CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Beam quality measure for vector beams

Ndagano, Bienvenu, Sroor, Hend, McLaren, Melanie, Rosales-Guzmán, Carmelo, Forbes, Andrew·2016·Optics Letters
DOI 10.1364/ol.41.003407
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Vector beams have found a myriad of applications, from laser materials processing to microscopy, and are now easily produced in the laboratory. They are usually differentiated from scalar beams by qualitative measures, for example, visual inspection of beam profiles after a rotating polarizer. Here we introduce a quantitative beam quality measure for vector beams and demonstrate it on cylindrical vector vortex beams. We show how a single measure can be defined for the vector quality, from 0 (purely scalar) to 1 (purely vector). Our measure is derived from a quantum toolkit, which we show applies to classical vector beams.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1364/ol.41.003407

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If the beam incident on the system is already a vector beam, the spiral phase structures in the incoming beam cancel those phases embedded in the gratings, and the result is a delta function at a higher diffraction order where these phases cancel.

    “If the beam incident on the system is already a vector beam, the spiral phase structures in the incoming beam cancel those phases embedded in the gratings, and the result is a delta function at a higher diffraction order where these phases cancel33.”

    From Vector Beam Polarization State Spectrum Analyzer (2017) · cites this paper as [33]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Siegman, 2000, IEEE J. Quantum Electron., 6, 1389, 10.1109/2944.902193 · DOI
  2. Siegman, 1991, IEEE J. Quantum Electron., 27, 1146, 10.1109/3.83370 · DOI
  3. Schulze, 2012, Opt. Lett., 37, 4687, 10.1364/OL.37.004687 · DOI
  4. Abouraddy, 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 153901, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.153901 · DOI
  5. Zhan, 2009, Adv. Opt. Photon., 1, 1, 10.1364/AOP.1.000001 · DOI
  6. Roxworthy, 2010, New J. Phys., 12, 073012, 10.1088/1367-2630/12/7/073012 · DOI
  7. Donato, 2012, Opt. Lett., 37, 3381, 10.1364/OL.37.003381 · DOI
  8. Parigi, 2015, Nat. Commun., 6, 7706, 10.1038/ncomms8706 · DOI
  9. Li, 2012, Nat. Commun., 3, 998, 10.1038/ncomms2006 · DOI
  10. Naidoo, 2016, Nat. Photonics, 10, 327, 10.1038/nphoton.2016.37 · DOI
  11. Niziev, 2006, Appl. Opt., 45, 8393, 10.1364/AO.45.008393 · DOI
  12. Tidwell, 1990, Appl. Opt., 29, 2234, 10.1364/AO.29.002234 · DOI
  13. Lim, 2008, Opt. Lett., 33, 950, 10.1364/OL.33.000950 · DOI
  14. Chen, 2014, Opt. Lett., 39, 5274, 10.1364/OL.39.005274 · DOI
  15. Machavariani, 2007, Opt. Lett., 32, 1468, 10.1364/OL.32.001468 · DOI
  16. Radwell, 2016, Nat. Commun., 7, 10564, 10.1038/ncomms10564 · DOI
  17. Kozawa, 2005, Opt. Lett., 30, 3063, 10.1364/OL.30.003063 · DOI
  18. Milione, 2011, Proc. SPIE, 7950, 79500K, 10.1117/12.872004 · DOI
  19. Stalder, 1996, Opt. Lett., 21, 1948, 10.1364/OL.21.001948 · DOI
  20. Chen, 2015, Appl. Phys. Lett., 107, 241102, 10.1063/1.4937592 · DOI
  21. Cardano, 2012, Appl. Opt., 51, C1, 10.1364/AO.51.0000C1 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Bomzon, 2002, Opt. Lett., 27, 285, 10.1364/OL.27.000285 · DOI
  23. Machavariani, 2008, Opt. Commun., 281, 732, 10.1016/j.optcom.2007.10.088 · DOI
  24. Maurer, 2007, New J. Phys., 9, 78, 10.1088/1367-2630/9/3/078 · DOI
  25. D’Ambrosio, 2015, Sci. Rep., 5, 7840, 10.1038/srep07840 · DOI
  26. Inavalli, 2010, Opt. Commun., 283, 861, 10.1016/j.optcom.2009.10.112 · DOI
  27. Milione, 2015, Opt. Lett., 40, 1980, 10.1364/OL.40.001980 · DOI
  28. Wootters, 2001, Quantum Inf. Comput., 1, 27
  29. McLaren, 2015, Phys. Rev. A, 92, 023833, 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.023833 · DOI
  30. Jack, 2009, New J. Phys., 11, 103024, 10.1088/1367-2630/11/10/103024 · DOI
  31. Liu, 2014, Appl. Phys. Lett., 104, 191110, 10.1063/1.4878409 · DOI
  32. Marrucci, 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 163905, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.163905 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Slussarenko, 2011, Opt. Express, 19, 4085, 10.1364/OE.19.004085 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Forbes, 2016, Adv. Opt. Photon., 8, 200, 10.1364/AOP.8.000200 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Ndagano, 2015, Opt. Express, 23, 17330, 10.1364/OE.23.017330 · DOI
  36. Kim, 2015, Optica, 2, 958, 10.1364/OPTICA.2.000958 · DOI
  37. Trichili, 2016, Sci. Rep., 6, 27674, 10.1038/srep27674 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ndagano, B., Sroor, H., McLaren, M., Rosales-Guzmán, C., & Forbes, A.
Venue
Optics Letters
Publisher
Optica Publishing Group
Published
2016-07-18
Volume
41
Issue
15
Pages
3407
ISSN
  • 0146-9592
  • 1539-4794
DOI
10.1364/ol.41.003407
Cited by
132
References
0
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review