Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Light Propagation through Space-Time Non-Markovian Random Media

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that light propagation through non-Markovian random media maps exactly onto the hyperbolic Anderson model, yielding scaling laws for intensity moments and aperture averaging that a 588 m outdoor experiment confirms.

desk verdict Novel idea, but the derivation of the 'exact' hyperbolic Anderson mapping has a load-bearing inconsistency; the experimental validation is too lightly quantified to rescue it. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.11213 v3 pith:CRGVP74P submitted 2026-01-16 physics.optics math-phmath.MPstat.AP

Chaoran Wang , Jinquan Qi , Shuang Liu , Chenjin Deng , Shensheng Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsmath-phmath.MPstat.AP
keywords non-MarkovianrandommediahyperbolicAndersonmodelfractionalBrownianmotionRieszkernelscintillationindexapertureaveragingstochasticpartialdifferentialequationslong-rangetemporalcorrelations
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 introduces a stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) for light propagation that keeps the temporal memory of the medium instead of discarding it. By splitting the squared refractive index into a mean and a fluctuation and applying a slowly-varying-phase approximation, the authors obtain the hyperbolic Anderson model with multiplicative noise. From known SPDE results they derive exact relationships: the scintillation index is bounded (explaining saturation), higher-order intensity moments are determined by the second moment through a formula that depends only on the spatial exponent α, and aperture-averaged fields converge to a Gaussian at rate R^{-α/2}. An outdoor 588 m experiment with a heterodyne receiver and in-situ temperature sensing reports a correlation coefficient of 0.905 between the Hurst index of the medium and that of the optical phase for a small aperture, and confirms the predicted convergence under large apertures.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the hyperbolic Anderson model — a stochastic wave equation with multiplicative Gaussian noise — obtained after decomposing the squared refractive index and using the slowly-varying-phase approximation. The noise covariance is the product of fractional Brownian motion in time (with Hurst index H) and a spatial kernel |x−y|^{-α}. This specific covariance lets the authors expand the solution as a series of iterated stochastic integrals against the random field, from which the closed-form moment asymptotics (Eqs. 12–13) and the Gaussian fluctuation bound (Eq. 16) follow. The spatial kernel provides the scaling exponent α; the fractional-Brownian factor provides the temporal

What would settle it

Measure the two-time, two-point covariance of the atmospheric refractive-index fluctuations over the same lag range used in the experiment and test whether it collapses to C_H(t^{2H}+s^{2H}-|t-s|^{2H})|x−y|^{-α} with fixed H and α. If the empirical surface cannot be fit by that single-factor form, the exact scaling laws derived from the hyperbolic Anderson mapping do not hold for this medium.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the mapping of the wave equation in a fluctuating medium, written as L_cn u = (μ ω²/c²) u, to the hyperbolic Anderson model. For a random field whose covariance factorizes as fractional Brownian motion in time times a spatial kernel |x−y|^{-α}, with Hurst index H and exponent α, the authors show that known SPDE results give exact asymptotics for the moments of the solution. In particular, Eq. (13) gives the normalized q-th intensity moment as a function of the second moment with an exponent involving only α, and Eq. (16) bounds a statistical distance between the aperture-averaged, normalized field and the standard complex Gaussian by C_2 R^{-α/2}. The experimental se

Load-bearing premise

The entire derivation rests on the covariance of the squared-refractive-index fluctuation field factoring exactly as fractional Brownian motion in time times a spatial kernel |x−y|^{-α} with a single pair of exponents (H, α); if atmospheric correlations are not of this single-factor form, the 'exact' relationships in Eqs. (12), (13), and (16) do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scintillation index remains finite even at infinite propagation distance, giving a theoretical explanation for the experimentally observed scintillation saturation.
  • For fixed α, the normalized higher-order intensity moments collapse onto a single curve as a function of the second moment (Eq. 13), independent of the memory parameter H; this is a testable universal relation.
  • Aperture averaging always restores Gaussian statistics, with convergence rate at least R^{-α/2}; for H≠1/2, small apertures still show non-Markovian, colored-noise fluctuations that are more damaging to communication links than white noise.
  • The limit of many phase screens reproduces the same saturation behavior, explaining why the standard multiple phase-screen method works well when the number of screens is large.
  • At point-like apertures, the memory of the medium (H>1/2) is directly imprinted on the propagated field, so the observed phase Hurst index can be used to infer the medium's memory (correlation 0.905 in the experiment).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test than the plotted moment collapse would be to measure α and H independently from the covariance data and then predict the full moment curve from Eq. (13) with no fitted parameters; the paper does not state the α and H values used for the theoretical curves.
  • If the single-factor covariance holds, the same mapping should transfer to other wave systems — acoustic, seismic, or underwater — whose refractive index fluctuates with long-range temporal memory, yielding analogous scaling laws.
  • The time-asymptotic growth law of Eq. (12) has exponent (4H−α)/(2−α); a long-path or variable-turbulence experiment could test whether the observed moment growth tracks this exponent, since the current stationary outdoor test cannot distinguish asymptotic from transient behavior.
  • Because Eq. (13) is independent of H, the model predicts that normalized higher-order moments collapse onto one curve even as the second moment changes with memory state; comparing data across different times of day or turbulence strengths could reveal whether any H-dependence is truly absent.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an SPDE formulation for light propagation in non-Markovian random media. Starting from the wave equation with a random refractive index, the authors decompose the squared refractive index and, after a slowly-varying-phase argument, replace Eq. (2) by L_cn u = W u with W = mu omega^2/c^2, identifying this with the hyperbolic Anderson model. They assume a product covariance for W given by fractional Brownian motion in time and a Riesz kernel in space (Eq. (4)), then borrow results from the SPDE literature to obtain an asymptotic moment formula (Eq. (12)), an exact inter-moment relation (Eq. (13)), and an aperture-averaging Gaussian convergence bound (Eq. (16)). The predictions are compared with a 588 m outdoor experiment using a micrometeorological array and heterodyne detection, reporting a Pearson correlation of 0.905 between environmental and phase Hurst indices and a decay of the sKL divergence consistent with R^{-alpha/2}. The abstract and conclusion describe the mapping as exact and the validation as decisive.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would provide a valuable bridge between SPDE theory and optical propagation, yielding quantitative scaling laws that connect the Hurst exponent and spatial power-law exponent to scintillation and aperture averaging. The experimental effort is substantial and the idea of using fBm and Riesz-kernel covariance is creative. However, the load-bearing derivation of the hyperbolic Anderson model is not controlled, key theoretical results are deferred to a missing Supplementary Information, and the experimental validation omits the fitted parameter values, error bars, and the constant C2, so the paper currently does not establish that the proposed equations describe the experiment. The manuscript is not in a form where its central claims can be verified.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The transition from Eq. (2) to Eq. (3) is the linchpin of the paper but is not a controlled approximation. In Eq. (2), the second time derivative appears both in L_cn and in the noise term. The stated condition that phase fluctuations are slow compared to omega justifies replacing partial_t^2 u by -omega^2 u; applied consistently, this turns Eq. (2) into the time-independent random Helmholtz equation. A standard envelope reduction gives a first-order-in-time Schrödinger-type equation. Neither is the hyperbolic Anderson model. Eq. (3) is obtained only by replacing partial_t^2 in the noise term while retaining it in L_cn, and no asymptotic ordering is given to justify this selective substitution. Since Eqs. (5)–(16) all depend on Eq. (3) being the hyperbolic Anderson model, this is a load-bearing gap, not a presentation issue.
  2. [§2, Eq. (4)] The covariance factorization in Eq. (4) is an assumption, not derived from the medium or from a controlled approximation. All subsequent predictions are conditional on the exact product form C_H(t^{2H}+s^{2H}-|t-s|^{2H})|x-y|^{-alpha}. The experimental section never reports the measured alpha or H used to draw the theoretical curves in Figs. 2–3, so the conditional nature of the prediction is not tested. In addition, the solution in Eq. (5) is described as distribution-valued, yet the paper uses pointwise intensity I(t,x)=|u_w(t,x)|^2 and its moments in Eqs. (8)–(13); the required regularization or renormalization is not discussed.
  3. [§2, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The moment asymptotics in Eq. (12) and the inter-moment relation in Eq. (13) are asserted with a citation to Ref. [34], whose title indicates time-independent noise, whereas the noise in Eq. (4) is space-time fractional noise with temporal Hurst exponent H. No derivation is provided and the hypotheses of the cited theorem are not verified. The experimental validation in Fig. 2 does not state the fitted alpha or the theoretical curve parameters, and the panels have no error bars, so the claimed agreement cannot be evaluated quantitatively. Because Eq. (13) is the main moment prediction, this is a serious support gap.
  4. [§2, Eq. (16)] The aperture-averaging bound dsKL <= C2 R^{-alpha/2} is not falsifiable as stated because C2 is unspecified and alpha is not reported. With an arbitrary prefactor, the dashed line in Fig. 3(b) can be made to match a wide range of monotone decays. The symmetrized Kullback-Leibler divergence for the complex-valued process Z_R(t) is not defined in the text, and the hypotheses of the functional central limit theorem from Ref. [35] are not checked for the space-time fractional noise model. The experimental Fig. 3(b) again has no error bars or fit parameter values, so the validation of Eq. (16) is insufficient.
  5. [Supplementary Information (placeholder)] The paper repeatedly defers load-bearing material to a Supplementary Information with a placeholder URL: the derivations of Eqs. (10)–(16), the discretization leading to Eq. (11), the explicit form of C1(alpha,H), the definition of dsKL, and the R/S implementation. Since the SI is not available with the submission, these claims cannot be verified from the printed text. This is not a minor omission because the main mathematical results are not derivable from what is presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (4)] The notation E[W(t,x), W(s,y)] should be E[W(t,x)W(s,y)] for the covariance. Also, the domain restriction |x-y| >= l0 appears only after the formula and is not incorporated into the subsequent analysis consistently.
  2. [§2, Eq. (10)] The notation S(L), S(l0), and the integration variable r are not defined clearly; the integral appears to mix a surface measure with a volume element, and the interchange of summation and integration is not justified.
  3. [§2, Eq. (11)] The phrase 'spaced at the same interval of (L-l0)/N-1' is ambiguous; the index set and the meaning of the phase-screen interpretation should be stated precisely.
  4. [§3, Fig. 3] The text states a Pearson coefficient of 0.905 but does not report confidence intervals, significance, or the number of independent samples. Given the strong temporal autocorrelation in 24-hour records, the effective sample size should be addressed.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The words 'exact mapping' and 'rigorous' are stronger than what is demonstrated, since Eq. (3) is obtained from an approximation and Eq. (4) is an assumed covariance model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SPDE predictions are imported from external theorems, and the experiments test distinct observables; the questionable Eq. (2) to Eq. (3) step is a validity defect, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central chain is: physical wave equation (Eq. 2) -> hyperbolic Anderson model (Eq. 3) -> external SPDE theorems (Balan, Dalang, et al.) -> scaling relations Eq. (12)-(13) and bound Eq. (16) -> outdoor experiment. No step equates a prediction to its input by construction. The transition Eq. (2) to Eq. (3) is the one serious problem: the paper replaces ∂²_t u by -ω²u in the noise term only while retaining ∂²_t in L_cn; applied consistently this gives an elliptic/parabolic equation, so the 'exact mapping' is an uncontrolled modeling assumption. That is a correctness/falsifiability flaw, not a circularity, because Eq. (3) is not derived from Eq. (2); it is imposed. Eq. (12)-(16) are cited from external mathematical papers [30]-[35], not from the authors' prior work; the only self-citation ([6], Han) supports the phase-screen discussion and is not load-bearing. The experiment does use H and α estimated from the same outdoor campaign, and C1/C2 are deferred to the Supplementary Information, which weakens the confirmatory value (especially the slope-only test of Eq. (16), where C2 is an unspecified constant), but the optical moments and aperture-averaging sKL are different observables from the sensor-derived H/α; the theoretical relations are not fitted to those observables. The missing supplement is an omission, not circularity. By the quoted-step standard of this review, there is no exhibited reduction making a prediction equal to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's predictive content is carried by H, α, l0, C1, and C2; none are fixed by first principles, and several are estimated from the same experiment being validated. The axioms show that the mapping depends on an assumed covariance structure and a distributional-solution identification that are not independently established.

free parameters (5)
  • H (Hurst exponent) = not reported
    Exponent of temporal fBm in Eq. (4); appears in Eqs. (12) and (14); estimated from R/S analysis of environmental and phase time series.
  • α (spatial power-law exponent) = not reported
    Exponent of Riesz kernel in Eq. (4); central to Eqs. (10), (13), and (16); fitted from the two-segment piecewise log-log fit in Fig. 2(a).
  • l0 (inner-scale cutoff) = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. (4) to prevent divergence at the origin and used in the integral in Eq. (10); value is never specified.
  • C1(α,H) = not reported
    Deterministic constant in the moment asymptotics Eq. (12); exact form is deferred to a missing Supplementary Information section.
  • C2 = not reported
    Constant in the upper bound Eq. (16); used to draw the dashed line in Fig. 3(b), but its value is not stated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Slowly-varying envelope approximation replaces ∂²u/∂t² by -ω²u, converting Eq. (2) into Eq. (3).
    Valid only if the time derivative of phase fluctuations is much smaller than the optical frequency; stated in Sec. 2 before Eq. (3); undermines the 'exact' mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The covariance of W has the product form C_H(t^{2H}+s^{2H}-|t-s|^{2H})|x-y|^{-α} (Eq. 4).
    Assumed, not derived from turbulence physics; all subsequent predictions depend on this exact factorization with single exponents H and α.
  • standard math The Dalang condition holds, ensuring existence of a solution to the hyperbolic Anderson model.
    Cited [31,32] just after Eq. (4); needed for the Wiener-chaos expansion and the wild solution.
  • domain assumption The observed light field corresponds to the regularized distributional 'wild solution', with cutoff l0.
    Equation (5) gives a distributional solution; equating its moments to measurable intensity requires the l0 regularization used in Eq. (10).
  • domain assumption A functional central limit theorem applies to aperture averages and yields an upper bound on symmetrized KL divergence.
    Eq. (16) is stated with citation [35]; conditions and proof are not given, and long-range spatial correlations may violate standard CLT assumptions.
  • domain assumption R/S analysis reliably estimates Hurst exponents of µ and phase over 24 hours.
    R/S is sensitive to trends and nonstationarity; the paper does not describe detrending or block-size choices, yet Pearson correlations are computed from the resulting estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light Propagation through Space-Time Non-Markovian Random Media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CRGVP74P

@misc{pith2026260111213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light Propagation through Space-Time Non-Markovian Random Media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CRGVP74P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.11213}
}
read the original abstract

Here, we introduce a stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) formulation driven by temporally correlated noise to describe light propagation beyond the standard Markov approximation. By representing the squared refractive index fluctuations as a random field with explicit long-range temporal correlations, we demonstrate that the propagation dynamics map exactly onto the hyperbolic Anderson model. This rigorous mapping enables the derivation of new quantitative scaling relations that connect the environment's non-Markovian memory effects to the statistical properties of the emergent light field. We experimentally validate these analytical predictions in an outdoor atmospheric environment, confirming the memory-dependent statistical signatures of the propagated light. Our results establish a precise physical foundation for understanding memory-driven wave phenomena, providing crucial insights for free-space optical communication, remote sensing, and coherent imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic diagram depicts the two-point temperature difference measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Space-time characterization of the random media and experimental validation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Non-Markovian temporal correlations and statistical convergence. (a1)-(a2) For a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references

  1. [34]

    M., Chen, L

    Balan, R. M., Chen, L. & Chen, X. Exact asymptotics of the stochastic wave equa- tion with time-independent noise.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques58(2022)

    2022

  2. [35]

    M., Huang, J., Wang, X., Xia, P

    Balan, R. M., Huang, J., Wang, X., Xia, P. & Yuan, W. Gaussian fluctuations for the wave equation under rough random perturbations.Stochastic Processes and their Applications182, 104569 (2025)

    2025

  3. [1]

    & Yang, Y

    He, G., Jin, G. & Yang, Y. Space-Time Correlations and Dynamic Coupling in Turbulent Flows.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics49, 51–70 (2017). 16

    2017

  4. [2]

    & Gigan, S

    Rotter, S. & Gigan, S. Light fields in complex media: Mesoscopic scattering meets wave control.Reviews of Modern Physics89, 015005 (2017)

    2017

  5. [3]

    Wave Propagation:Wave Propagation in a Turbulent Medium

    Weiss, G. Wave Propagation:Wave Propagation in a Turbulent Medium. V. I. Tatarski. Translated by R. A. Silverman. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961. 285 pp. Illus.$9.75. Science134, 324–325 (1961)

    1961

  6. [4]

    Vynck, K.et al.Light in correlated disordered media.Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045003 (2023)

    2023

  7. [5]

    R.et al.Ultrastable Free-Space Laser Links for a Global Network of Optical Atomic Clocks.Physical Review Letters128, 020801 (2022)

    Gozzard, D. R.et al.Ultrastable Free-Space Laser Links for a Global Network of Optical Atomic Clocks.Physical Review Letters128, 020801 (2022)

    2022

  8. [6]

    & Han, S

    Zhang, P., Gong, W., Shen, X. & Han, S. Correlated imaging through atmospheric turbulence.Physical Review A82, 033817 (2010)

    2010

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    & Puaey, P

    Parry, G. & Puaey, P. N. K distributions in atmospheric propagation of laser light. Journal of the Optical Society of America69, 796 (1979)

    1979

  2. [8]

    M.et al.Measuring the Transmission Matrix in Optics: An Approach to the Study and Control of Light Propagation in Disordered Media.Physical Review Letters 104, 100601 (2010)

    Popoff, S. M.et al.Measuring the Transmission Matrix in Optics: An Approach to the Study and Control of Light Propagation in Disordered Media.Physical Review Letters 104, 100601 (2010)

    2010

  3. [9]

    Capraro, I.et al.Impact of Turbulence in Long Range Quantum and Classical Com- munications.Physical Review Letters109, 200502 (2012)

    2012

  4. [10]

    Guo, Y.et al.Entanglement-distillation attack on continuous-variable quantum key distribution in a turbulent atmospheric channel.Physical Review A96, 022320 (2017)

    2017

  5. [11]

    & Kasper, M

    Davies, R. & Kasper, M. Adaptive Optics for Astronomy.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics50, 305–351 (2012)

    2012

  6. [12]

    Horst, Y.et al.Tbit/s line-rate satellite feeder links enabled by coherent modulation and full-adaptive optics.Light: Science & Applications12, 153 (2023). 17

    2023

  7. [13]

    & Fleischer, J

    Situ, G. & Fleischer, J. W. Dynamics of the Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transition in a photon fluid.Nature Photonics14, 517–522 (2020)

    2020

  8. [14]

    & Zavorotnyi, V

    Tatarskii, V. & Zavorotnyi, V. III Strong Fluctuations in Light Propagation in A Randomly Inhomogeneous Mediump. InProgress in Optics, vol. 18, 204–256 (Elsevier, 1980)

    1980

  9. [15]

    Belen’ki ˘ ı, M. S. & Mironov, V. L. Coherence of the field of a laser beam in a turbulent atmosphere.Soviet Journal of Quantum Electronics10, 595–597 (1980)

    1980

  10. [16]

    Tataraskiˇi, V. I. Light Propagation in a Medium with Random Refractive Index Inho- mogeneities in the Markov Random Process Approximation.Soviet Journal of Experi- mental and Theoretical Physics29, 1133 (1969)

    1969

  11. [17]

    Andrews, L. C. & Phillips, R. L.Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media (SPIE, 1000 20th Street, Bellingham, W A 98227-0010 USA, 2005)

    2005

  12. [18]

    Brown, W. P. Second Moment of a Wave Propagating in a Random Medium*.Journal of the Optical Society of America61, 1051 (1971)

    1971

  13. [19]

    & Pusey, P

    Jakeman, E. & Pusey, P. N. Significance of K Distributions in Scattering Experiments. Physical Review Letters40, 546–550 (1978)

    1978

  14. [20]

    & Sølna, K

    Garnier, J. & Sølna, K. Fourth-Moment Analysis for Wave Propagation in the White- Noise Paraxial Regime.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis220, 37–81 (2016)

    2016

  15. [21]

    G., Ferguson, J

    Booker, H. G., Ferguson, J. A. & Vats, H. O. Comparison between the extended-medium and the phase-screen scintillation theories.Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics47, 381–399 (1985)

    1985

  16. [22]

    C., Phillips, R

    Andrews, L. C., Phillips, R. L. & Weeks, A. R. Propagation of a Gaussian-beam wave through a random phase screen.Waves in Random Media7, 229–244 (1997). 18

    1997

  17. [23]

    Diffusion of light in turbid material.Applied Optics28, 2210 (1989)

    Ishimaru, A. Diffusion of light in turbid material.Applied Optics28, 2210 (1989)

    1989

  18. [24]

    Prahl, S. A. A Monte Carlo model of light propagation in tissue. In Mueller, G. J., Sliney, D. H. & Potter, R. F. (eds.)Institutes for Advanced Optical Technologies, 1030509 (Berlin, Germany, 1989)

    1989

  19. [25]

    Optics Express31, 10458 (2023)

    Song, C.et al.Path sampling and integration method to calculate speckle patterns. Optics Express31, 10458 (2023)

    2023

  20. [26]

    Atmospheric Turbulence and Orbital Angular Momentum of Single Pho- tons for Optical Communication.Physical Review Letters94, 153901 (2005)

    Paterson, C. Atmospheric Turbulence and Orbital Angular Momentum of Single Pho- tons for Optical Communication.Physical Review Letters94, 153901 (2005)

    2005

  21. [27]

    & Duan, Z

    Huang, Y., Zhang, B., Gao, Z., Zhao, G. & Duan, Z. Evolution behavior of Gaussian Schell-model vortex beams propagating through oceanic turbulence.Optics Express22, 17723 (2014)

    2014

  22. [28]

    & Mancini, S

    Caruso, F., Giovannetti, V., Lupo, C. & Mancini, S. Quantum channels and memory effects.Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1203–1259 (2014)

    2014

  23. [29]

    & Wlaz lowski, G

    Bulgac, A., Kafker, M., Abdurrahman, I. & Wlaz lowski, G. Quantum turbulence, superfluidity, non-Markovian dynamics, and wave function thermalization.Physical Review Research6, L042003 (2024)

    2024

  24. [30]

    Probability, Its Applications (Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2006)

    Nualart, D.The Malliavin Calculus and Related Topics. Probability, Its Applications (Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  25. [31]

    Extending the Martingale Measure Stochastic Integral With Applications to Spatially Homogeneous S.P.D.E.’s.Electronic Journal of Probability4(1999)

    Dalang, R. Extending the Martingale Measure Stochastic Integral With Applications to Spatially Homogeneous S.P.D.E.’s.Electronic Journal of Probability4(1999)

    1999

  26. [32]

    Dalang, R. C. The Stochastic Wave Equation.Lecture Notes in Mathematics -Springer- verlag-1962, 39–71 (2009)

    1962

  27. [33]

    Balan, R. M. The Stochastic Wave Equation with Multiplicative Fractional Noise: A Malliavin Calculus Approach.Potential Analysis36, 1–34 (2012). 19

    2012

  28. [36]

    C.Partial Differential Equations

    Evans, L. C.Partial Differential Equations. No. v. 19 in Graduate Studies in Mathe- matics (American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I, 2010), 2nd ed edn

    2010

  29. [37]

    Dalang, R. C. & Mueller, C. Intermittency properties in a hyperbolic Anderson problem. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques45(2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    C., Daughton, W., Roytershteyn, V

    Leonardis, E., Chapman, S. C., Daughton, W., Roytershteyn, V. & Karimabadi, H. Identification of Intermittent Multifractal Turbulence in Fully Kinetic Simulations of Magnetic Reconnection.Physical Review Letters110(2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Xu, H., Ouellette, N. T. & Bodenschatz, E. Multifractal Dimension of Lagrangian Turbulence.Physical Review Letters96(2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Rayleigh-Taylor Turbulence is Nothing Like Kolmogorov Turbulence in the Self-Similar Regime.Physical Review Letters97, 185002 (2006)

    Poujade, O. Rayleigh-Taylor Turbulence is Nothing Like Kolmogorov Turbulence in the Self-Similar Regime.Physical Review Letters97, 185002 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Ristorcelli, J. R. & Clark, T. T. Rayleigh–Taylor turbulence: Self-similar analysis and direct numerical simulations.Journal of Fluid Mechanics507, 213–253 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    E., Welsh, B

    Stribling, B. E., Welsh, B. M. & Roggemann, M. C. Optical propagation in non- Kolmogorov atmospheric turbulence. In Dainty, J. C. (ed.)SPIE’s 1995 Symposium on OE/Aerospace Sensing and Dual Use Photonics, 181 (Orlando, FL, United States, 1995). 20

    1995

  35. [43]

    & Fouxon, A

    Balkovsky, E., Falkovich, G. & Fouxon, A. Intermittent Distribution of Inertial Particles in Turbulent Flows.Physical Review Letters86, 2790–2793 (2001)

    2001

  36. [44]

    & Garavaglia, M

    P´ erez, D., Zunino, L. & Garavaglia, M. A fractional Brownian motion model for the turbulent refractive index in lightwave propagation.Optics Communications242, 57–63 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    & Zhang, T.Stochastic Calculus for Fractional Brownian Motion and Applications

    Biagini, F., Hu, Y., Øksendal, B. & Zhang, T.Stochastic Calculus for Fractional Brownian Motion and Applications. Probability and Its Applications (Springer London, London, 2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Balan, R

    M. Balan, R. & Song, J. Hyperbolic Anderson Model withspace-time homogeneous Gaussian noise.Latin American Journal of Probability and Mathematical Statistics14, 799 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    & Peccati, G.Normal Approximations with Malliavin Calculus: From Stein’s Method to Universality(Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1 edn

    Nourdin, I. & Peccati, G.Normal Approximations with Malliavin Calculus: From Stein’s Method to Universality(Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1 edn

    2012

  40. [48]

    Berman, G. P. & Chumak, A. A. Influence of phase-diffuser dynamics on scintillations of laser radiation in Earth’s atmosphere: Long-distance propagation.Physical Review A79, 063848 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    C.Introduction to Stochastic Calculus with Applications(IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS, 1998)

    Klebaner, F. C.Introduction to Stochastic Calculus with Applications(IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS, 1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for [give brief descrip- tion of material]

  43. [51]

    Balan, R. M. & Tudor, C. A. The stochastic wave equation with fractional noise: A random field approach.Stochastic Processes and their Applications120, 2468–2494 (2010). 21

    2010

  44. [52]

    & Bourennane, S

    Khalighi, M.-A., Schwartz, N., Aitamer, N. & Bourennane, S. Fading Reduction by Aperture Averaging and Spatial Diversity in Optical Wireless Systems.Journal of Optical Communications and Networking1, 580 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Mathar, R. J. Refractive index of humid air in the infrared: Model fits.Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics9, 470–476 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    McLeod, A. I. & Hipel, K. W. Preservation of the rescaled adjusted range: 1. A reassessment of the Hurst Phenomenon.Water Resources Research14, 491–508 (1978). 22

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.