Spin-Orbit Coupling in Quasi-Monochromatic Beams
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is devoted to the colored vortex beams and theirs properties. Authors demonstrated that the value of the spin-orbit coupling determines the efficiency of energy transfer between orthogonal components. Several types of vortex beams have been investigated: Hermite-Gaussian, Laguerre-Gaussian, and Bessel-Gauss. The theoretical and experiment results are fully described.
There seem to be no glaring technical errors in the manuscript. However, there are minor revisions in some parts of the paper I would recommend before the manuscript could be accepted for publication
1) The paper lacks some important reference related to the research area:
https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics9030145
10.18287/2412-6179-CO-1106
2) What do n0 and n3 mean in Fig. 2?
3) Caption to Fig. 9: "z = 2 см" needs to be corrected.
4) All symbols and designations used in the formulas must be determined in the text of the manuscript.
5) Fig. 10, 11, 13: The point should be used in the fractional numbers as a delimiter.
6) What are the potential applications of the obtained results?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript entitled "Spin-Orbit Coupling in Quasi-Monochromatic Beams", the authors investigate the energy efficiency of spin-orbit coupling for Bessel-Gauss and Laguerre-Gauss beams.
This article is good and can be published. I have a few comments, and would like to receive comments from the authors:
1. Graphs of the energy efficiency of the generation of optical vortices for Laguerre-Gaussian beams show a rapid decay of the oscillation amplitude. At the same time, the energy efficiency in Bessel-Gaussian beams behaves differently.
How can the authors comment on the behavior of the amplitude?
2. The authors in the text of the article use incorrect terminology. The authors talk about a polychromatic beam, but using "lamda/2" is not correct.
3. In the section "Polychromatic Laguerre-Gauss beams", the authors emphasize that "...The chromatoscopic image shows that at the center of the vortex, the distribution of colors forms a blue-yellow dipole, similar to the case considered by Berry [3,4], however , moving away from the center of the vortex, a green color appears, in contrast to the Berry dipole…”.
I would like an explanation for this phenomenon.
4. I ask the authors to correct the English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study discusses how the value of spin-orbit coupling affects the energy transfer efficiency between perpendicular components. It is shown that as the beam travels through the crystal, the energy efficiency varies substantially. This set of materials proved that the Gaussian beams possess a maximum energy efficiency of 50%, whereas Hermite-Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian beams with higher orders of the complex argument can achieve an energy efficiency close to 100%. However, for Hermite-Gauss and Laguerre-Gauss beams with higher orders of the real argument, the maximum energy efficiency only slightly exceeds 50%. Besides, this understanding explored that zero-order Bessel-Gauss beams can achieve an energy efficiency of almost 100% when generating an axial vortex in the orthogonal component, but the energy efficiency decreases to no more than 50% for a polychromatic Laguerre-Gauss or Hermite-Gauss beam of a complex argument. Although the claims within the work have been supported with extensive analysis, there are some points that should be address before proceeding toward publishing the manuscript.
1) The authors should consider the following preprint: arXiv:2102.02180v2. This work contains very similar data and the authors should argue and explain the work in the discussion section of the manuscript.
2) The generated interference pattern look like a flying doughnut in free-space (Physical Review B, 97(20), 201409 (2018)). Is there any relation between the arisen pattern and those types of patterns?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be accepted in the present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept as it is
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments and concerns have been responded and addressed correctly, therefore, the work can be published as is.
