Controlling nonlinear rogue-wave formation using the coherence length of phase noise
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
Weak phase noise present on an optical field can be amplified by a self-focusing nonlinearity (<a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><a:mrow><a:msub><a:mi>n</a:mi><a:mn>2</a:mn></a:msub><a:mo>></a:mo><a:mn>0</a:mn></a:mrow></a:math>) and form intense “rogue-wave” features. Here, we study the effect of the coherence length (or grain size) of this phase noise on the likelihood of rogue-wave formation in the presence of a self-focusing nonlinearity. We show that while the likelihood of rogue-wave formation increases with laser power when the coherence length is only slightly smaller than the beam diameter, the likelihood is minimally affected by a change in laser power when the coherence length is significantly smaller than the beam diameter. Our study provides insight into the interaction of nonlinearity with phase instabilities on a field and could be useful in applications such as reducing the effect of turbulence-induced breakup of intense laser beams, and developing radiance limiters to reduce the focusable power in a beam. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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