Development of nonperturbative nonlinear optics models including effects of high order nonlinearities and of free electron plasma: Maxwell–Schrödinger equations coupled with evolution equations for polarization effects, and the SFA-like nonlinear optics model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is dedicated to the exploration of non-conventional nonlinear optics models for intense and short electromagnetic fields propagating in a gas. When an intense field interacts with a gas, usual nonlinear optics models, such as cubic nonlinear Maxwell, wave and Schrödinger equations, derived by perturbation theory may become inaccurate or even irrelevant. As a consequence, and to include in particular the effect of free electrons generated by laser–molecule interaction, several heuristic models, such as UPPE, HOKE models, etc, coupled with Drude-like models [ 1 , 2 ], were derived. The goal of this paper is to present alternative approaches based on non-heuristic principles. This work is in particular motivated by the on-going debate in the filamentation community, about the effect of high order nonlinearities versus plasma effects due to free electrons, in pulse defocusing occurring in laser filaments [ 3 – 9 ]. The motivation of our work goes beyond filamentation modeling, and is more generally related to the interaction of any external intense and (short) pulse with a gas. In this paper, two different strategies are developed. The first one is based on the derivation of an evolution equation on the polarization, in order to determine the response of the medium (polarization) subject to a short and intense electromagnetic field. Then, we derive a combined semi-heuristic model, based on Lewenstein's strong field approximation model and the usual perturbative modeling in nonlinear optics. The proposed model allows for inclusion of high order nonlinearities as well as free electron plasma effects.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".