Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

LLM-based Multi-Agent Copilot for Quantum Sensor

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A multi-agent LLM copilot can run a cold-atom quantum sensor experiment end to end without human intervention.

desk verdict A useful engineering prototype that wraps BO and LLM agents around a cold-atom rig, but the autonomous-diagnosis claim leans on a case its own method doesn't explain. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05421 v1 pith:KALTEVG6 submitted 2025-08-07 quant-ph cs.AIphysics.atom-ph

Rong Sha , Binglin Wang , Jun Yang , Xiaoxiao Ma , Chengkun Wu , Liang Yan , Chao Zhou , Jixun Liu
show 3 more authors
Guochao Wang Shuhua Yan Lingxiao Zhu
This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.AIphysics.atom-ph
keywords LLMagentsmulti-agentsystemscoldatomexperimentsquantumsensorsBayesianoptimizationfaultdiagnosisactivelearninguncertaintyquantification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper presents QCopilot, a multi-agent system built on commercial LLMs, a vector knowledge base, and active learning, and claims it can run a cold-atom quantum sensor experiment end to end without human intervention. In a rubidium magneto-optical trap and polarization-gradient-cooling setup, the system optimized five MOT parameters in about 100 iterations and six PGC parameters across 500 iterations, producing $10^{8}$ atoms below 1 µK within a few hours, roughly 100 times faster than manual tuning. The same system then diagnoses faults: after anomalous results, it resamples with 50 Latin hypercube points and compares correlation matrices to pinpoint the malfunctioning parameter. The authors argue that this closes the gap between optimization, monitoring, and diagnosis and lowers deployment barriers for quantum sensors. They note that the current version relies on online API calls to commercial LLMs, which limits offline field deployment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a centralized multi-agent loop. A Decision Maker decomposes the experiment into sub-experiments and dispatches agents; an Experimenter runs Bayesian optimization using retrieval-augmented generation to pull hardware limits from a vector knowledge base; an Analyst converts logged runs into correlation matrices; and a Multimodal Diagnoser compares image-rendered correlation matrices from a 50-point optimal Latin hypercube sample with the baseline to flag faulty parameters. The framework's claim to generality rests on this division of labor plus the accumulating knowledge base that records successful settings and diagnoses for reuse.

What would settle it

Run the stated diagnostic procedure with a deliberately introduced fault in a control parameter whose baseline correlation with the atom-number output is near zero (for example, fix the optical phase-locked loop reference frequency to a wrong value), collect the 50 Latin hypercube samples, and check whether the correlation-matrix comparison flags the correct parameter. The paper's Fig. 4f suggests it will not, so a controlled experiment that shows a missed flag would refute the claim that the framework autonomously identifies anomalous parameters in general.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QCopilot's central claim is that an LLM-orchestrated multi-agent workflow—rather than a human physicist—can carry out the full experiment-development loop for cold-atom quantum sensors: selecting optimization methods, running experiments, quantifying uncertainty, and diagnosing faults. On a rubidium MOT/PGC platform the framework converged single-objective optimization to the best MOT settings in ~100 iterations using batch Log Expected Improvement, found a Pareto frontier for PGC temperature versus atom number in 500 iterations with multi-objective Bayesian optimization, and reached a cold cloud of $10^{8}$ sub-µK atoms in a few hours. In fault mode, it repeats the suspect sub-experiment, colle

Load-bearing premise

The self-diagnosis step assumes a hardware fault shows up as a large change in the linear correlation between the faulty control parameter and the measured output while all other correlations stay roughly stable; the paper's own third injected fault, a shift in the optical phase-locked loop reference frequency, barely changes that parameter's correlation, so faults in weakly coupled parameters can be missed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If QCopilot works as reported, routine cold-atom sensor preparation no longer requires a physicist in the loop: the same framework chooses the optimizer, sets hardware limits, and records reusable knowledge.
  • A few hundred trials suffice for single-objective optimization and about 500 for a two-objective Pareto frontier; subsequent fault diagnosis needs only 50 extra samples per suspect sub-experiment.
  • Autonomous fault detection via correlation-matrix comparison can reduce downtime in deployed quantum sensors, since the diagnoser localizes the faulty parameter rather than requiring full manual troubleshooting.
  • Accumulated knowledge in the vector database should make repeated experiments faster and more robust to environmental drift, because each run's best settings and diagnoses persist.
  • The claimed ~100× speedup over manual experimentation implies that laboratory development cycles, not just steady-state operation, could be compressed enough for field deployment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not separate the LLM's contribution from the underlying Bayesian optimizers; an ablation that runs the same BO/MBO loops without the Decision Maker and knowledge base would test whether the multi-agent layer adds measurable value.
  • The correlation-based fault diagnosis is demonstrated mainly for parameters with strong or moderate baseline correlation; applying the same 50-sample diagnostic to weakly coupled or nonlinear fault modes is an untested extension suggested by the paper's own third fault case.
  • Should local LLM inference close the online-API gap, the architecture would support unattended field operation of quantum sensors; this is the authors' stated possibility, not a demonstrated result.
  • The same orchestration pattern could plausibly transfer to other multi-parameter quantum platforms such as ion traps, optical lattices, or Rydberg sensors, but the paper only demonstrates it on one rubidium MOT/PGC system.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents QCopilot, an LLM-based multi-agent framework for autonomous optimization and diagnosis of cold-atom quantum sensors. The framework combines a centralized knowledge base, Web Searcher, Recorder, Decision Maker, Experimenter, Analyst, and Multimodal Diagnoser. The Experimenter applies Bayesian optimization (BO) and multi-objective BO (MBO) to optimize magneto-optical trap (MOT) and polarization gradient cooling (PGC) parameters; the Analyst performs correlation analysis; the Multimodal Diagnoser compares correlation matrices to identify faulty parameters. The authors report generation of 10^8 sub-microkelvin atoms with an approximately 100x speedup over manual experimentation, and successful autonomous identification of three injected faults, including a weakly coupled parameter (X1). The main text provides convergence plots and correlation matrices but very few raw measured values and no statistical error analysis.

Significance. If the experimental claims are substantiated, this is a useful demonstration that LLM-based multi-agent systems can close the loop of quantum-sensor optimization, knowledge accumulation, and fault diagnosis. Its strengths include a real experimental deployment, integration of external knowledge with active learning, and use of multi-objective Bayesian optimization on a cold-atom platform. However, the headline quantitative claims and the autonomous-diagnosis capability are not yet supported by the evidence reported. The paper would become significantly more valuable if raw data, error bars, a defined manual baseline, and a validated diagnostic mechanism were provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1 (Fig. 2)] The abstract claims generation of 10^8 sub-microkelvin atoms and an approximately 100x speedup over manual experimentation. The main text reports no direct temperature or absolute atom-number values; the only criterion shown in Fig. 2f is 'below 10 µK', which is an order of magnitude above 'sub-microkelvin'. CCD pixel integration is stated to be proportional to atom number, but no calibration to an absolute atom number is provided. No error bars or repeated independent runs are given for the final atom count. The '~100x speedup' has no defined manual baseline, no timing protocol, and no supporting data. These are headline quantitative claims and need direct support before the results can be assessed.
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 4f] The third fault case (X1, optical phase-locked loop reference frequency fixed at 38.6 MHz) is not diagnosed by the method described. The text explicitly states that X1 is 'inherently weakly correlated' and that Fig. 4f confirms its minimal impact, yet the authors state that the Multimodal Diagnoser 'pinpoints' X1. No mechanism other than correlation-matrix comparison is described; a weakly coupled parameter will not produce a large change in linear correlation, so the method is expected to fail on exactly this case. Additionally, comparing correlations from 500 baseline runs with 50 fault runs without error bars or significance testing can either mask real faults or create spurious ones. Since autonomous identification of anomalous parameters is a central advertised capability, this needs either corrected, more limited claims or additional evidence.
  3. [§2.1, Fig. 2f] The comparison of MBO with single-objective BO is based on counts of 'acceptable' points (477/463/489) below the 10 µK threshold, with the plot excluding points above the threshold. No uncertainty estimates, multiple trial runs, or statistical tests are reported. The figure alone does not quantitatively establish that MBO 'efficiently balances both objectives' or that it outperforms single-objective methods in a meaningful sense. Please provide distributions, error bars, and a clearly defined comparison metric.
  4. [§2.3 (problem-diagnosis trigger)] The trigger for entering the problem-diagnosis stage — 'if significant deviations in experimental results are detected' — is never defined or evaluated. There is no detection threshold, no false-alarm analysis, and no sensitivity analysis. The 50-sample optimal Latin hypercube design is introduced without justification, and its statistical power relative to the 500-run baseline is not quantified. As autonomous operation is a core claim, this detection rule needs a concrete, testable specification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The notation '108' appears in the Introduction and should be '10^8'.
  2. [Throughout] The paper alternates between 'sub-microkelvin' and 'below 10 µK'. These are quantitatively different; please define the actual acceptance threshold and use it consistently.
  3. [Fig. 3] Correlation matrices are described as 'uncertainty quantification'. Pearson correlation coefficients do not quantify uncertainty; please rephrase or add actual uncertainty metrics.
  4. [Fig. 2c] The text says each MOT parameter setting was tested three times, but Fig. 2c plots only the average, with no spread. Show error bars or individual points.
  5. [General] No Methods section, data availability statement, or code release is provided. This limits reproducibility and the ability to verify the claimed speedup and atom counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental results are self-contained; the only self-citation is routine, and the X1 diagnosis gap is an evidentiary issue rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

QCopilot's central claims are empirical demonstrations, not quantities derived from fitted constants. The MOT/PGC optimization results (Figs. 2c,f) are experimental data; the 10^8 sub-µK atom yield is a measured outcome. Correlation analysis (§2.2) interprets the same experimental data with the textbook MOT force equation (Eq. 1, ref. [48]), so it is validation, not circular prediction. The only self-citation is ref. [25] (Ma et al.) in a routine list of Bayesian-optimization references; §2.1's use of batch Log Expected Improvement and parallel Expected Hypervolume Improvement is standard and no load-bearing argument depends on the cited prior work. The fault-diagnosis method (§2.3) compares correlation matrices from 500-run optimization baselines with 50-run LHS fault runs; this is data-driven anomaly detection. The third fault case (X1, Fig. 4f) is problematic: the paper admits X1 is inherently weakly correlated and shows minimal correlation change, yet claims the Multimodal Diagnoser pinpointed it. That is an evidentiary/rationale gap (the output is not supported by the stated input), not a circularity (the output is not equivalent to the input by construction). Therefore no circular step can be exhibited; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on measurement proxies (CCD pixel integral, molasses diffusion), the accuracy of the GP surrogate, and the assumption that correlation shifts reveal the faulty parameter. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'agents' are software components.

free parameters (1)
  • 10 µK display/acceptance threshold = 10 µK
    Fig. 2f filters the plotted data to temperatures below 10 µK, so the reported success counts (477/500 for MBO, 463 for temperature-only BO, 489 for atom-number-only BO) depend on this hand-chosen cutoff. The abstract instead claims sub-µK, without reporting how many points reach that level.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CCD pixel integration is proportional to atom number
    Section 2.1 and Fig. 2b use pixel integration to quantify MOT atom number and as the BO objective; the 10^8 atom claim depends on this uncalibrated proxy.
  • domain assumption Molasses diffusion method yields valid temperature and atom number
    Section 2 and Fig. 2e use the molasses diffusion method to infer temperature and atom number; the sub-µK claims rely on this measurement without stated systematic uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Gaussian process surrogate accurately models the system response
    Section 2.2 interprets parameter distributions from the MBO surrogate; the model is fit in-sample on the same 500 runs, not validated on held-out experiments.
  • domain assumption Changes in linear correlations isolate the faulty parameter
    Section 2.3 diagnoses faults by comparing correlation matrices; the X1 example shows a weakly correlated parameter with minimal change, so the signature may not be reliable for all fault types.
  • standard math Standard MOT radiation-pressure theory (Eq. 1)
    Section 2.2 invokes Eq. 1 from atomic physics textbook [48] to explain why X3 and X5 correlate with atom number; this is standard background theory.
  • domain assumption Commercial LLM agents execute instructions reliably enough for autonomous operation
    The entire workflow depends on LLM API calls for task decomposition, method selection, and diagnosis; no failure-rate analysis or ablation of LLM errors is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-based Multi-Agent Copilot for Quantum Sensor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KALTEVG6

@misc{pith2026250805421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-based Multi-Agent Copilot for Quantum Sensor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KALTEVG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05421}
}
abstract

Large language models (LLM) exhibit broad utility but face limitations in quantum sensor development, stemming from interdisciplinary knowledge barriers and involving complex optimization processes. Here we present QCopilot, an LLM-based multi-agent framework integrating external knowledge access, active learning, and uncertainty quantification for quantum sensor design and diagnosis. Comprising commercial LLMs with few-shot prompt engineering and vector knowledge base, QCopilot employs specialized agents to adaptively select optimization methods, automate modeling analysis, and independently perform problem diagnosis. Applying QCopilot to atom cooling experiments, we generated 10${}^{\rm{8}}$ sub-$\rm{\mu}$K atoms without any human intervention within a few hours, representing $\sim$100$\times$ speedup over manual experimentation. Notably, by continuously accumulating prior knowledge and enabling dynamic modeling, QCopilot can autonomously identify anomalous parameters in multi-parameter experimental settings. Our work reduces barriers to large-scale quantum sensor deployment and readily extends to other quantum information systems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Agentic Exploration of Physics Models

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A general-purpose LLM agent can discover physics models, including ODEs and spin Hamiltonians, by autonomously choosing experiments and fitting hypotheses to numeric data.

  2. Towards Verifiable and Self-Correcting AI Physicists for Quantum Many-Body Simulations

    physics.comp-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    QMP-Bench supplies a realistic test set for AI on quantum many-body problems while PhysVEC uses integrated verifiers to turn unreliable LLM generations into code that passes both syntax and physics checks, outperformi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Wieman, C. E. Atom cooling, trapping, and quantum manipulation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S253–S262 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Becker, D. et al. Space-borne Bose–Einstein condensation for precision interfer- ometry. Nature 562, 391–395 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    & Druten, K

    Schreck, F. & Druten, K. V. Laser cooling for quantum gases. Nat. Phys. 17, 1296–1304 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Yuan, J. et al. Quantum sensing of microwave electric fields based on rydberg atoms. Rep. Prog. Phys.86, 106001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    & Lee, C

    Huang, J., Zhuang, M. & Lee, C. Entanglement-enhanced quantum metrology: From standard quantum limit to Heisenberg limit. Appl. Phys. Rev.11, 031302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Salducci, C. et al. Quantum sensing of acceleration and rotation by interfering magnetically launched atoms. Sci. Adv.10, eadq4498 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Panda, C. D. et al. Measuring gravitational attraction with a lattice atom interferometer. Nature 631, 515–520 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    & Zoller, P

    Ye, J. & Zoller, P. Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics. Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 190001 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Barrett, B. et al. Dual matter-wave inertial sensors in weightlessness. Nat. Commun. 7 (2016). 10

    2016

  2. [10]

    Bidel, Y. et al. Absolute marine gravimetry with matter-wave interferometry. Nat. Commun. 9, 627 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    et al.Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world applications

    Bongs, K. et al.Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world applications. Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 731–739 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Wu, X. et al. Gravity surveys using a mobile atom interferometer. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0800 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Stray, B. et al. Quantum sensing for gravity cartography. Nature 602, 590–594 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    d’Armagnac De Castanet, Q. et al. Atom interferometry at arbitrary orientations and rotation rates. Nat. Commun. 15, 6406 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Deng, S. et al. Cold atom microwave clock based on intracavity cooling in China space station. npj Microgravity10, 66 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Zhai, C. et al. Airborne absolute gravity measurements based on quantum gravimeter. Acta Phys. Sin.74, 070302 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    et al.Drift-free continuous gravity measurement and application analysis of a high-precision atom gravimeter

    Li, C.-Y. et al.Drift-free continuous gravity measurement and application analysis of a high-precision atom gravimeter. Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 014045 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Li, J. et al. Realization of a cold atom gyroscope in space. Natl. Sci. Rev.12, nwaf012 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    L., Reinhard, F

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    Geraci, A. A. & Derevianko, A. Sensitivity of atom interferometry to ultralight scalar field dark matter. Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 261301 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Saywell, J. C. et al. Enhancing the sensitivity of atom-interferometric inertial sensors using robust control. Nat. Commun. 14, 7626 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Wigley, P. B. et al. Fast machine-learning online optimization of ultra-cold-atom experiments. Sci. Rep.6, 25890 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    & Fukuhara, T

    Nakamura, I., Kanemura, A., Nakaso, T., Yamamoto, R. & Fukuhara, T. Non- standard trajectories found by machine learning for evaporative cooling of 87 Rb atoms. Opt. Express 27, 20435 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Barker, A. J. et al. Applying machine learning optimization methods to the production of a quantum gas. Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.1, 015007 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ma, X. et al. Accelerated bayesian optimization in deep cooling atoms (2025). arXiv:2412.11793. 11

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A., Yu, H., Kosloff, R

    Weidner, C. A., Yu, H., Kosloff, R. & Anderson, D. Z. Atom interferometry using a shaken optical lattice. Phys. Rev. A95, 043624 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Tranter, A. D. et al.Multiparameter optimisation of a magneto-optical trap using deep learning. Nat. Commun. 9, 4360 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Melnikov, A. A. et al. Active learning machine learns to create new quantum experiments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115, 1221–1226 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Cimini, V. et al. Deep reinforcement learning for quantum multiparameter estimation. Adv. Photonics 5, 016005 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    & Holland, M

    Chih, L.-Y. & Holland, M. Reinforcement learning for rotation sensing with ultracold atoms in an optical lattice. Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043191 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    & Volchkov, V

    Reinschmidt, M., Fort´ agh, J., G¨ unther, A. & Volchkov, V. V. Reinforcement learning in cold atom experiments. Nat. Commun. 15, 8532 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Liang, C. et al. Multi-parameter optimization of polarization gradient cooling for 87rb atoms based on reinforcement learning. Opt. Express 32, 40364–40374 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Wang, H. et al. Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature 620, 47–60 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Singh, I. et al. ProgPrompt: program generation for situated robot task planning using large language models. Auton. Robot 47, 999–1012 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    A., MacKnight, R., Kline, B

    Boiko, D. A., MacKnight, R., Kline, B. & Gomes, G. Autonomous chemical research with large language models. Nature 624, 570–578 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Gao, S. et al. Empowering biomedical discovery with AI agents. Cell 187, 6125–6151 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, Z. & Li, G. Self-collaboration code generation via chatgpt. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.33 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    & Fan, C

    Chen, Y., Arkin, J., Zhang, Y., Roy, N. & Fan, C. Scalable multi-robot collabo- ration with large language models: Centralized or decentralized systems? (2024). Paper presented at the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 4311-4317 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Sanders, L. M. et al. Biological research and self-driving labs in deep space supported by artificial intelligence. Nat. Mach. Intell.5, 208–219 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    M. Bran, A. et al. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools. Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 525–535 (2024). 12

    2024

  33. [41]

    Luo, X. et al. Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience results. Nat. Hum. Behav(2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    et al.An automatic end-to-end chemical synthesis development platform powered by large language models

    Ruan, Y. et al.An automatic end-to-end chemical synthesis development platform powered by large language models. Nat. Commun. 15, 10160 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    M., Schwaller, P., Ortega-Guerrero, A

    Jablonka, K. M., Schwaller, P., Ortega-Guerrero, A. & Smit, B. Leveraging large language models for predictive chemistry. Nat. Mach. Intell.6, 161–169 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Wu, Z. et al. Leveraging language model for advanced multiproperty molecular optimization via prompt engineering. Nat. Mach. Intell.1359–1369 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Tshitoyan, V. et al. Unsupervised word embeddings capture latent knowledge from materials science literature. Nature 571, 95–98 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Melko, R. G. & Carrasquilla, J. Language models for quantum simulation. Nat. Comput. Sci. 4, 11–18 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    & Buehler, M

    Ghafarollahi, A. & Buehler, M. J. Sciagents: Automating scientific discovery through bioinspired multi-agent intelligent graph reasoning. Adv. Mater.2413523 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Foot, C. J. Atomic Physics No. 7 in Oxford Master Series in Physics Atomic, Optical, and Laser Physics (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2011). 13

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.