Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Structured light under turbulence

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that, with intensity-only camera measurements, Airy beams are significantly more resilient to atmospheric turbulence than Gaussian-based modes, and that normalized cross-correlation is a sensitive structural measure for…

desk verdict A well-organized same-setup comparison of four intensity metrics across three beam families, but the single-static-phase-screen emulation and definitional inconsistencies make the 'resilience' ranking qualitative rather than a quantitative path-length result. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04090 v1 pith:EIF67E5C submitted 2026-08-04 physics.optics quant-ph

Guilherme S. Barros , Lucas C. Céleri , Antonio Zelaquett Khoury , André L. S. Santos Junior , Rafael M. Gomes , Guilherme L. Zanin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsquant-ph
keywords structuredlightatmosphericturbulenceKolmogorovintensity-onlymeasurementAirybeamsHermite-GaussianmodesLaguerre-Gaussianspatialmodulator
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 sets out to determine whether ordinary intensity images, taken with a camera rather than a phase-sensitive detector, can tell which structured laser beams survive atmospheric turbulence. The authors imprint Laguerre-Gaussian, Hermite-Gaussian, and Airy modes on a spatial light modulator and send them through a second SLM programmed with Kolmogorov phase screens whose Fried parameters correspond to 1–4 km of propagation. They compare four intensity-based figures of merit—normalized cross-correlation, Strehl ratio, beam-width broadening, and scintillation index—and argue that each metric exposes a different kind of degradation. Their central claim is that Airy beams are markedly more resilient than the Gaussian-based families, that normalized cross-correlation is a sensitive and reliable structural measure for Hermite-Gaussian modes, and that no single metric should be read as a universal turbulence gauge. The practical payoff would be cheap, intensity-only monitoring of free-space optical links.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a single programmable spatial light modulator using a complex-modulation encoding that superposes the beam-shaping hologram and the turbulence phase mask, followed by a camera that records only $I(\rho,z)$. Turbulence strength is set by the Fried parameter $r_0=(0.423\,k^2 C_n^2 L)^{-3/5}$, which maps the phase screen to an equivalent propagation distance $L$. Four normalized intensity metrics do the comparing: NCC (normalized intensity overlap), Strehl ratio (peak-intensity ratio), BRO (second-moment width ratio), and scintillation index (normalized variance of intensity fluctuations). The paper's interpretation of each result runs through how a mode family encodes its identity—azimuthal phase for LG, nodal-line interference for HG, and a distributed side-lobe energy reservoir for Airy—and through artifacts such as speckle lock-on and scintillation saturation.

What would settle it

Send the same three mode families through either a real outdoor atmospheric path of 1–4 km or a multi-layer turbulence simulator, recording only intensity, and recompute NCC, SR, BRO, and SC. If the Airy advantage over the two Gaussian families disappears, or if the Hermite-Gaussian NCC no longer declines monotonically with distance, the single-screen Fried-parameter mapping rather than the beam physics would be the source of the reported ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports an experimental ordering of resilience: under SLM-emulated Kolmogorov turbulence with Fried parameters from 10.67 cm to 4.64 cm (nominally 1 to 4 km), Airy beams keep their main lobe and asymmetric profile longer than Laguerre-Gaussian beams with topological charges $\ell=1,\ldots,5$ and Hermite-Gaussian beams with orders $n=1,\ldots,5$. The NCC for Airy beams decays more slowly and their BRO rises toward about 1.4 and then recovers as the camera moves downstream, while LG and HG modes fragment into speckles and can show non-physical apparent shrinking ($\mathrm{BRO}<1$). The paper also argues that NCC is a sensitive and reliable metric specifically for Hermite-Gaussian modes because their nodal lines live directly in the intensity, whereas for Laguerre-Gaussian modes NCC is coarse-grained because orbital-angular-momentum phase damage precedes visible ring distortion, and for Airy beams NCC mainly tracks loss of side-lobe structure and self-healing. The conclusion is that no single intensity metric is universal; the physical meaning of each metric must be assigned mode by mode.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on treating a single static Kolmogorov phase screen on the spatial light modulator as a faithful stand-in for kilometers of distributed atmospheric turbulence, while Appendix B also assumes each recorded image is a long-exposure average over many turbulence realizations even though the experiment uses one frozen mask per shot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Free-space optical receivers can monitor turbulence-induced modal degradation with an ordinary camera by tracking NCC, SR, BRO, and SC, without recovering the optical phase.
  • For Hermite-Gaussian beams, a falling NCC is a trustworthy early sign of structural damage; for Laguerre-Gaussian beams, intensity metrics will underestimate how much orbital-angular-momentum content has already been lost.
  • Beam-width broadening must be interpreted with care: for LG and HG modes under strong turbulence, fragmentation can make the beam appear to shrink (BRO<1), whereas Airy beams show genuine broadening and then partial self-healing recovery.
  • Airy beams are the recommended structured carriers among the three families for intensity-only links under moderate turbulence, because their self-healing keeps the main lobe detectable and keeps BRO and SC closer to the reference values.
  • Scintillation-index readings are mode-dependent and saturate at $1/\sigma_0^2$; comparing raw SC values across different mode families without accounting for the reference variance can be misleading.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because each turbulent measurement is one frozen phase mask, the paper's 'distance' axis inherits the Fried-parameter scaling of a single screen; an outdoor path with distributed turbulence layers could change the metric ordering, so a multi-screen or field test is the natural next check.
  • If HG nodes are what NCC tracks, then deliberately engineering modes with more intensity-encoded structure could turn NCC into a sharper, calibration-free turbulence monitor, while LG-based OAM links would still need phase-sensitive or modal-decomposition diagnostics.
  • The observed Airy BRO recovery with downstream camera distance suggests a possible two-plane diagnostic: measuring BRO at two free-space distances after the turbulent screen could extract a self-healing rate that predicts channel quality without any phase retrieval.
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 reports an experimental study of how Laguerre-Gaussian, Hermite-Gaussian, and Airy beams are degraded by atmospheric turbulence emulated with a spatial light modulator. A second SLM pattern superimposes Kolmogorov phase screens with Fried parameters corresponding to propagation distances from 0 to 4 km, and a CCD camera records intensity-only images. Four diagnostics are compared—normalized cross-correlation (NCC), Strehl ratio (SR), beam-width broadening (BRO), and scintillation index ratio (SC)—for modes of varying order. The authors conclude that the four metrics carry distinct, mode-dependent information, that NCC is a sensitive structural measure for Hermite-Gaussian modes, and that Airy beams are significantly more resilient to turbulence than Gaussian-based modes.

Significance. The paper addresses an important practical question for free-space optical links: which intensity-only metrics are reliable for characterizing turbulence-induced degradation of structured beams. Its strengths are that no model parameters are fitted to the conclusions, the figures of merit are computed directly from measured camera images, and a beam-family comparison is performed under controlled laboratory conditions. If the metric definitions and the single-screen emulation caveats are resolved, the comparative conclusions would be a useful guideline for experimentalists. However, several load-bearing points currently prevent the results from supporting the stated claims at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (2) and Appendix B, Eq. (B6)] The manuscript defines NCC in Eq. (2) as an uncentered overlap integral of the raw intensity images, but Appendix B, Eq. (B6), defines the normalized cross-correlation coefficient after mean subtraction and centroid alignment. These are different quantities: Eq. (2) is sensitive to absolute intensity offsets and background, while Eq. (B6) is the Pearson correlation of intensity fluctuations. The paper must state which definition was used to produce Fig. 3, apply the same definition throughout, and, ideally, report whether the conclusions about mode-dependent sensitivity are robust to this choice.
  2. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (7), and Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The scintillation index in Eq. (7) is written with an angular bracket denoting spatial averaging over the CCD camera, but the standard scintillation index is a temporal or ensemble statistic of the irradiance at a fixed point. Computing the normalized variance of the spatial intensity pattern of a single frozen frame measures spatial inhomogeneity, not scintillation in the usual sense. Moreover, Appendix B, Eq. (B1), assumes that the recorded image is a time average over many turbulence realizations, while Section III explicitly describes 10 independent single-frame realizations. These two statements are inconsistent, and the SC ratio plotted in Fig. 6 cannot simultaneously be an ensemble quantity and a single-realization quantity. The authors should clarify what was computed and relabel or reinterpret the SC metric accordingly.
  3. [Sec. III and Table I] The central comparative claim—that Airy beams are significantly more resilient to atmospheric turbulence than Gaussian-based modes—is built on a single static phase screen applied at the SLM. The propagation distance L is inferred from the Fried parameter via Table I, but a single transverse phase screen does not reproduce the accumulated diffraction, beam wander, and scintillation development of a distributed 1–4 km turbulent path. The plotted trends in L are therefore trends in the strength of one phase screen at a single plane, not genuine path-length dependence. In particular, the free-space propagation distance d used for Airy beams occurs after the turbulent screen, so the combined geometry is not equivalent to propagation through a uniform turbulent volume. The conclusions in Sec. III.B.3 and elsewhere should be rephrased as robustness against a single phase-screen realization, or the experiment should be supplemented with multi-screen or realistic path simulations before making claims about long-path resilience.
  4. [Table II] Table II lists the Airy transverse scale as x0 = 0.19 µm for a wavelength of 633 nm. Taken literally, this is a sub-wavelength feature size, which is incompatible with the paraxial Airy model in Eq. (A3) and with CCD-resolved imaging of Airy lobes. This is most likely a unit error (probably 0.19 mm), but because all Airy results depend directly on x0 and ax, the authors must correct the unit and report the actual experimental values used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states simulated propagation distances from L = 1000 km to L = 5000 km, which contradicts Table I and the main text (1 km to 4 km).
  2. [General data presentation] The paper claims that 100 cross-comparison pairs provide a 'statistically significant' analysis, but no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are shown in Figs. 3–6. Adding a measure of spread or a significance statement would support the qualitative claims of monotonic decay and mode-dependent differences.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is missing a closing parenthesis in 'max [IT]' and 'max [I0]' as printed; please correct the typography.
  4. [Appendix A] There is a typo, 'structured beans' instead of 'structured beams', and in the text following Eq. (A1) 'omega is the frequency of light' is confusing because the symbol used in the equation is the beam radius w(z), not a frequency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all quantities are measured directly from recorded intensities with fixed, external definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—Airy beams are more resilient, NCC is a sensitive structural metric for Hermite–Gaussian modes, and the four intensity-based figures of merit have distinct interpretations—are empirical observations derived from measured camera images. Each metric (NCC, SR, BRO, SC) is defined by a fixed formula in Eqs. (2)–(8) and then computed from the recorded reference and turbulent intensity distributions; no parameter is fitted to the target conclusions and no conclusion is fed back into the input. The turbulence emulation uses standard Kolmogorov phase screens parameterized by the externally defined Fried parameter, and the beam modes use standard analytic expressions from Appendix A. No load-bearing step relies on the authors' prior work or on a self-citation chain. The discrepancies noted by the skeptic—between Eq. (2) and the Appendix B correlation coefficient, and between the single-static-phase-screen measurements and the Appendix B time-averaging assumption—are concerns about experimental validity and internal consistency, not about circularity of the reasoning, because the reported numbers are not constructed to equal the claims by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted model parameters are used; all reported numbers are derived from measured intensities via fixed formulas. The main load-bearing inputs are the assumed turbulence model (C_n^2, single phase screen) and the chosen Airy profile parameters. The Appendix B ensemble-average assumption is internally inconsistent with the frozen-screen acquisition.

free parameters (3)
  • Airy truncation parameter a_x = 0.1
    Dimensionless exponential decay parameter in Eq. (A3), chosen by hand to make the Airy beam finite-energy. It is not fitted to any turbulence metric but controls the beam's lobe structure and affects how the beam interacts with the turbulence mask.
  • Airy transverse scale x_0 = 0.19 µm
    Characteristic lobe spacing in Eq. (A3), chosen by hand. It is not fitted, but it affects how much of the Airy profile fits on the SLM and the spatial scale of the intensity pattern.
  • Refractive index structure constant C_n^2 = 1e-15 m^-2/3
    Assumed turbulence strength, chosen by hand. All reported distances L and Fried parameters r0 derive from this value via the Fried formula, so the absolute turbulence levels depend on this assumed input.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Scalar paraxial approximation of the Helmholtz equation (Eq. 1)
    Section II treats the electric field as scalar and paraxial, neglecting polarization and non-paraxial corrections. This is standard for structured beam propagation.
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov turbulence statistics with phase screens generated from the Fried parameter r0
    Section III and Table I model turbulence as random phase screens with r0 computed from C_n^2 and L. This is a standard simplified model but ignores non-Kolmogorov spectra and temporal dynamics.
  • domain assumption A single static SLM phase screen emulates the full distributed turbulent path over L = 1 to 4 km
    Section III superimposes beam-shaping and turbulence masks on one SLM. No distributed propagation or multiple screens are used, so intensity scintillation develops only via propagation after a single phase kick, which is a coarse approximation for a 4 km path.
  • ad hoc to paper Long camera exposure averages over many turbulence realizations
    Appendix B states that the recorded turbulent image represents a statistical average over many realizations, but the experiment records static phase screens with 10 separate realizations. The assumption is not implemented and contradicts the frozen-mask acquisition procedure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structured light under turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EIF67E5C

@misc{pith2026260804090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structured light under turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EIF67E5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04090}
}
read the original abstract

Structured light has emerged as a promising resource for high-capacity and secure free-space optical communication, where atmospheric turbulence remains a major source of signal degradation. In this work, we investigate the resilience of different transverse mode structures of an optical beam with respect to the random action of turbulence. A spatial light modulator (SLM) is programmed to apply amplitude and phase modulation corresponding to the desired transverse mode, which is then transmitted through a turbulent medium emulated by a second SLM. Laguerre-Gauss, Hermite-Gauss, and Airy beams are investigated through the resulting intensity distributions measured with a camera. Different figures of merit are used to evaluate and compare the resilience of these modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: . A He-Ne laser beam ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Measurements of the Wavefront intensity profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Normalized Cross-Correlation (NCC) results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Strehl Ratio (SR) calculated from intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Beam Width Broadening (BRO) factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Scintillation Index (SC) ratio quantifying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The resulting transverse intensity profile, denoted asI 0, is recorded by the CCD camera

    Areference measurement, in which the beam propagates through free space (simulated by applying only the beam-shaping mask to the SLM). The resulting transverse intensity profile, denoted asI 0, is recorded by the CCD camera

    work page

  2. [2]

    The perturbed intensity profile, denoted asIT, is recorded at the same axial position

    Aturbulent measurement, in which the same prepared beam propagates through a simulated turbulent medium (achieved by activating the combined holographic mask). The perturbed intensity profile, denoted asIT, is recorded at the same axial position. All experimental parameters, as detailed in Table II, are maintained identical between the two measurements, i...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This process leads to significant mode coupling and a redistribution of energy across different radial and azimuthal indices

    Laguerre–Gaussian beams For Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beams, atmospheric turbulence primarily distorts the azimuthal phase structure responsible for Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM). This process leads to significant mode coupling and a redistribution of energy across different radial and azimuthal indices. While these phase distortions eventually manifest as ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Their defining features—rectangular symmetry and the presence of nodal lines—are directly encoded in the transverse intensity distribution

    Hermite–Gaussian beams Figure 3 (middle) presents the results for Hermite–Gaussian beams, which by contrast, are particularly well suited to characterization via NCC. Their defining features—rectangular symmetry and the presence of nodal lines—are directly encoded in the transverse intensity distribution. Turbulence- induced phase distortions readily disr...

    work page

  5. [5]

    hotspots

    Airy Beams Figure 3 (bottom), presents Airy beams results. They occupy an intermediate position, exhibiting both sensitivity and robustness in different aspects of their structure. Their asymmetric intensity profile and self- accelerating behavior arise from a broad spatial spectrum and a distributed phase structure. Under turbulence, the side lobes of th...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Under strong turbulence, the characteristic azimuthal phase and the associated ring-shaped intensity profile undergo significant degradation

    Laguerre-Gaussian Modes Figure 4 (top) presents the SR results for LG modes. Under strong turbulence, the characteristic azimuthal phase and the associated ring-shaped intensity profile undergo significant degradation. Energy is forced into the central "dark" region of the mode, eventually leading to the formation of complex speckle patterns. Notably, for...

    work page

  7. [7]

    In a manner similar to LG modes, the energy is redistributed into the nodal lines (dark areas) of the HG structure

    Hermite-Gaussian Modes The results for HG modes, shown in Figure 4 (middle), indicate that with the exception of them= 1case in specific realizations, the SR values remain predominantly below unity. In a manner similar to LG modes, the energy is redistributed into the nodal lines (dark areas) of the HG structure. However, the energy scattering in HG modes...

    work page

  8. [8]

    A clear trend of decreasing SR is observed as the propagation distance (L) in the turbulent medium increases

    Airy Beams Figure 4 (bottom) illustrates the SR performance for Airy beams. A clear trend of decreasing SR is observed as the propagation distance (L) in the turbulent medium increases. Nevertheless, Airy beams demonstrate a unique structural resilience. Due to the self-healing effect, the side lobes of the Airy distribution act as an energy reservoir, re...

    work page

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    become smaller

    Laguerre-Gaussian Modes Figure 5 (top) illustrates the results for LG beams. The data clearly shows that beam fragmentation into speckles concentrates the energy toward a single point, effectively destroying the original ring-shaped structure. This phenomenon explains why the ...

  2. [10]

    single fragment of light

    Hermite-Gaussian Modes Figure 5 (middle) shows the results for HG beams. An identical problem to that observed in LG beams occurs here: fragmentation into speckles forces energy into the central dark areas or nodal lines, causing the mode to lose its definition. We observe a s...

  3. [11]

    Here, the BRO grows consistently from 1 to approximately 1.4 as the propagation distance in the turbulent medium (L) increases

    Airy Beams Figure 5 (bottom) presents the BRO results for Airy beams, which align more closely with theoretical expectations. Here, the BRO grows consistently from 1 to approximately 1.4 as the propagation distance in the turbulent medium (L) increases. This indicates that the...

  4. [12]

    As expected, a general increase in the SC ratio is observed for nearly all measurements as the propagation distance in the turbulent medium (L) increases

    Laguerre-Gaussian Modes Figure 6 (top) presents the results for LG beams. As expected, a general increase in the SC ratio is observed for nearly all measurements as the propagation distance in the turbulent medium (L) increases. Some realizations exhibit significant peaks, whi...

  5. [13]

    For then= 1mode, the SC values frequently "explode" or exhibit high peaks, a behavior primarily driven bybeam wander, where small-scale turbulence deflects the entire beam centroid

    Hermite-Gaussian Modes Figure 6 (middle) shows the results for HG beams (m= 0, n̸= 0). For then= 1mode, the SC values frequently "explode" or exhibit high peaks, a behavior primarily driven bybeam wander, where small-scale turbulence deflects the entire beam centroid. However,...

  6. [14]

    At shorter free-space propagation distances (d), the beam appears diffuse, and the contrast between the 10 FIG

    Airy Beams Figure 6 (bottom) illustrates the SC results for Airy beams. At shorter free-space propagation distances (d), the beam appears diffuse, and the contrast between the 10 FIG. 6: Scintillation Index (SC) ratio quantifying intensity fluctuations under simulated atmosphe...

    2022

  7. [15]

    A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems,

    R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, e L. Adleman, "A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems,"Communications of the ACM, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 120–126, 1978

    1978

  8. [16]

    D. R. Stinson and M. Paterson,Cryptography: Theory and Practice(CRC Press, 2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    A. J. Menezes, P. C. van Oorschot, and S. A. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography(CRC Press, 1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. InProceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, volume 175, page 8, 1984

    1984

  11. [19]

    A. K. Ekert. Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem.Physical Review Letters, 67(6):661–663, 1991

    1991

  12. [20]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quantum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    G. P. Agrawal,Fiber-Optic Communication Systems, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Flamini, N

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum information processing: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.82, 016001 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Allen, M

    L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Orbital angular momentum of light and the transformation of Laguerre-Gaussian laser modes, Phys. Rev. A45, 8185 (1992)

    1992

  17. [25]

    A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Entanglement of the orbital angular momentum states of photons, Nature412, 313 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    M. N. O’Sullivan-Hale, I. A. Khan, R. W. Boyd, and J. C. Howell, Pixel entanglement: Fine-grained spatial correlations for secure quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 220501 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    Kaushal and G

    H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques,IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts.19, 57 (2017). 13

    2017

  20. [28]

    B. E. A. Saleh e M. C. Teich,Fundamentals of Photonics, 2a ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high-dimensional quantum information,Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 365–381 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Rodenburg, M

    B. Rodenburg, M. P. J. Lavery, M. Malik, M. N. O’Sullivan, M. Mirhosseini, D. J. Robertson, M. Padgett, and R. W. Boyd, Influence of atmospheric turbulence on statesoforbitalangularmomentumoflight, NewJ.Phys. 14, 033014 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Paterson, Atmospheric turbulence and orbital angular momentum of light, Phys

    C. Paterson, Atmospheric turbulence and orbital angular momentum of light, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 153901 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    A. H. Ibrahim, F. S. Roux, M. McLaren, T. Konrad, and A. Forbes, Orbital-angular-momentum entanglement in turbulence, Phys. Rev. A88, 012312 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    G. A. Siviloglou, J. Broky, A. Dogariu, and D. N. Christodoulides, Observation of accelerating Airy beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 213901 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Gu and G

    Y. Gu and G. Gbur, Scintillation of pseudo-partially coherent Airy beams in atmospheric turbulence, Opt. Lett.35, 3456 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    A. Klug, C. Peters, and A. Forbes,Robust structured light in atmospheric turbulence, Adv. Photonics5, 016006 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    J. W. Goodman,Introduction to Fourier Optics, 3rd ed. (Roberts & Company Publishers, Greenwood Village, CO, 2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    D. L. Fried, Statistics of a geometric representation of wavefront distortion, J. Opt. Soc. Am.56, 1372 (1966)

    1966

  30. [38]

    Arrizón, U

    V. Arrizón, U. Ruiz, R. Rosas, and D. Sánchez-de- la-Llave, Pixelated phase computer holograms for the accurate encoding of scalar complex fields, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A24, 3500 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    J. P. Lewis, Fast normalized cross-correlation, Vision Interface10, 120–123 (1995)

    1995

  32. [40]

    L. C. Andrews and Ronald L. Phillips,Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media(SPIE–The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Silverman,Wave Propagation in a Turbulent Medium( Dover Publications, 2016)

    V I Tatarski and R. Silverman,Wave Propagation in a Turbulent Medium( Dover Publications, 2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Tatarski,The Effect of the Turbulent Atmosphere on Wave Propagation(Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1971)

    V. Tatarski,The Effect of the Turbulent Atmosphere on Wave Propagation(Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1971)

    1971

  35. [43]

    Ishimaru,Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media(Academic Press, NY, 1978)

    A. Ishimaru,Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media(Academic Press, NY, 1978)

    1978

  36. [44]

    Andrews, R

    L. Andrews, R. Phillips, and C. Hopen,Laser Beam Scintillation with Applications(SPIE Press, Washington, 2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf,Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  38. [46]

    Schulze, A

    C. Schulze, A. Dudley, D. Flamm, M. Duparré, and A. Forbes, Probing the orbital angular momentum spectrum of optical beams through atmospheric turbulence, New J. Phys.15, 073025 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.