Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Frequency redistribution and step-size distribution of light scattered by atomic vapor: applications to L\'evy flight random walk

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Finite vapor size clips the far-wing photons that make resonant light transport a Lévy flight, raising the effective Lévy exponent and adding hyperfine-structure oscillations to its step-size dependence.

desk verdict A clean extension of the infinite-medium Lévy-flight picture to finite vapors and alkali hyperfine structure, but the finite-size cutoff rests on a factor that the Monte Carlo only partially validates. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18570 v1 pith:DCBXQXJZ submitted 2024-11-27 physics.optics astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.atom-phquant-ph

Isaac C. Nunes , Michelle O. Araújo , Jesús P. Lopez , Thierry Passerat de Silans This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords photonLévyflightfrequencyredistributionpartialstep-sizedistributionfinite-sizeeffectsalkalihyperfinestructureresonantatomicvapor
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

The paper claims that two features of real resonant vapors change the Lévy-flight description of multiply scattered light: the finite size of the vapor and the multi-level hyperfine structure of alkali atoms. It computes the frequency redistribution function for partial frequency redistribution and uses a recurrence to evolve the scattered spectrum from one scattering event to the next, then derives the step-size distribution and a local Lévy exponent $\alpha(r)$. The central result is that a finite vapor cuts off the far-wing frequencies at each scattering event, truncating the largest steps and making $\alpha(r)$ larger than in an infinite vapor, while the hyperfine and isotope structure of Cs and Rb imprints oscillations on $\alpha(r)$. These effects matter because measured $\alpha$ values depend on cell size and level structure; the paper connects its calculations to existing Cs and Rb experiments.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the recurrence for the scattered spectrum after scattering event $n$: $\Theta_n(x') = \int dx\, [1-T(x)]\,\Theta_{n-1}(x)\, R(x,x')/\phi(x)$, where $R(x,x')$ is the frequency redistribution function (RII for coherent scattering in the atomic rest frame, RIII for complete redistribution in the atomic rest frame), $\phi(x)$ is the normalized Voigt absorption profile, and $T(x)=\exp[-\phi(x)r_L]$ is the single-pass ballistic transmission through a sample of dimensionless size $r_L$. The factor $[1-T(x)]$ is the finite-size innovation, justified by the Single-Big-Jump principle rather than by a boundary-condition solution of the random walk. The step-size distribution is then $P(r)=\int dx\, \Theta(x)\,\phi(x)\,e^{-\phi(x)r}$, and the reported Lévy exponent is the local slope $1+\alpha(r) = -d\log P/d\log r$. For alkali vapors the same machinery is summed over hyperfine transitions with relative strengths and detunings, producing the side peaks and oscillations.

What would settle it

The finite-size claim could be settled by a photon-by-photon random-walk simulation that tracks each photon's position, draws free paths from the exponential distribution $N\sigma(\delta)e^{-N\sigma(\delta)l}$, and stops a photon only when it crosses an absorbing boundary, without ever inserting the $[1-T(x)]$ factor; if the resulting spectrum at scattering event $n=10$ or the step-size distribution differs systematically from the paper's finite-vapor curves, the escape-factor approximation is not capturing the boundary. Experimentally, the same test is to measure the step-size distribution or transmitted spectrum in the same vapor at two different cell thicknesses and check that the $\alpha(r)$ increase appears at the $r$ value predicted by $r_L$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the step-size distribution of light scattered in atomic vapor is not a fixed power law: the local Lévy exponent, defined by $1+\alpha(r) = -d\log P(r)/d\log r$, varies with step size and is controlled by the vapor's size and level scheme. For the RII redistribution case (coherent scattering in the atomic rest frame), the recurrence for the scattered spectrum contains a factor $[1-T(x)]$ with $T(x)=\exp[-\phi(x)r_L]$, so photons emitted far in the wings, which would produce the longest steps, are preferentially removed from subsequent scattering in a finite sample. This shifts the cutoff in $P(r)$ to smaller $r$ and raises $\alpha(r)$ relative to an infinite vapor; for RIII (complete redistribution in the atomic rest frame) no such shift occurs because the emitted frequency does not depend on the incident frequency. In alkali vapors, summing the same recurrence over hyperfine transitions produces side peaks spaced by ground-state hyperfine splittings, which create oscillations in $\alpha(r)$ in the range $r\sim 10^3$--$10^6$ depending on the line; the paper reports that the calculated values are consistent with previous Cs and Rb measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a photon's chance of being scattered one more time is given by the single-pass transmission factor $1-\exp[-\phi(x)r_L]$—the probability it does not cross the whole sample without absorption—and that this same factor remains accurate after many scattering events and for multilevel atoms; if that factor is not right, the finite-size cutoff and the predicted $\alpha(r)$ curves do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a finite two-level vapor described by RII, the Lévy exponent extracted at a given step size is systematically larger than in an infinite vapor, and the lowest values of $\alpha$ near 0.3 are not reached for $r_L \sim 100$.
  • For RIII, the finite size of the vapor leaves the scattered spectrum and the step-size distribution unchanged, so the finite-size cutoff does not affect the Lévy exponent.
  • For alkali vapors, hyperfine ground-state structure, resolved excited levels (Cs D1), and the two Rb isotopes introduce oscillations in $\alpha(r)$ whose position depends on the line and on vapor density.
  • The calculations are consistent with measured Lévy exponents in Cs and Rb, including the trend from $\alpha \approx 0.8$ at $r\sim 400$ to $\alpha \approx 0.6$ at $r\sim 4\times 10^4$ for Cs D2.
  • With RII and a finite vapor, the scattered spectrum after many events becomes independent of whether the incident spectrum is a delta function or a Lorentzian, because wing photons that would preserve the incident shape are removed by the escape factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same escape-factor recurrence could be used to reinterpret existing transmission measurements made in cells of different thickness; if the finite-size effect is real, a thin cell at fixed density should show a higher effective $\alpha$ than a thick cell.
  • Because the Monte Carlo validation in the paper uses the same scattering rules and escape criterion as the recurrence, an independent photon-tracking simulation with an explicit absorbing boundary would be a stronger test of the finite-size approximation.
  • The oscillations in $\alpha(r)$ imply that a single-number Lévy exponent is not enough to characterize photon transport in alkali vapors; experiments and radiative-transfer models should report the full step-size distribution or the scale-dependent exponent.
  • The same finite-size truncation may appear in astrophysical resonance-line transfer, where the RII wing approaches the RIII Lorentzian wing after many scatterings; this is a direct extension of the paper's two-level result to very large systems.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the step-size distribution of photons multiply scattered in resonant alkali vapors, described as a Lévy flight. Starting from Hummer's RII/RIII redistribution functions, the authors write a recurrence for the scattered spectrum Θ_n(x) (Eq. 9). They introduce a finite-size cutoff into this recurrence via the single-flight survival factor 1−T(x) = 1−exp(−ϕ(x) r_L), and then obtain P(r) and the local Lévy exponent 1+α(r) from Eq. 3. They report that finite size truncates P(r) and raises α(r) for RII but not for RIII, and that the hyperfine structure of Cs and Rb induces oscillations in α(r). The RII spectra are compared with Monte Carlo simulations in Fig. 1, while the alkali results are compared qualitatively with existing Cs and Rb experiments.

Significance. The calculation is a useful extension of earlier infinite-medium work [10,18,25] to finite samples and to alkali hyperfine structure. If the finite-size model is quantitatively valid, the predicted r_L-dependence of α(r) is a falsifiable signature that can be tested in transmission or imaging experiments. The use of established Hummer functions, the dimensionless formulation, and the Monte Carlo check of the scattered spectra are strengths. The multilevel treatment and the explicit α(r) curves for Cs D1/D2 and Rb D2 give concrete targets for future experiments. However, the central finite-size prediction is not yet independently validated for the headline quantity α(r), and some numerical and parameter statements in the Rb section are inconsistent.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (9)–(10) and Fig. 3] The finite-size cutoff is obtained by replacing the boundary-value random walk with a position-independent Beer-Lambert survival factor T(x) = exp(−ϕ(x) r_L). The Single-Big-Jump principle motivates this replacement, but it does not fix the quantitative cutoff shape for n = 10, for the cylindrical cell used in the Monte Carlo, or for the multilevel cases. The Monte Carlo in Fig. 1 is a genuine check of the scattered spectra, but it is not an independent check of the step-size distribution P(r) or of 1+α(r), which are the quantities used to state the main finite-size result. The authors should provide a direct Monte Carlo comparison of the simulated step-size distribution and of 1+α(r) with Eqs. (3) and (9), and discuss the sensitivity to the escape geometry; the mean chord length of the simulated cylinder is not r_L, so the agreement for Θ_n(x) does not automatically validate the one-flight factor in Eq. (10).
  2. [§3, paragraph after Eq. (10) and Fig. 2] The claim that the [1−T(x)] factor does not impact the emission in the RIII case is not justified by the statement that emission in the atomic rest frame is independent of the incident frequency. In the laboratory frame, RIII(x,x′)/ϕ(x) still depends on x through the velocity selection encoded in Eq. (6); suppressing large-|x| incident photons changes the distribution of atomic velocities that scatter and therefore the emitted spectrum. The authors should either demonstrate numerically that this effect is negligible for the parameters of Fig. 2 or revise the physical explanation.
  3. [§4.3 and Fig. 12 caption] There is a numerical inconsistency in the Rb D2 calculations: the text states that the low-density calculation uses r_L = 20 and the high-density calculation uses r_L = 10^5, while the Fig. 12 caption reports r_L = 100 and r_L = 10^4, respectively. This discrepancy directly affects the claimed consistency with the Rb measurements of Refs. [11–13] and must be corrected and unified.
  4. [§4.3, paragraph on Rb measurements] The text first reports that Ref. [13] obtained α = 1.03 ± 0.15 for system sizes up to r_L ∼ 10^5 and later states that at r_L ∼ 10^5 “α < 1 was measured.” These two statements need to be reconciled or rephrased to describe the actual r-dependence of the reported α, since as written they appear contradictory.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (3)] The definitions of r and r_L should be stated together explicitly: r is the step length in units of the line-center mean free path and r_L is the sample size in the same units; the current text introduces them in neighboring sentences but would benefit from a single clarifying sentence.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption writes “rl ∼ 100” for the finite-size cases; this should read “r_L = 100” (and similarly for the other values) to match the notation used in the text.
  3. [§3, Eq. (9)] The recurrence for Θ_n no longer preserves normalization when [1−T(x)] is included. The authors should state explicitly that the normalization constant drops out of the logarithmic derivative defining α(r), so that the plotted P(r) and α(r) curves are unaffected by this overall factor.
  4. [Throughout] Several typographical errors remain, including “scaterring” (p. 8), “diferent” (Fig. 4 caption), and the non-standard spacing in “L´evy flight” in the title; these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: finite-size cutoff enters via an explicit model assumption (Eq. 9), not by fitting or by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a finite vapor size cuts off the scattered spectrum and step-size distribution—is implemented through Eq. 9 by inserting the explicit ballistic escape factor [1-T(x)] = 1-exp[-φ(x)r_L] (Eq. 10), justified by the Single-Big-Jump principle. This is a stated physical approximation rather than a quantity fitted to the α(r) values it later produces. The recurrence rule (Eq. 9 with T=0) and Hummer RII/RIII redistribution functions are imported from the literature, including refs. [18,21,16]; this is standard input, and self-citation to [16] for the definition 1+α = -dlog P/dlog r is a convention, not load-bearing. The Monte Carlo check in Fig. 1 is an independent numerical simulation of the scattering and escape rules, and it confirms the spectra computed from Eq. 9; although it does not directly benchmark P(r) or α(r), this is a missing validation, not a circular step. Comparisons with experimental α values from [15,16] (same group) and [11,12,13] are qualitative and use parameters that differ from the calculations, so the predictions are not forced by those data. Nothing in the derivation chain reduces a headline result to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the Hummer redistribution framework, the new finite-size factor [1 - T], and a multilevel line sum. No new physical entities are introduced. The main hand-chosen elements are the event number n = 10, the sample sizes r_L, the incident laser width, and the Voigt parameters used to represent published experiments.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of scattering events n = 10 (curves also shown for n = 1, 5, 50 in Fig. 4)
    Most P(r) and alpha(r) curves are evaluated at n = 10. The RII wing spectrum still evolves with n at large r, so the finite-size cutoff and the long-step alpha value depend on this truncation.
  • Dimensionless sample size r_L = 100, 1000, 10^4 for two-level; 100 for Cs; 20 and 10^5 for Rb
    Sample size is the control parameter for the finite-size claims and is chosen to represent experimental regimes; the quantitative cutoff in P(r) and alpha(r) changes with r_L.
  • Incident laser spectral width = Lorentzian with 10 MHz for Cs and 2 MHz for Rb
    Chosen to mimic diode-laser experiments cited in [12] and [13]; affects the survival of wing photons in the RII case.
  • Voigt parameter a and homogeneous width Gamma = a = 10^-2 for Cs, two-level, and Rb low density; a = 3.5 x 10^-2 and Gamma = 4.5 Gamma_n for Rb high density
    Line-shape inputs taken from vapor conditions in the comparison experiments; the alpha(r) curves depend on a because it sets the core-to-wing absorption ratio.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Hummer RII and RIII redistribution functions (Eqs. 4 and 6) correctly describe single-scattering frequency redistribution in Doppler-broadened two-level vapors.
    Adopted from Hummer (1962) and used for all spectra in Sections 3 and 4; the paper does not re-derive these formulas.
  • ad hoc to paper The recurrence with the factor [1 - T(x)] in Eq. 9, where T(x) = exp(-phi(x) r_L), is a valid master equation for the scattered spectrum in a finite sample.
    This is the paper's new finite-size model; it is justified only by the single-big-jump principle and by Monte Carlo simulations using the same scattering rules.
  • domain assumption Escape from the finite vapor is dominated by a single big jump, so a ballistic transmission factor over the whole sample approximates the escape probability.
    Invoked in Section 3 before Eq. 9; if the jump is not single-dominated at n = 10, the finite-size cutoff is miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Alkali hyperfine structure can be summed with degeneracy weights (2F + 1) and relative line strengths (Eqs. 11 and 12), with no optical-pumping population dynamics.
    Used for Cs and Rb in Section 4; ignores modifications of ground-state populations by optical pumping that the authors mention as potentially changing effective system size.
  • domain assumption The random walk is a Lévy flight: jumps are instantaneous and rest times are negligible (Section 1).
    Standard for resonant vapor transport; the paper follows prior literature.
  • domain assumption Scattering is isotropic and polarization effects are neglected.
    Implicit in the redistribution functions and Monte Carlo described in Section 3; not tested for the multi-level cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frequency redistribution and step-size distribution of light scattered by atomic vapor: applications to L\'evy flight random walk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DCBXQXJZ

@misc{pith2026241118570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frequency redistribution and step-size distribution of light scattered by atomic vapor: applications to L\'evy flight random walk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DCBXQXJZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18570}
}
abstract

The propagation of light that undergoes multiple-scattering by resonant atomic vapor can be described as a L\'evy flight. L\'evy flight is a random walk with heavy tailed step-size (r) distribution, decaying asymptotically as $P(r)\sim r^{-1-\alpha}$, with $\alpha<2$. The large steps, typical of L\'evy flights, have its origins in frequency redistribution of the light scattered by the vapor. We calculate the frequency redistribution function and the step-size distribution for light diffusion in atomic vapor. From the step-size distribution we extract a L\'evy parameter $\alpha$ that depends on the step's size. We investigate how the frequency redistribution function and step-size distribution are influenced by the finite size of the vapor and the many-level structure typical for alkali vapors. Finite size of the vapor introduces cutoff on the light scattered spectrum and thus in the size of steps. Multi-level structure introduces oscillations in $P(r)$ slope. Both effects might have an impact on measurables related to the L\'evy flight random walk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Calculated emission spectra for number of scattering events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Calculated emission spectra for number of scattering events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Calculated step-size distribution P(r) and (b) L´evy parameter obtained from P(r); Black-solid: RII for infinite vapor; Black-dashed RIII for infinite vapor; red-solid RII with rL = 100, blue-solid RII with rL = 1000, green-solid RII with rL = 104 . 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Calculated step-size distribution P(r) and (b) L´evy parameter obtained from P(r) for infinite vapor and diferent number of scaterring events; Black-dashed for RIII case and n = 10; black-solid, red-solid, blue-solid and green-solid lines for RII case with n = 1, 5…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematics of the D1 and D2 lines of (a) Cs, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Frequency redistribution for Cs D2 line for different numbers of scattering events: (a) for infinite vapor; (b) for finite vapor with rL = 100. Black-solid , red-dashed and blue-dotted-dashed lines are for RII case after scattering event of number n = 1,5 and 10, respe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of frequency redistribution for Cs D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Step-size distribution for Cs D2 line. (b) Exponent 1 + α calculated from the step-size distribution, for the RII case with n = 10. Black-solid and red-dotted lines are for incident spectrum Θ0 = δ(x) for infinite and finite vapor (rL = 100), respectively. Black-do…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized absorption coefficient ϕ(x) for the cs D1 line. ranging from α ∼ 0.8 for Nσ(0)L ∼ 102 and thus r ∼ 400 to α ∼ 0.6 for Nσ(0)L ∼ 104 and thus r ∼ 4 · 104 [16]. Although a direct comparison with the present calculations is not straightforward since parameters s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scattered spectrum after the first scattering event for Cs D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Step-size distribution after the scattering event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Spectrum of scattered light after scattering event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Baudouin, R

    Q. Baudouin, R. Pierrat, A.Eloy, E. J. Nunes-Pereira, P.- A.Cuniasse, N. Mercadier, R. Kaiser, Signatures of l´ evy flights with annealed disorder, Phys. Rev. E 90 (2014) 052114. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.052114

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.90.052114 2014

  2. [1]

    R. B. Barnes, S. Silverman, Brownian motion as a natural limit to all measuring processes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 6 (1934) 162–192. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.6.162

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.6.162 1934

  3. [2]

    Bouchaud, A

    J.-P. Bouchaud, A. Georges, Anomalous diffusion in dis- ordered media: Statistical mechanisms, models and phys- ical applications, Physics Reports 195 (4) (1990) 127–293. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90099-N

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(90)90099-n 1990

  4. [3]

    Zaburdaev, S

    V. Zaburdaev, S. Denisov, J. Klafter, L´ evy walks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 (2015) 483–530. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.483

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.483 2015

  5. [4]

    G. M. Viswanathan, V. Afanasyev, S. V. Buldyrev, E. J. Murphyt, P. Princet, H. E. Stanley, L´ evy flight search patterns of wandering alba- trosses, Nature 381 (1996) 413–415. https://doi.org/10.1038/381413a0

    work page doi:10.1038/381413a0 1996

  6. [5]

    J. Li, L. Weng, J. Xie, J. Amrit, A. Ramiere, L´ evy walk of qua- siballistic phonons in nanowires, Phys. Rev. E 105 (2022) 064123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.105.064123

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.105.064123 2022

  7. [6]

    T. B. Smith, D. B. Weissman, Isolation by distance in populations with power-law dispersal, G3 Genes—Genomes—Genetics 13 (4) (2023) jkad023. https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkad023

    work page doi:10.1093/g3journal/jkad023 2023

  8. [7]

    Molisch, B

    A. Molisch, B. Oehry, Radiation Trapping in Atomic Vapours, Oxford science publications, Clarendon Press, 1998. 33

    work page 1998

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    D. E. Osterbrock, The Escape of Resonance-Line Radiation from an Optically Thick Nebula., Astrophys J 135 (1962) 195. https://doi.org/10.1086/147258

    1962 doi

  2. [9]

    T. F. Adams, The Escape of Resonance-Line Radiation from Extremely Opaque Media, Astrophys J 174 (1972) 439. https://doi.org/10.1086/151503

    1972 doi

  3. [10]

    Pereira, J

    E. Pereira, J. M. G. Martinho, M. N. Berberan-Santos, Photon trajectories in incoherent atomic radiation trap- ping as l´ evy flights, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 120201. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.120201

    2004 doi

  4. [11]

    Mercadier, W

    N. Mercadier, W. Guerin, M. Chevrollier, R. Kaiser, L´ evy flights of photons in hot atomic vapours, Nat. Phys. 5 (2009) 602–605

    2009

  5. [12]

    Mercadier, M

    N. Mercadier, M. Chevrollier, W. Guerin, R. Kaiser, Microscopic char- acterization of l´ evy flights of light in atomic vapors, Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 063837. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.063837

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    M. O. Ara´ ujo, T. Passerat de Silans, R. Kaiser, L´ evy flights of pho- tons with infinite mean free path, Phys. Rev. E 103 (2021) L010101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.103.L010101. 34

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    A. S. M. Macedo, J. P. Lopez, T. Passerat de Silans, Sample size effects for l´ evy flight of photons in atomic vapors, Phys. Rev. E 104 (2021) 054143. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.104.054143

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    J. P. Lopez, A. S. M. Macedo, M. O. Ara´ ujo, T. Passerat de Silans, Dependence of l´ evy-flight transmission on the starting point for pho- tons propagating in atomic vapors, Phys. Rev. A 107 (2023) 013501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.013501

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Vezzani, E

    A. Vezzani, E. Barkai, R. Burioni, Single-big-jump princi- ple in physical modeling, Phys. Rev. E 100 (2019) 012108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.100.012108

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    A. R. Alves-Pereira, E. J. Nunes-Pereiraa, J. M. G. Martinho, M. N. Berberan-Santos, Photonic superdiffusive motion in resonance line ra- diation trapping partial frequency redistribution effects, J. Chem. Phys. 126 (2007) 154505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2717190

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    J. C. de A. Carvalho, M. Ori´ a, M. Chevrollier, H. L. D. de S. Cav- alcante, T. P. de Silans, Redistribution of light frequency by multiple scattering in a resonant atomic vapor, Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) 053846. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.053846

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Unno, On the Radiation Pressure in a Planetary Nebula, II, Publ

    W. Unno, On the Radiation Pressure in a Planetary Nebula, II, Publ. Astr. Soc. Japan 3 (1952) 158

    1952

  13. [21]

    D. G. Hummer, Non-Coherent Scattering: I. The Redistri- bution Function with Doppler Broadening, Monthly Notices 35 of the Royal Astronomical Society 125 (1) (1962) 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/125.1.21

    1962 doi

  14. [22]

    Omont, E

    A. Omont, E. W. Smith, J. Cooper, Redistribution of Resonance Radiation. I. The Effect of Collisions, Astrophys J 175 (1972) 185. https://doi.org/10.1086/151548

    1972 doi

  15. [23]

    Domke, I

    H. Domke, I. Hubeny, Scattering of Polarized Light in Spectral Lines with Partial Frequency Redistribution: General Redistribution Matrix, Astrophys J 334 (1988) 527. https://doi.org/10.1086/166857

    1988 doi

  16. [24]

    Frisch, Partial frequency redistribution of polarized radiation, in: J

    H. Frisch, Partial frequency redistribution of polarized radiation, in: J. O. Stenflo, K. N. Nagendra (Eds.), Solar Polarization, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1996, pp. 49–66

    1996

  17. [25]

    Chevrollier, Radiation trapping and l´ evy flights in atomic vapours: an introductory review, Contemporary Physics 53 (3) (2012) 227–239

    M. Chevrollier, Radiation trapping and l´ evy flights in atomic vapours: an introductory review, Contemporary Physics 53 (3) (2012) 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2012.684481

    2012

  18. [26]

    Holstein, Imprisonment of resonance radiation in gases, Phys

    T. Holstein, Imprisonment of resonance radiation in gases, Phys. Rev. 72 (1947) 1212–1233. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.1212

    1947 doi

  19. [27]

    H. M. Anderson, S. D. Bergeson, D. A. Doughty, J. E. Lawler, Xenon 147-nm resonance f value and trapped decay rates, Phys. Rev. A 51 (1995) 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.211

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    D. A. Steck, Cesium D line data (2003). https://steck.us/alkalidata/cesiumnumbers.pdf 36

    2003

  21. [29]

    https://doi.org/10.1051/0004- 6361/201834961

    Michel-Dansac, L., Blaizot, J., Garel, T., Verhamme, A., Kimm, T., Trebitsch, M., Rascas: Radiation scattering in astrophysical simulations, A&A 635 (2020) A154. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004- 6361/201834961

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    V. V. Ivanov, J. M. Dlugach, Radiative transfer of exci- tation: L´ evy flights and self-similarity, Journal of Quantita- tive Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 323 (2024) 108999. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2024.108999

    2024

  23. [31]

    S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, A. Y. Kazakov, M. G. E. da Luz, E. P. Raposo, H. E. Stanley, G. M. Viswanathan, Average time spent by l´ evy flights and walks on an interval with absorbing boundaries, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 041108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.041108

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Buldyrev, M

    S. Buldyrev, M. Gitterman, S. Havlin, A. Kazakov, M. da Luz, E. Raposo, H. Stanley, G. Viswanathan, Properties of l´ evy flights on an interval with absorbing boundaries, Physica A: Statisti- cal Mechanics and its Applications 302 (1) (2001) 148–161, proc. Int. Workshop on Fro...

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    Klinger, R

    J. Klinger, R. Voituriez, O. B´ enichou, Splitting probabili- ties of jump processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 140603. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.140603 37

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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