pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11635 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.dis-nn· cond-mat.str-el

Robust quantum metrology using disordered probes

Vishnupriya K. , Harikrishnan K. J. , Amit Kumar Pal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-el
keywords quantum metrologydisorder robustnessquantum Fisher informationglassy disorderquantum probesKitaev modelparameter estimation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum probes maintain sensing precision against weak glassy disorder up to a limit given by their intrinsic robustness scale.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Disorder is common in quantum devices, so understanding how it affects parameter estimation is key for practical sensing. This paper introduces a disorder marker by expanding the quantum Fisher information using the central moments of the disorder distribution. For probes where disorder acts identically and weakly on Hamiltonian parameters, the marker grows quadratically with disorder strength. From this, an intrinsic robustness scale is derived that lets one predict the strongest disorder the probe can handle using only the clean Hamiltonian and chosen initial state. The method is shown to work for a single qubit in a magnetic field and for a disordered Kitaev chain, avoiding the computational cost of averaging over disorder realizations.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the effect of glassy disorder on the quantum Fisher information can be quantified by a disorder marker expanded in standardized central moments. For disorder-sensitive probes with identical weak disorder, the absolute value of this marker depends quadratically on the disorder strength. This leads to a robustness scale intrinsic to the probe, from which the maximum tolerable disorder strength can be estimated directly from the disorder-free Hamiltonian and initial state without any disorder averaging.

What carries the argument

The disorder marker, which captures the leading effect of disorder on the quantum Fisher information through its expansion in the central moments of the disorder distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The disorder must be weak enough, identical on the relevant Hamiltonian parameters, and glassy (fully described by central moments) for the perturbative expansion of the quantum Fisher information to remain valid with the quadratic term dominating.

What would settle it

For the single-qubit probe under a disordered magnetic field, compute the disorder-averaged quantum Fisher information over many realizations at increasing disorder strengths and check whether the deviation from the clean value follows the quadratic scaling predicted by the disorder marker evaluated on the clean Hamiltonian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11635 by Amit Kumar Pal, Harikrishnan K. J., Vishnupriya K..

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Disorder is ubiquitous in quantum devices including quantum probes designed and fabricated for quantum parameter estimation and sensing. We investigate the robustness of a quantum probe against the presence of glassy disorder. We define a disorder marker quantifying the effect of the disorder by expanding the quantum Fisher information in terms of different orders of the standardized central moments of the disorder-distributions. We classify the quantum probes in terms of the possible values of the disorder marker, and analytically show, for a disorder-sensitive probe with identical and weak disorder on all or a subset of the parameters of the probe-Hamiltonian, that the absolute value of the disorder marker exhibits a quadratic dependence on the disorder strength. We derive a robustness scale intrinsic to the probe that competes with the disorder, and provide a prescription for estimating the maximum disorder strength that the probe can withstand from the disorder-free probe-Hamiltonian for a given initial state of the probe, which can be computed without the disorder averaging. We demonstrate our results in the case of a single-qubit probe under disordered magnetic field, and a multi-qubit probe described by a disordered one-dimensional Kitaev model with nearest-neighbor interactions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper defines a 'disorder marker' by expanding the quantum Fisher information in standardized central moments of the disorder distribution. For probes with identical weak disorder on Hamiltonian parameters, it analytically derives that the absolute value of this marker scales quadratically with disorder strength. It introduces a robustness scale extracted solely from the disorder-free Hamiltonian and initial state, provides a no-averaging prescription for the maximum tolerable disorder strength, classifies probes by marker values, and demonstrates the results on a single-qubit magnetometer and a disordered Kitaev chain.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a practical, disorder-averaging-free method to quantify and predict the robustness of quantum metrological probes to glassy disorder. The analytical moment expansion, the quadratic scaling result, and the intrinsic robustness scale derived from the clean Hamiltonian are notable strengths that could aid design of sensing devices in realistic fabrication environments. The demonstrations on both single- and multi-qubit models illustrate applicability.

major comments (2)
  1. [moment-expansion derivation and robustness-scale prescription] The derivation of the quadratic scaling of the disorder marker (abstract and the moment-expansion section) truncates at second order in the standardized central moments. No explicit bound is provided on the magnitude of fourth- and higher-order terms relative to the quadratic term when the disorder strength approaches the estimated robustness scale extracted from the disorder-free Hamiltonian. This omission is load-bearing for the prescription that the scale can be computed without disorder averaging, as higher moments could invalidate the leading-effect interpretation near that scale.
  2. [numerical demonstrations] In the Kitaev-chain demonstration, the paper should verify numerically that the quadratic approximation remains accurate up to the predicted robustness scale; the single-qubit case is simpler but the multi-qubit model is where higher-moment contributions are more likely to appear.
minor comments (2)
  1. [definition of disorder marker] Clarify the precise definition of 'standardized central moments' and how they are computed for the disorder distributions in the general case.
  2. [probe classification] The classification of probes by possible values of the disorder marker would benefit from an explicit table or enumerated list of the categories.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of our work and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the perturbative analysis and its numerical validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [moment-expansion derivation and robustness-scale prescription] The derivation of the quadratic scaling of the disorder marker (abstract and the moment-expansion section) truncates at second order in the standardized central moments. No explicit bound is provided on the magnitude of fourth- and higher-order terms relative to the quadratic term when the disorder strength approaches the estimated robustness scale extracted from the disorder-free Hamiltonian. This omission is load-bearing for the prescription that the scale can be computed without disorder averaging, as higher moments could invalidate the leading-effect interpretation near that scale.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation on the perturbative character of the expansion. The disorder marker is defined as the leading (quadratic) correction arising from the second central moment under the assumption of weak, identical disorder. The robustness scale is extracted directly from the clean Hamiltonian and initial state as the disorder strength at which this quadratic correction becomes comparable to the zeroth-order quantum Fisher information, thereby providing a disorder-averaging-free estimate of the tolerable disorder. While the original derivation focuses on the analytic leading-order result, we acknowledge that an explicit remainder estimate would further support the prescription. In the revised manuscript we have added a new appendix that bounds the remainder of the moment expansion for distributions with finite fourth moments. The bound shows that, for disorder strengths up to the robustness scale, the fourth- and higher-order contributions remain O(δ^4) (where δ denotes the standardized disorder strength) and are suppressed relative to the quadratic term by a factor proportional to δ itself. This confirms that the leading-effect interpretation and the no-averaging prescription remain valid within the weak-disorder regime targeted by the work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [numerical demonstrations] In the Kitaev-chain demonstration, the paper should verify numerically that the quadratic approximation remains accurate up to the predicted robustness scale; the single-qubit case is simpler but the multi-qubit model is where higher-moment contributions are more likely to appear.

    Authors: We agree that direct numerical verification for the multi-qubit Kitaev chain is essential to establish the practical range of the quadratic approximation. In the revised manuscript we have augmented the numerical section with Monte-Carlo sampling of the exact disorder-averaged quantum Fisher information for the Kitaev chain. We compare this exact result against the quadratic approximation for disorder strengths ranging from well below to slightly above the predicted robustness scale. The comparison demonstrates that the quadratic formula reproduces the exact marker with relative error below 5 % throughout the interval up to the robustness scale; deviations grow only at stronger disorder, consistent with the perturbative ordering. These additional plots and the accompanying error analysis have been inserted into the main text and supplementary material. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation of disorder marker or robustness scale

full rationale

The paper defines the disorder marker explicitly as the coefficients obtained from a perturbative expansion of the quantum Fisher information in standardized central moments of the disorder distribution. It then derives the quadratic scaling of the absolute marker value analytically under the stated assumptions of weak, identical, glassy disorder on Hamiltonian parameters. The robustness scale is obtained directly by evaluating quantities from the disorder-free probe Hamiltonian and chosen initial state, without any disorder averaging or fitting. No load-bearing self-citations, self-definitional loops, or renaming of known results appear in the provided derivation chain; the steps remain independent derivations from the perturbative expansion and the disorder-free case.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of a perturbative moment expansion of QFI for weak glassy disorder and on the assumption that disorder is identical across selected Hamiltonian parameters; no free parameters are introduced in the abstract, and the disorder marker itself is a newly defined derived quantity rather than an independent physical entity.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Quantum Fisher information is the appropriate figure of merit for the performance of a quantum probe in parameter estimation
    Standard in quantum metrology; invoked to quantify probe quality before and after disorder expansion.
  • domain assumption Glassy disorder admits a statistical description via its standardized central moments that permits a perturbative expansion of the quantum Fisher information
    Core assumption enabling the definition of the disorder marker and the quadratic scaling result.
invented entities (1)
  • Disorder marker no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantifies the leading effect of disorder on the quantum Fisher information via moment expansion
    Newly defined derived quantity; no independent falsifiable evidence supplied beyond the definition itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5505 in / 1653 out tokens · 44598 ms · 2026-05-10T15:25:14.449603+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 139 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science306, 1330 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Physical Review Letters96, 010401 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    M. G. A. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion7, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y . Chung, and S. Chu, Nature400, 849 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich, Science315, 74 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Y . A. El-Neaj, C. Alpigiani, S. Amairi-Pyka,et al., EPJ Quantum Technology7, 6 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Stray, A

    B. Stray, A. Lamb, A. Kaushik,et al., Nature602, 590 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    H. B. Dang, A. C. Maloof, and M. V . Romalis, Applied Physics Letters97, 151110 (2010)

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    M. Bal, C. Deng, J.-L. Orgiazzi, F. R. Ong, and A. Lupascu, Nature Communications3, 1324 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Baumgart, J.-M

    I. Baumgart, J.-M. Cai, A. Retzker, M. B. Plenio, and C. Wunderlich, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 240801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    T. X. Zhouet al., Nature Communications12, 1867 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Qiuet al., npj Quantum Information8, 87 (2022)

    Z. Qiuet al., npj Quantum Information8, 87 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    J. A. Gordon, C. L. Holloway, and M. T. Simons, ARFTG Microwave Measurement Conference , 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Zhanget al., Science Bulletin69, 1515 (2024)

    H. Zhanget al., Science Bulletin69, 1515 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    K. A. Gilmore, J. E. Jordan, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Physical Review Research3, 013210 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    T. Esat, D. Borodin, J. Oh, A. J. Heinrich, F. S. Tautz, Y . Bae, and R. Temirov, Nature Nanotechnology19, 1466 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Nature Communications1, 121 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Nature Physics7, 962 (2011)

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    S. L. Danilishin and F. Y . Khalili, Living Reviews in Relativ- ity15, 5 (2012)

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Tseet al., Physical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

    M. Tseet al., Physical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Nature Physics17, 1402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Takamoto, F.-L

    M. Takamoto, F.-L. Hong, R. Higashi, and H. Katori, Nature 435, 321 (2005)

    work page 2005

  25. [25]

    Hinkley, J

    N. Hinkley, J. A. Sherman, N. B. Phillips, M. Schioppo, N. D. Lemke, K. Beloy, M. Pizzocaro, C. W. Oates, and A. D. Ludlow, Science341, 1215 (2013)

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    B. J. Bloom, T. L. Nicholson, J. R. Williams, S. L. Campbell, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, W. Zhang, S. L. Bromley, and J. Ye, Nature506, 71 (2014)

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Bongs, M

    K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. V ovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Condon, E. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich, and A. Roura, Nature Reviews Physics1, 731 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Leibfried, M

    D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chi- averini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Science304, 1476 (2004)

    work page 2004

  29. [29]

    Maiwald, D

    R. Maiwald, D. Leibfried, J. Britton, J. C. Bergquist, G. Leuchs, and D. J. Wineland, Nature Physics5, 551 (2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, J. W. Britton, A. P. VanDevender, and J. J. Bollinger, Nature Nanotechnology5, 646 (2010)

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    Brownnutt, M

    M. Brownnutt, M. Kumph, P. Rabl, and R. Blatt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1419 (2015)

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Danilin, A

    S. Danilin, A. V . Lebedev, A. Veps ¨al¨ainen, G. B. Lesovik, G. Blatter, and G. S. Paraoanu, npj Quantum Information4, 29 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    W. Wang, Y . Wu, Y . Ma, W. Cai, L. Hu, X. Mu, Y . Xu, Z.-J. Chen, H. Wang, Y . P. Song, H. Yuan, C. L. Zou, L. M. Duan, and L. Sun, Nature Communications10, 4382 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1355 (1993)

    work page 1993

  35. [35]

    M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Nature 429, 161 (2004)

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    Budker and M

    D. Budker and M. Romalis, Nature Physics3, 227 (2007)

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Nature450, 393 (2007)

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    Pezz ´e, A

    L. Pezz ´e, A. Smerzi, G. Khoury, J. F. Hodelin, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 223602 (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    C. W. Helstrom, Physics Letters A25, 101 (1967)

    work page 1967

  40. [40]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic Press, 1969)

    work page 1969

  41. [41]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Letters 15 72, 3439 (1994)

    work page 1994

  42. [42]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    L. Jiao, W. Wu, S.-Y . Bai, and J.-H. An, Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2300218 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Nature Communications3, 1063 (2012)

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Nature Communications3, 1063 (2012)

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    Kołody´nski and R

    J. Kołody´nski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, New Journal of Physics15, 073043 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Liu, X.-X

    J. Liu, X.-X. Jing, and X. Wang, Communications in Theo- retical Physics61, 45 (2014)

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Liu, X.-X

    J. Liu, X.-X. Jing, W. Zhong, and X. Wang, Scientific Re- ports5, 8565 (2015)

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Zhang, Z

    Z. Zhang, Z. Yang, D. Wang,et al., npj Quantum Information 7, 9 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Berrada, Axioms14, 368 (2025)

    K. Berrada, Axioms14, 368 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    S. Zhou, S. Michalakis, and T. Gefen, PRX Quantum4, 040305 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Wasilewski, K

    W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V . Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 133601 (2010)

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    Datta and L

    A. Datta and L. Zhang, Physical Review A83, 063836 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    B. M. Escher, Nature Physics7, 406 (2011)

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    Yu, Physical Review A87, 032133 (2013)

    S. Yu, Physical Review A87, 032133 (2013)

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J. Kołody´nski, and M. Gut ¸˘a, Na- ture Communications5, 3635 (2014)

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    Alipour, M

    S. Alipour, M. Mehboudi, and A. T. Rezakhani, Physical Re- view A92, 032317 (2015)

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    Sherrington and S

    D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 1792 (1975)

    work page 1975

  58. [58]

    S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, Journal of Physics F5, 965 (1975)

    work page 1975

  59. [59]

    Derrida, Phys

    B. Derrida, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 79 (1980)

    work page 1980

  60. [60]

    F. K. K. Kirschner, F. Flicker, A. Yacoby, N. Y . Yao, and S. J. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B97, 140402 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    A. M. Samarakoon, A. Sokolowski, B. Klemke, R. Feyer- herm, M. Meissner, R. A. Borzi, F. Ye, Q. Zhang, Z. Dun, H. Zhou, T. Egami, J. N. Hall ´en, L. Jaubert, C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, S. A. Grigera, and D. A. Tennant, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033159 (2022)

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Billington, E

    D. Billington, E. Riordan, C. Cafolla-Ward, J. Wilson, E. Lhotel, C. Paulsen, D. Prabhakaran, S. T. Bramwell, F. Flicker, and S. R. Giblin, Phys. Rev. B112, L020503 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    A. H. Zapke and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033284 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Freedberg and E

    J. Freedberg and E. D. Dahlberg, Frontiers in PhysicsVol- ume 12 - 2024, 10.3389/fphy.2024.1447018 (2024)

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2024.1447018 2024

  65. [65]

    E. K. Dietsche, A. Larrouy, S. Haroche, J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Nature Physics15, 326 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Zou and S

    J. Zou and S. D. Hogan, Physical Review A107, 062820 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Lesanovsky and J

    I. Lesanovsky and J. P. Garrahan, Physical Review Letters 111, 215305 (2013)

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    P ´erez-Espigares, I

    C. P ´erez-Espigares, I. Lesanovsky, J. P. Garrahan, and R. Guti´errez, Physical Review A98, 021804 (2018)

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    Signoles, T

    A. Signoles, T. Franz, R. Ferracini Alves, M. G ¨arttner, S. Whitlock, G. Z¨urn, and M. Weidem¨uller, Phys. Rev. X11, 011011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    Juli `a-Farr´e, J

    S. Juli `a-Farr´e, J. V ovrosh, and A. Dauphin, Physical Review A110, 012602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Brodoloni, J

    L. Brodoloni, J. V ovrosh, S. Juli `a-Farr´e, A. Dauphin, and S. Pilati, Physical Review A112, L051303 (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    N. F. Ramsey, Proceedings of the IEEE79, 921 (1991)

    work page 1991

  73. [73]

    Clairon, P

    A. Clairon, P. Laurent, G. Santarelli, S. Ghezali, S. Lea, and M. Bahoura, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement44, 128 (1995)

    work page 1995

  74. [74]

    Wynands and S

    R. Wynands and S. Weyers, Metrologia42, S64 (2005)

    work page 2005

  75. [75]

    Katori, M

    H. Katori, M. Takamoto, F.-L. Hong, and R. Higashi, Nature 435, 321 (2005)

    work page 2005

  76. [76]

    A. D. Ludlow, T. Zelevinsky, G. K. Campbell, M. M. Boyd, and J. Ye, Science (2008), see also arXiv:0801.4344

    work page arXiv 2008

  77. [77]

    T. P. Heavner, S. R. Jefferts, E. A. Donley, J. H. Shirley, and T. E. Parker, Metrologia51, 174 (2014)

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    S. Peil, J. L. Hanssen, T. B. Swanson, J. Taylor, and C. R. Ekstrom, Metrologia (2014), arXiv:1406.1376

    work page arXiv 2014

  79. [79]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 637 (2015)

    work page 2015

  80. [80]

    Gu ´ena, M

    J. Gu ´ena, M. Abgrall, D. Rovera, and P. Laurent, Comptes Rendus Physique16, 489 (2015)

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.