 $\mu$rad, so the scattered-light noise in the KAGRA arm is expected to be smaller than previously estimated. The consistency between the independent 1D-PSD Abel-transform fit and the 2D-PSD fit supports treating the roughness as circularly symmetric.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the Rayleigh-Rice formula, developed for bare surfaces, still describes scattering from the multilayer-coated KAGRA mirrors; the paper itself flags that this is not obvious.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KAGRA's scattered-light noise is lower than the design-phase estimate, so the existing baffle system needs no immediate change.
  • Eq. (17) can be fed directly into ray-tracing simulations to set upper limits on stray-light contamination inside the arm cavity.
  • The same preprocessing-and-fit flow can be applied to any smooth mirror with a topographic height map, including optics for future gravitational-wave detectors.
  • The power-law form of Eq. (18) provides a simple conservative envelope for worst-case noise studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Rayleigh-Rice relation extends to multilayer-coated mirrors, the same flow would give comparable scattering envelopes for other interferometric detectors from their metrology data, enabling direct cross-detector stray-light comparisons.
  • The unresolved high-spatial-frequency behavior is the most promising place to test the model; a microscopic measurement of the coated surface roughness would sharpen or refute the large-angle tail of the profile.
  • A consistency check the paper does not perform is integrating Eq. (17) over the full sphere and comparing the total scattered fraction with the independently measured 50-100 ppm optical loss of the KAGRA core mirrors.
  • The circular-symmetry assumption could be tested by examining the azimuthal dependence of the raw 2D PSD; coating-induced anisotropy would break the azimuthal invariance of the scattering profile.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the traditional Rayleigh-Rice method for converting a measured 2D topographic height map of a mirror surface into an angular scattering profile. It provides self-contained derivations of the Abel transform between 2D and 1D power spectral densities and of the ABC (K-correlation) spectral model, then describes a practical data-processing pipeline (crop, detrend, window, FFT, circular mean, curve fit). As a case study, the authors apply the pipeline to measured surface maps of the four KAGRA core mirrors and obtain a parametric scattering profile, Eqs. (17) and (18), which they compare to the previously assumed 2×10^-6/θ_s^2 model. They conclude that the updated profile predicts less scattered-light noise at the angles relevant to KAGRA's arm cavities, so no immediate changes to the baffle design are needed.

Significance. If the derived profile is valid, it provides the first topography-based scattering model for the KAGRA core mirrors and a simple parametric input for ray-tracing simulations of stray light. The paper also collects and derives standard formulas (Abel transforms, ABC model conversion) in a clear way that may be useful to practitioners. A strength is that the data-processing flow is explicitly described, and the cross-check between the 1D and 2D fits supports the assumed circular symmetry of the surface roughness. However, the central result rests on two explicitly acknowledged assumptions—the applicability of the Rayleigh-Rice single-surface relation to multilayer-coated mirrors and the extrapolation of the PSD fit beyond the measured spatial-frequency band—and on an internal inconsistency in the normalization of the quantity called 'scattering PDF'.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2] Section 4.2 concedes that 'Due to the multilayer, it is not obvious whether the actual scattering angular profile would follow the relation in Eq. (2)' and cites Ref. [40] without applying it. Since Eq. (17) is obtained by inserting the top-surface PSD into Eq. (2), the central claim is an unvalidated single-surface surrogate for the actual coated-mirror scattering. The authors should either implement the multilayer scattering calculation of Ref. [40] to quantify the deviation, or explicitly state in the abstract and conclusion that the profile is conditional on the single-surface approximation; as written, the phrase 'first model-based estimation' overstates the evidence.
  2. [Section 4.2 / Eq. (17)] The measured PSD data in Figs. 4 and 5 cover spatial frequencies up to only ~1 mm^-1 (θ_s ≲ 1 mrad), while the text notes that full arm-cavity coverage requires angles up to ~0.1 rad (~100 mm^-1). The profile Eq. (17) and the noise comparison in Section 4.1 therefore depend on extrapolating the fitted ABC/power-law model by more than two orders of magnitude in frequency. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis or a conservative upper bound for the extrapolated region (e.g., the Lambertian diffusive-scattering floor mentioned in Section 4.2) and discuss how the conclusions in Section 4.1 would change if the high-frequency PSD deviates from the fitted form.
  3. [Eq. (1) vs. Eq. (17)] Eq. (1) defines dP/dΩ_s as a probability density with ∫ dP/dΩ_s dΩ_s = 1, but the fitted profile Eq. (17) integrates to roughly 7×10^-6 over the sphere (using the small-angle approximation appropriate for the KAGRA geometry), not unity. The quantity in Eq. (17) is therefore a differential scattering coefficient normalized to incident power, not a normalized PDF. The label 'scattering PDF' in Fig. 4 and the text is misleading, and any downstream ray-tracing use that assumes unit normalization will be incorrect. The authors should either renormalize the profile or explicitly present it as (1/P_i)dP_s/dΩ_s, state that its integral equals the scattered-power fraction represented by the fitted angular range, and provide guidance on how it should be used in ray-tracing simulations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The Introduction contains a typo: 'ray-tracging' should be 'ray-tracing'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'the read data are the measured 2D maps of the KAGRA mirrors' is awkward; consider rephrasing to 'the input data are the measured 2D maps'.
  3. [Fig. 4] The right vertical axis label 'Scattering PDF dP/dΩ_s (1/sr)' is inconsistent with the normalization issue raised in the major comments; consider using a neutral term such as 'differential scattering coefficient'.
  4. [Eq. (17)] The fitted parameters A', B, C are quoted with uncertainties in Section 3.2, but Eq. (17) gives only central values; propagation of the parameter uncertainties into the profile would be helpful for users.
  5. [References] Reference [10] is an internal LIGO document that is not publicly accessible; consider citing a published equivalent or indicating how interested readers can obtain it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (17) is an openly labeled fit to the measured PSD, converted via the external Stover Rayleigh-Rice relation; the multilayer-coating caveat is an acknowledged validity risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is linear and transparent: the four KAGRA mirror height maps are measured externally (Ref. [8]); the 2D PSD is computed by FFT with windowing and circular mean (Eqs. 5, 15, 16); an ABC model is freely curve-fitted to the worst-case S⋄2 values (Eq. 13, parameters A' = 2.049, B = 15.00, C = 2.198); and the profile is obtained through the Rayleigh-Rice relation quoted from Stover's external textbook, Eq. (2), reduced to Eq. (3), dP/dΩs ≃ 16π2 S2(f)/λ4 with f = θs/λ. Eq. (17) is indeed algebraically identical to the fitted S2 rescaled by 16π2/λ4, but the paper is explicit about this: Section 3.2 says 'fit parameters' are obtained and then 'the scattering PDF estimate can be obtained through Eq. (3)', and Section 4.1 calls Eqs. (17)-(18) a 'model-based estimation', not an independently verified prediction; no goniometric or parameter-free validation is claimed. The load-bearing premises — that the single-surface Rayleigh-Rice relation holds for multilayer-coated mirrors, and that the PSD fit can be extrapolated beyond the measured ≤1 mm−1 band up to ~100 mm−1 — are validity assumptions, explicitly conceded in Section 4.2 ('it is not obvious whether the actual scattering angular profile would follow the relation in Eq. (2)'). These are correctness risks, not circularity, because the target profile is never used as an input to the fit. The 1D-vs-2D cross-check is used only to support the circular-symmetry assumption, which is its legitimate scope. Self-citations ([12], [22], and the multilayer study [40], which has Akutsu as co-author) are present but not load-bearing: [40] is cited precisely because it is not applied. Two non-circular defects are flagged for completeness: the normalization inconsistency between Eq. (1) (PDF normalized to unity over the sphere) and Eq. (17) (which integrates to roughly 7×10−6, so it is actually a per-incident-power differential scattering coefficient), and the absence of any external benchmark, which the paper acknowledges. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations in a derivation that is otherwise self-contained against external data and external theory.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on four fitted parameters (A', B, C plus the 1D cross-check set) and on domain assumptions about isotropy, applicability of uncoated Rayleigh-Rice theory to coated mirrors, power balance, and extrapolation outside the measured frequency band. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • A' (2D ABC amplitude) = 2.049 ± 0.141 nm^2 mm^2
    Fitted to the worst-case circular-mean two-sided 2D PSD of the four KAGRA mirrors above 0.03 mm^-1 using Eq. (13); directly determines the scattering profile constant.
  • B (ABC corner spatial frequency inverse) = 15.00 ± 1.22 mm
    Fitted simultaneously with A' and C; sets the angular scale θ0 = λ/B ≈ 7.1e-5 rad in Eq. (17).
  • C (ABC spectral index) = 2.198 ± 0.132
    Fitted simultaneously; sets the high-angle power-law slope of the scattering profile, giving the -3.2 exponent in Eq. (18).
  • 1D fit parameters A, B, C = A=0.479±0.031 nm^2 mm, B=14.04±0.69 mm, C=2.234±0.043
    Used for the 1D PSD fit and cross-check with the 2D fit; not directly used in Eq. (17) but supports the circular-symmetry assumption.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Rayleigh-Rice relation, Eq. (2), from Ref. [13] describes scattering from the measured topographic height maps of KAGRA core mirrors.
    Central theoretical input; Section 2.1. The mirrors are multilayer-coated but Eq. (2) is quoted for general surfaces; Section 4.2 acknowledges it is not obvious the relation holds for coated mirrors.
  • domain assumption The mirror surface height errors are isotropic, so the two-sided 2D PSD is circularly symmetric.
    Justifies circular mean Eq. (16), Abel transform Eq. (8), and the azimuthal independence of the final profile; supported only by visual inspection of Fig. 3 and cross-check between 1D and 2D fits.
  • domain assumption Scattered power is concentrated near the specular direction with normal incidence, so Eq. (2) reduces to Eq. (3) with Q≈1 and cos factors≈1.
    Section 2.1; standard for super-polished mirrors, but the normalization of the resulting profile (integral ~ ppm rather than 1) is not reconciled with the PDF definition in Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The measured PSD band (≈0.03 to 1 mm^-1) is representative of the full spatial frequency range that contributes to scattering angles of interest, and the ABC model extrapolates outside this band.
    The fit is performed only above 0.03 mm^-1, and data extend to ~1 mm^-1; Eq. (17) is used for all angles, including up to ~0.1 rad needed for arm coverage (Section 4.2), without high-frequency PSD data.
  • standard math Standard Fourier analysis identities, Abel transform pairs, beta and gamma function relations, and DLMF hypergeometric identities used in Section 2 are correct.
    Derivations rely on DLMF [21] and standard texts; no issues found in the mathematical steps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling of optical scattering from topographic surface measurements of high-quality mirrors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3SDHFADT

@misc{pith2026241115733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling of optical scattering from topographic surface measurements of high-quality mirrors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3SDHFADT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15733}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we revisit computational methods to obtain an angular profile of optical scattering from a smooth surface, given a two-dimensional map of topographic height errors of the surface. Quick derivations of some traditional equations and relevant references are organized to shorten the search time. A practical data-processing flow of the methods is discussed. As a case study of this flow, the core mirrors of the KAGRA interferometer are examined, and we obtain a representative scattering profile that is easily applicable to ray-tracing simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of the data processing flow. 3.1. Data processing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detrended surface error maps of the KAGRA core mirrors [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Raw two-sided 2D power spectral density (PSD) maps of the KAGRA core [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Equivalent two-sided 2D power spectral density (PSD) and the corresponding scattering distribution function. scattering profile is expressed using the ABC model as 𝑑𝑃 𝑑Ωs ≃ 2.5 × 102 · " 1 +  𝜃s 7.1 × 10−5 rad 2 # −1.6 [1/sr]. (17) Alternatively, in terms of the powe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: One-sided 1D power spectral density (PSD). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    Calculation method for light scattering caused by multilayer coated mirrors in gravitational wave detectors,

    S. Zeidler, T. Akutsu, Y. Torii,et al., “Calculation method for light scattering caused by multilayer coated mirrors in gravitational wave detectors,” Opt. Express25, 4741 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Advanced LIGO,

    J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott,et al., “Advanced LIGO,” Class. Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  3. [2]

    Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma,et al., “Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history,

    T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai,et al., “Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2021, 05A101 (2020)

    2020

  5. [4]

    GW170817: ObservationofGravitationalWavesfromaBinaryNeutron Star Inspiral,

    B.P.Abbott,R.Abbott,T.D.Abbott, et al.,“GW170817: ObservationofGravitationalWavesfromaBinaryNeutron Star Inspiral,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5𝑀⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star,

    A. G. Abac, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh,et al., “Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5𝑀⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star,” The Astrophys. J. Lett.970, L34 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Modeling and reduction of high frequency scatter noise at LIGO Livingston,

    S. Soni, J. Glanzer, A. Effler,et al., “Modeling and reduction of high frequency scatter noise at LIGO Livingston,” Class. Quantum Gravity41, 135015 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Scattered light monitoring system at the Virgo interferometer: performance improvement and automation based on O3 data,

    A. Longo, S. Bianchi, G. Valdes,et al., “Scattered light monitoring system at the Virgo interferometer: performance improvement and automation based on O3 data,” Class. Quantum Gravity41, 015004 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Characterization of core optics in gravitational-wave detectors: Case study of KAGRA sapphire mirrors,

    E. Hirose, G. Billingsley, L. Zhang,et al., “Characterization of core optics in gravitational-wave detectors: Case study of KAGRA sapphire mirrors,” Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014021 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Impact of upconverted scattered light on advanced interferometric gravitational wave detectors,

    D. J. Ottaway, P. Fritschel, and S. J. Waldman, “Impact of upconverted scattered light on advanced interferometric gravitational wave detectors,” Opt. Express20, 8329 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    Noise due to light scattering in interferometric gravitational wave detectors. I: Handbook of Formulae, and their Derivations,

    E. E. Flanagan and K. S. Thorne, “Noise due to light scattering in interferometric gravitational wave detectors. I: Handbook of Formulae, and their Derivations,” (2011). Internal document; Semi-final Draft, provided to LCGT on September 24, 2011

    2011

  4. [11]

    Displacement noise from back scattering and specular reflection of input optics in advanced gravitational wave detectors,

    B. Canuel, E. Genin, G. Vajente, and J. Marque, “Displacement noise from back scattering and specular reflection of input optics in advanced gravitational wave detectors,” Opt. Express21, 10546 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Vacuum and cryogenic compatible black surface for large optical baffles in advanced gravitational-wave telescopes,

    T. Akutsu, Y. Saito, Y. Sakakibara,et al., “Vacuum and cryogenic compatible black surface for large optical baffles in advanced gravitational-wave telescopes,” Opt. Mater. Express6, 1613 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    J. C. Stover,Optical Scattering: Measurement and Analysis (SPIE Press, 1995), 2nd ed

    1995

  7. [14]

    Multiple factors contribute to this difficulty, including the limited angular resolution of an optical goniometer, where a photodetector is illuminated by specularly reflected light from a surface under test. Due to the finite light-sensitive area of the photodetector, the mea...

  8. [15]

    The prediction of BRDFs from surface profile measurements,

    E. L. Church, P. Z. Takacs, and T. A. Leonard, “The prediction of BRDFs from surface profile measurements,” Proc. SPIE 1165, 136 (1989)

    1989

  9. [16]

    The two-sided 1D PSD𝑆△ 1(𝑓𝑥)≡ ∫∞ −∞𝑆2(𝑓𝑥, 𝑓𝑦)𝑑𝑓𝑦 for 𝑓𝑥∈(−∞ ,∞) satisfies𝑆△ 1(−𝑓𝑥) =𝑆△ 1(𝑓𝑥) due to∫∞ −∞𝑆2(−𝑓𝑥, 𝑓𝑦)𝑑𝑓𝑦 = ∫∞ −∞𝑆2(−𝑓𝑥,−𝑓′𝑦)𝑑𝑓 ′𝑦 for the conversion𝑓′𝑦 =−𝑓𝑦, and the fact𝑆2(−𝑓𝑥,−𝑓𝑦) = 𝑆2(𝑓𝑥, 𝑓𝑦)

  10. [17]

    In general, the 2D PSD𝑆2 of a map𝑧(𝑥,𝑦) is obtained by applying the Fourier transform to the autocorrelation of𝑧(𝑥,𝑦). For isotropic maps, by definition, the autocorrelation depends solely on the distance between any two points, given by𝛿=((𝑥1−𝑥2) 2+( 𝑦1−𝑦2) 2) 1/2, and not on...

  11. [18]

    R. N. Bracewell,Fourier Analysis and Imaging (Springer, 2003), 3rd ed

    2003

  12. [19]

    R. N. Bracewell,The Fourier Transform and Its Applications (McGraw-Hill, 2000), 3rd ed

    2000

  13. [20]

    Fractal surface finish,

    E. L. Church, “Fractal surface finish,” Appl. Opt.27, 1518 (1988)

    1988

  14. [21]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions,

    “NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions,”https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.1 of 2024-06-15. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    2024

  15. [22]

    1D PSD of mirror maps,

    H. Yamamoto, “1D PSD of mirror maps,” LIGO-T1100353-v1 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Effects of Scattering on X-Ray Imaging,

    R. J. Noll, “Effects of Scattering on X-Ray Imaging,” Proc. SPIE0184, 203 (1979)

    1979

  17. [24]

    Effects of Scattering on X-Ray Imaging,

    R. J. Noll, “Effects of Scattering on X-Ray Imaging,” Opt. Eng.19, 192249 (1980)

    1980

  18. [25]

    The role of spatial bandwidth limits in the measurement and interpretation of second-order statistical properties,

    E. L. Church, “The role of spatial bandwidth limits in the measurement and interpretation of second-order statistical properties,” inProceedings of the 26th Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research Development and Testing,(U. S. Army Research Office, 1980), p. 387

    1980

  19. [26]

    Mirror surface autocovariance functions and their associated visible scattering,

    R. J. Noll and P. Glenn, “Mirror surface autocovariance functions and their associated visible scattering,” Appl. Opt. 21, 1824 (1982)

    1982

  20. [27]

    Spectral analysis of the finish of polished optical surfaces,

    E. L. Church and H. C. Berry, “Spectral analysis of the finish of polished optical surfaces,” Wear83, 189 (1982)

    1982

  21. [28]

    Statistical and Signal Processing Concepts in Surface Metrology,

    E. L. Church and P. Z. Takacs, “Statistical and Signal Processing Concepts in Surface Metrology,” Proc. SPIE0645, 107 (1986)

    1986

  22. [29]

    See, for example,https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/pearson-distribution.html

  23. [30]

    Note that Eq.(4.23) in [13] corresponds to𝑆△ 1(𝑓𝑥) here, so the factor of 2 differs

  24. [31]

    prysm: A python optics module,

    B. Dube, “prysm: A python optics module,” J. Open Source Softw.4, 1352 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    POPPY: Physical Optics Propagation in PYthon,

    M. Perrin, J. Long, E. Douglas,et al., “POPPY: Physical Optics Propagation in PYthon,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1602.018 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    Simulating point spread functions for the James Webb Space Telescope with WebbPSF,

    M. D. Perrin, R. Soummer, E. M. Elliott,et al., “Simulating point spread functions for the James Webb Space Telescope with WebbPSF,” inSpace Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, vol. 8442 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engine...

    2012

  27. [34]

    Zernike polynomials and atmospheric turbulence,

    R. J. Noll, “Zernike polynomials and atmospheric turbulence,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.66, 207 (1976)

    1976

  28. [35]

    scikit-image: image processing in Python,

    S. van der Walt, J. L. Schönberger, J. Nunez-Iglesias,et al., “scikit-image: image processing in Python,” PeerJ2, e453 (2014)

    2014

  29. [36]

    They are acronyms forinput test mass x or y or end test mass x or y

  30. [37]

    Interferometer techniques for gravitational-wave detection,

    C. Bond, D. Brown, A. Freise, and K. A. Strain, “Interferometer techniques for gravitational-wave detection,” Living Rev. Relativ.19, 3 (2017)

    2017

  31. [38]

    Compilation of Metrology Data for the LIGO Large Optics,

    R. Weiss, “Compilation of Metrology Data for the LIGO Large Optics,” LIGO-T980065 (1998)

    1998

  32. [39]

    Development of advanced photon calibrator for Kamioka gravitational wave detector (KAGRA),

    Y. Inoue, B. H. Hsieh, K. H. Chen,et al., “Development of advanced photon calibrator for Kamioka gravitational wave detector (KAGRA),” Rev. Sci. Instruments94, 074502 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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