Focusing a TM_01 beam with a slightly tilted parabolic mirror
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A parabolic mirror illuminated with an incident collimated beam whose axis of propagation does not exactly coincide with the axis of revolution of the mirror shows distortion and strong coma. To understand the behavior of such a focused beam, a detailed description of the electric field in the focal region of a parabolic mirror illuminated with a beam having a nonzero angle of incidence is required. We use the Richards-Wolf vector field equation to investigate the electric energy density distribution of a beam focused with a parabolic mirror. The explicit aberration function of this focused field is provided along with numerically calculated electric energy densities in the focal region for different angles of incidence. The location of the peak intensity, the Strehl ratio and the full-width at half-maximum as a function of the angle of incidence are given and discussed. The results confirm that the focal spot of a strongly focused beam is affected by severe coma, even for very small tilting of the mirror. This analysis provides a clearer understanding of the effect of the angle of incidence on the focusing properties of a parabolic mirror as such a focusing device is of growing interest in microscopy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it