Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 35 references

Sensitivity of Laguerre-Gaussian Modes to Misalignment and Mode Mismatch in Gravitational-Wave Detectors

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Misalignment and mode-mismatch losses for Laguerre-Gaussian cavity beams follow closed-form scalings in the mode indices, and donut LG0,ℓ modes are the most mismatch-tolerant higher-order choice.

desk verdict Clean closed-form LG coupling-loss factors that fill the obvious gap after the HG result; the LG0,ℓ mismatch advantage is real in the small-ε limit and worth having on the record. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24366 v1 pith:VOBFNAGS submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.IM physics.optics

Liu Tao , Matteo Barsuglia This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.optics
keywords Laguerre-Gaussianmodesmodemismatchmisalignmentgravitational-wavedetectorsopticalcavitiesthermalnoisecouplinglosshigher-order
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

Higher-order Laguerre-Gaussian beams can average thermal noise better than a fundamental Gaussian, but only if they couple cleanly into a cavity. This paper derives how much power is scattered out of a generic LG p,ℓ mode by small angular tilt, lateral offset, waist-size error, or waist-position error. Misalignment loss scales as 2p+|ℓ|+1; mode-mismatch loss scales as 2p²+2p+(2p+1)|ℓ|+1. For the donut family with p=0 the mismatch factor collapses to |ℓ|+1, growing only linearly with azimuthal order. The formulas, checked by numerical field overlaps and by equal-clipping cavity examples, give the alignment and matching tolerances needed if these modes are to be used in gravitational-wave detectors and other precision interferometers.

What carries the argument

The coupling loss factor Ω p,ℓ — the sum of squared first-order amplitudes of all neighboring scattered LG modes. With normalized imperfections ϵ, power loss is approximately ϵ² Ω p,ℓ; the paper evaluates Ω analytically for the four geometric degrees of freedom by projecting the first-order field disturbance onto the LG basis.

What would settle it

Inject a pure LG p,ℓ beam into a high-finesse cavity, scan a calibrated tilt, offset, waist-size change, or waist-position change, and extract the curvature of power loss versus normalized ϵ at zero; that curvature must equal the predicted Ω, and for LG 0,ℓ the mismatch curvature must rise only linearly with |ℓ|.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a generic LG p,ℓ beam the leading-order power coupling loss from angular or lateral misalignment is ϵ²(2p+|ℓ|+1), while the loss from waist-size or waist-position mismatch is ϵ²[2p²+2p+(2p+1)|ℓ|+1]. When the radial index vanishes, the mismatch factor reduces exactly to |ℓ|+1. These scalings are obtained by first-order expansion of the perturbed field in the LG basis and confirmed by numerical overlaps; under equal clipping they must still be rescaled by the mode-dependent waist and Rayleigh range.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted loss factors assume the normalized tilt, offset, or mismatch is small enough that a first-order field expansion is accurate and higher-order scattering can be ignored.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Alignment and mode-matching tolerances for higher-order LG cavities can be set directly from the closed-form Ω factors.
  • Among modes of equal transverse order, donut LG 0,ℓ beams minimize mode-mismatch loss relative to other LG and HG modes.
  • Equal-clipping cavity redesign changes the relative penalties: larger waist worsens tilt tolerance while larger Rayleigh range eases waist-position tolerance.
  • The results add a practical reason to prefer LG 0,ℓ modes with selective central mirror masking in next-generation gravitational-wave interferometers.
  • Sensing and control loops for residual imperfections must be sized for these elevated loss factors, especially under squeezed-light injection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • High-ℓ donut beams may remain usable even when same-order modes with nonzero radial index become intolerably fragile to mismatch.
  • The same Ω factors bound the degradation of squeezed-vacuum injection, so donut modes could relax the loss budget for quantum-noise reduction.
  • A second-order expansion in ϵ would show where the quadratic approximation fails in real high-finesse cavities.
  • Cavity designers should jointly optimize mirror curvature and mode family rather than treating beam size as fixed when comparing thermal-noise benefit to coupling loss.
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

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives, in closed form, the leading-order power coupling loss of a generic Laguerre-Gaussian LG_{p,ℓ} beam injected into an optical cavity under four imperfection degrees of freedom: angular tilt, lateral offset, waist-size mismatch, and waist-position mismatch. Using a first-order perturbative expansion of the perturbed field in the LG basis (Appendix A), the authors show the misalignment loss factor is Ω=2p+|ℓ|+1 (Eq. 14) and the mode-mismatch loss factor is Ω=2p²+2p+(2p+1)|ℓ|+1 (Eq. 18), reducing to |ℓ|+1 for the donut family p=0 (Eq. 19). The analytics are cross-checked by an independent numerical extraction of the loss curvature at ϵ=0 from 2-D field overlaps (Eq. 21, Figs. 4–5), reproduce the standard Gaussian limits (Anderson 1984) and the HG-mode results of ref. 30, and are consistent with the experimental LG3,3 enhancement factors of ref. 33 (10 and 46 vs. the reported ~8 and ~40). Section III.C rescales the factors to equal-clipping-loss cavity configurations (Tab. III–IV), showing the intrinsic factor of 7 for LG0,6 maps to relative enhancements of 14.5 (tilt) down to 1.6 (waist position) against LG0,0.

Significance. If the results hold — and the checks I performed indicate they do — the paper delivers parameter-free, closed-form coupling-loss factors for arbitrary LG modes, independently reproduced by numerical overlap curvature (Fig. 4–5), consistent with the known fundamental-mode limits (Anderson 1984) and with the HG-mode results of ref. 30 via basis transformation. The headline finding, that the donut family LG0,ℓ has mode-mismatch sensitivity growing only linearly in |ℓ| (Eq. 19), is a clean and practically relevant result: it strengthens the case for LG0,ℓ modes in next-generation gravitational-wave detectors and complements the authors' mirror-masking proposal (ref. 32). The equal-clipping-loss rescaling in §III.C and Tab. IV is a valuable addition that grounds the intrinsic factors in a realistic 3 km cavity geometry. No free parameters, no fitted quantities; the derivation is transparent and reproducible from the appendix alone.

major comments (1)
  1. [§III.B–III.C, Eqs. (5), (21)] §III.B, Eq. (21) and §III.C, Tab. IV: the applied conclusions rest on ratios of loss factors (LG0,6 at 7 vs LG2,2 at 23 vs HG3,3 at 13; the rescaled Tab. IV factors), but all Ω values are coefficients of ϵ² obtained from a first-order field expansion (Eq. 5, Appendix A). The 'independent numerical validation' of §III.B extracts the curvature at ϵ=0 (Eq. 21), so it confirms the same asymptotic coefficient rather than testing the finite-ϵ behavior on which the mode ranking is based. Since the exact loss saturates at unity while ϵ²Ω grows, each mode's exact loss departs from the quadratic law on a mode-dependent scale ϵ~1/√Ω (≈0.15 for LG3,3 with Ω=46), and the inter-mode ratios are strictly established only as ϵ→0. I do not think this overturns the conclusion: at the percent-level and sub-percent matching errors relevant to the paper's examples (Fig. 4 shows ppm losses at |ϵw|≤1%), relativ
minor comments (7)
  1. [§III.A] §III.A, p. 5: the comparison to the LG3,3 experiment of ref. 33 quotes enhancement factors 'approximately 8 and 40' against the analytical values 10 and 46. Describing this as 'good agreement' is a stretch for the misalignment figure; 'consistent with the reported enhancement at the ~20% level' would be more accurate, or the discrepancy could be briefly discussed (the experimental number presumably includes non-ideal mode purity).
  2. [Title page / references] Title page and throughout: LaTeX accent-encoding artifacts ('Universit´ e', 'Paris Cit´ e', and similar in the reference list, e.g. 'Del´ eglise', 'K´ ef´ elian', 'Rosi´ nska', 'Dovale Alvarez'). These should be cleaned up for production.
  3. [Appendix A] After Eq. (A36): 'the result for arbitrary ℓ is' — sentence fragment ('can therefore be written for arbitrary ℓ is'); same construction repeated after Eq. (A60). Minor grammar fix.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A26)] Eq. (26)/Eq. (A26): the schematic correspondence for ℓ<0 (c(α)_{p′,−m±1}=c(α)_{p′,m∓1}) would benefit from one line noting that, since X is real and ψ_{p,−|ℓ|}=ψ*_{p,|ℓ|}, the complex amplitudes are related by conjugation; as written, 'without changing the corresponding complex scattering amplitudes' is potentially confusing given the conjugation symmetry invoked one sentence earlier.
  5. [Fig. 4] Fig. 4, left panel: the y-axis label 'Power Loss L_{p,ℓ} [ppm] ×10²' is ambiguous (is the axis scaled by 10² or are the tick values to be multiplied?); a plain 'Power loss [ppm]' with unscaled ticks would be clearer. The curves are also unlabeled except by color; matching colors to ℓ values in a legend or colorbar would help.
  6. [§III.C, Tab. IV] §III.C: the rescaling in Tab. IV assumes the absolute physical imperfections (α, a, δw0, δz) are identical between the LG0,0 and LG0,6 cavity configurations. Since the two configurations have different g-factors and mirror RoCs (Tab. III), alignment actuation ranges and typical residual errors may also differ between them; one sentence acknowledging this idealization would make the comparison's interpretation clearer.
  7. [§I, Eq. (2)] §I, Eq. (2): J_{p,ℓ} is introduced as the coating thermal noise PSD reduction factor but the integral is written without stating the substitution x; a half-line defining the dimensionless variable (as is done for u in Eq. A3) would ease checking. Also, the phrase 'the number of modes in a given order is N+1=2p+|ℓ|+1' (§I) counts only the LG basis states; noting the equality with the HG count n+m+1 is deferred to Eq. (20) — a forward pointer would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: loss factors follow from orthonormality and Laguerre identities, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central claims (Ω_α/a = 2p+|ℓ|+1 and Ω_w/z = 2p²+2p+(2p+1)|ℓ|+1, with the p=0 reduction to |ℓ|+1) are obtained by expanding the perturbed LG field to first order in the normalized imperfections ϵ, projecting onto the LG basis with standard Laguerre recurrence/derivative identities, and summing scattered-mode powers via orthonormality (Eqs. 5–10 and Appendix A). Those steps do not presuppose the target scalings, do not fit parameters to data, and recover the known fundamental-Gaussian limits (Anderson 1984) as special cases. Self-citations (Tao et al. HG loss factors; Tao et al. LG0,ℓ masking) supply comparison baselines and application context only; they are not intermediate lemmas that force the LG results. Numerical overlap checks are independent of the analytic expansion. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks; residual concerns about the ϵ→0 domain of the quadratic law are correctness/applicability issues, not circularity.

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

The central claim is a parameter-free perturbative calculation inside standard paraxial LG theory. No numbers are fitted. Load-bearing inputs are textbook Laguerre identities, LG orthonormality, and the small-ϵ expansion; the domain setting is a spherical-mirror cavity evaluated at the waist.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Laguerre-Gaussian modes form a complete orthonormal basis of the paraxial scalar field at fixed wavelength and waist (Eq. A2).
    Used throughout Appendix A to extract scattering amplitudes by projection.
  • standard math Generalized Laguerre polynomial recurrence and derivative identities (Abramowitz & Stegun; Eqs. A6–A9) hold.
    Every closed-form coefficient in the tilt, offset, waist-size, and waist-position expansions is obtained from these identities.
  • domain assumption Residual misalignment and mode mismatch are small enough that a first-order field expansion in the normalized ϵ parameters captures the leading power loss (Eq. 5).
    Without this, O(ϵ³) and higher mode couplings would contribute to loss and the reported Ω factors would be incomplete.
  • domain assumption Evaluation at the beam waist (Rc=∞, Ψ=0, w=w0) is representative for the coupling loss into a spherical-mirror cavity eigenmode.
    All analytic expansions in Appendix A are performed in the waist plane; propagation phase is factored out via the Gouy and curvature terms already present in the mode definition.
  • domain assumption For equal-clipping comparisons, beam sizes may be rescaled to a common 1 ppm clipping loss on a finite test mass while keeping absolute physical imperfections fixed (Tab. III–IV).
    Standard in the GW thermal-noise literature the paper cites; used only in the illustrative §III.C, not in the intrinsic Ω formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity of Laguerre-Gaussian Modes to Misalignment and Mode Mismatch in Gravitational-Wave Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOBFNAGS

@misc{pith2026260724366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity of Laguerre-Gaussian Modes to Misalignment and Mode Mismatch in Gravitational-Wave Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOBFNAGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24366}
}
abstract

Higher-order Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) modes have broader and more uniform transverse intensity distributions than the fundamental Gaussian mode, making them attractive for precision optical applications. In gravitational-wave detectors, their enhanced spatial averaging of thermally driven test-mass fluctuations can reduce thermal noise. Their implementation, however, requires efficient coupling of the injected beam to the target cavity eigenmode. Residual misalignment and mode mismatch couple power out of the desired mode, reducing intracavity power buildup and degrading detector sensitivity. Here, we analytically and numerically evaluate the coupling loss induced by misalignment and mode mismatch for a generic $\mathrm{LG}_{p,\ell}$ beam. We show that the leading-order loss due to angular or lateral misalignment scales as $2p+|\ell|+1$, whereas that due to waist size or waist position mismatch scales as $2p^2+2p+(2p+1)|\ell|+1$. Although sensitivity to imperfect coupling generally increases with mode order, the donut-shaped $\mathrm{LG}_{0,\ell}$ family exhibits favorable mode mismatch scaling: its loss factor reduces to $|\ell|+1$ and therefore increases only linearly with the azimuthal index. This robustness, together with their broad intensity profiles and central dark regions that permit selective mirror masking, provides additional practical motivation for using $\mathrm{LG}_{0,\ell}$ modes in precision interferometers, including gravitational-wave detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24366 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Intensity distributions of LG modes with increas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Illustration of beam misalignment (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Power loss factors for LG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Mode mismatch-induced power loss factors for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Capote, W

    E. Capote, W. Jia, N. Aritomi, M. Nakano, V. Xu, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, R. Adhikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, S. Apple, K. Arai, S. Aston, M. Ball, S. Ballmer, D. Barker, L. Barsotti, B. Berger, J. Bet- zwieser, D. Bhattacharjee, G. Billingsley, S. Biscans, C. Blair, N. Bode, E. Bonilla, V. Bossilkov, A. Branch, A. Brooks, D. Brown, J. Bryant, C. Cah...

    2025

  2. [2]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alle- mandou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, F. Barone, J.-P. Baronick, M. Barsug- lia, A. Basti, F. Basti, T. S. Bauer, V. Bavigadda, M. Bejger, M. G. Beker, C. Belczynski, D. Bersanetti, A. Bertolini, M. Bitossi, M. A. Bizouard, S. Bloemen, M. Blom, M. Boer, G. Bogaert, D. B...

    2014

  3. [3]

    Evans, R

    M. Evans, R. X. Adhikari, C. Afle, S. W. Ballmer, S. Bis- coveanu, S. Borhanian, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, R. Eisen- stein, A. Gruson, A. Gupta, E. D. Hall, R. Huxford, B. Kamai, R. Kashyap, J. S. Kissel, K. Kuns, P. Landry, A. Lenon, G. Lovelace, L. McCuller, K. Ng, A. H. Nitz, J. Read, B. S. Sathyaprakash, D. H. Shoemaker, B. Slag- molen, J. R. Smith, V. Sr...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Code issue time: 13:22, 19 February 2024

    ET Steering Committee,ET Design Report Update 2020, Official document ET-0007C-20 (Einstein Tele- scope, 2024) latest release. Code issue time: 13:22, 19 February 2024. Series: Projects ILIAS and Design Study Project, WP5 – Management. Previous releases: ET- 0007A-20, ET-0007B-20

    2020

  5. [5]

    Numata, A

    K. Numata, A. Kemery, and J. Camp, Thermal-noise limit in the frequency stabilization of lasers with rigid cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 250602 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Oelkeret al., Demonstration of 4.8×10−17 stability at 1 s for two independent optical clocks, Nature Photon

    E. Oelkeret al., Demonstration of 4.8×10−17 stability at 1 s for two independent optical clocks, Nature Photon. 13, 714 (2019), arXiv:1902.02741 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Dovale Alvarez,Optical Cavities for Optical Atomic Clocks, Atom Interferometry and Gravitational-Wave Detection, Springer Theses (Springer, 2019)

    M. Dovale Alvarez,Optical Cavities for Optical Atomic Clocks, Atom Interferometry and Gravitational-Wave Detection, Springer Theses (Springer, 2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Savalle, A

    E. Savalle, A. Hees, F. Frank, E. Cantin, P.-E. Pottie, B. M. Roberts, L. Cros, B. T. McAllister, and P. Wolf, Searching for dark matter with an optical cavity and an unequal-delay interferometer, Physical Review Letters 126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.051301 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.051301 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Vinet, On special optical modes and thermal issues in advanced gravitational wave interferometric detectors, Living Rev

    J.-Y. Vinet, On special optical modes and thermal issues in advanced gravitational wave interferometric detectors, Living Rev. Rel.12, 5 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Levin, Internal thermal noise in the ligo test masses: A direct approach, Phys

    Y. Levin, Internal thermal noise in the ligo test masses: A direct approach, Phys. Rev. D57, 659 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Mours, E

    B. Mours, E. Tournefier, and J.-Y. Vinet, Thermal noise reduction in interferometric gravitational wave antennas: using high order tem modes, Classical and Quantum Gravity23, 5777 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Vinet, Thermal noise in advanced gravitational wave interferometric antennas: A comparison between arbitrary order hermite and laguerre gaussian modes, Phys

    J.-Y. Vinet, Thermal noise in advanced gravitational wave interferometric antennas: A comparison between arbitrary order hermite and laguerre gaussian modes, Phys. Rev. D82, 042003 (2010)

    2010

  5. [14]

    R. X. Adhikari, K. Arai, A. F. Brooks, C. Wipf, O. Aguiar, P. Altin, B. Barr, L. Barsotti, R. Bassiri, A. Bell, G. Billingsley, R. Birney, D. Blair, E. Bonilla, J. Briggs, D. D. Brown, R. Byer, H. Cao, M. Con- stancio, S. Cooper, T. Corbitt, D. Coyne, A. Cum- ming, E. Daw, R. ...

    2020

  6. [15]

    C. Bond, D. Brown, A. Freise, and K. A. Strain, Interfer- ometer techniques for gravitational-wave detection, Liv- ing Reviews in Relativity19, 10.1007/s41114-016-0002-8 (2017)

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    Evans, S

    M. Evans, S. Ballmer, M. Fejer, P. Fritschel, G. Harry, and G. Ogin, Thermo-optic noise in coated mirrors for high-precision optical measurements, Physical Review D 78, 10.1103/physrevd.78.102003 (2008)

    2008 doi

  8. [17]

    Vajente, L

    G. Vajente, L. Yang, A. Davenport, M. Fazio, A. Ananyeva, L. Zhang, G. Billingsley, K. Prasai, A. Markosyan, R. Bassiri, M. M. Fejer, M. Chicoine, F. m. c. Schiettekatte, and C. S. Menoni, Low mechani- cal loss tio 2 : geo2 coatings for reduced thermal noise in gravitational w...

    2021

  9. [18]

    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

  10. [19]

    N. K. Fontaine, R. Ryf, H. Chen, D. T. Neilson, K. Kim, and J. Carpenter, Laguerre-gaussian mode sorter, Na- ture Communications10, 10.1038/s41467-019-09840-4 (2019)

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    Porfirev, S

    A. Porfirev, S. Khonina, and A. Kuchmizhak, Light- matter interaction empowered by orbital angular mo- mentum: Control of matter at the micro- and nanoscale, Progress in Quantum Electronics88, 100459 (2023)

    2023

  12. [21]

    Wanget al., Terabit free-space data transmission em- ploying orbital angular momentum multiplexing, Nature Photon.6, 488 (2012)

    J. Wanget al., Terabit free-space data transmission em- ploying orbital angular momentum multiplexing, Nature Photon.6, 488 (2012)

    2012

  13. [22]

    Chelkowski, S

    S. Chelkowski, S. Hild, and A. Freise, Prospects of higher- order laguerre-gauss modes in future gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D79, 122002 (2009)

    2009

  14. [23]

    P. Kwee, C. Bogan, K. Danzmann, M. Frede, H. Kim, P. King, J. P¨ old, O. Puncken, R. L. Savage, F. Seifert, P. Wessels, L. Winkelmann, and B. Willke, Stabilized high-power laser system for the gravitational wave de- tector advanced ligo, Opt. Express20, 10617 (2012)

    2012

  15. [24]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391–1452 (2014)

    2014

  16. [25]

    Bayer-Helms, Coupling coefficients of an incident wave and the modes of a spherical optical resonator in the case of mismatching and misalignment, Appl

    F. Bayer-Helms, Coupling coefficients of an incident wave and the modes of a spherical optical resonator in the case of mismatching and misalignment, Appl. Opt.23, 1369 (1984)

    1984

  17. [26]

    Capocasa, M

    E. Capocasa, M. Barsuglia, J. Degallaix, L. Pinard, N. Straniero, R. Schnabel, K. Somiya, Y. Aso, D. Tat- sumi, and R. Flaminio, Estimation of losses in a 300 m filter cavity and quantum noise reduction in the kagra gravitational-wave detector, Phys. Rev. D93, 082004 (2016)

    2016

  18. [27]

    T¨ oyr¨ a, D

    D. T¨ oyr¨ a, D. D. Brown, M. Davis, S. Song, A. Wormald, J. Harms, H. Miao, and A. Freise, Multi-spatial-mode effects in squeezed-light-enhanced interferometric gravi- tational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D96, 022006 (2017)

    2017

  19. [28]

    McCuller, S

    L. McCuller, S. E. Dwyer, A. C. Green, H. Yu, K. Kuns, L. Barsotti, C. D. Blair, D. D. Brown, A. Effler, M. Evans, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Fritschel, V. V. Frolov, N. Kijbunchoo, G. L. Mansell, F. Matichard, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, T. McRae, A. Mullavey, D. Sigg, B. J...

    2021

  20. [29]

    A. W. Jones and A. Freise, Increased sensitivity of higher- order laser beams to mode mismatches, Opt. Lett.45, 5876 (2020)

    2020

  21. [30]

    L. Tao, J. Kelley-Derzon, A. C. Green, and P. Fulda, Power coupling losses for misaligned and mode- mismatched higher-order hermite–gauss modes, Opt. Lett.46, 2694 (2021)

    2021

  22. [31]

    Sorazu, P

    B. Sorazu, P. J. Fulda, B. W. Barr, A. S. Bell, 17 C. Bond, L. Carbone, A. Freise, S. Hild, S. H. Huttner, J. Macarthur, and K. A. Strain, Experimental test of higher-order laguerre–gauss modes in the 10 m glasgow prototype interferometer, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity30, 03...

    2013

  23. [32]

    L. Tao, Y. Guo, A. Gatto, E. Capocasa, J. Degallaix, M. Granata, M. Tacca, and M. Barsuglia, Improving beam quality in gravitational-wave interferometers illu- minated by higher-order laguerre-gaussian modes (2026), arXiv:2606.30210 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Gatto, M

    A. Gatto, M. Tacca, F. K´ ef´ elian, C. Buy, and M. Barsug- lia, Fabry-p´ erot-michelson interferometer using higher- order laguerre-gauss modes, Phys. Rev. D90, 122011 (2014)

    2014

  25. [34]

    L. Tao, P. Fulda, and A. C. Green, Misalignment and mode mismatch error signals for higher-order hermite- gauss modes from two sensing schemes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 062001 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, National Bureau of Standards Ap- plied Mathematics Series No. 55 (National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1964)

    1964

  27. [36]

    D. Z. Anderson, Alignment of resonant optical cavities, Appl. Opt.23, 2944 (1984)

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.