pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25638 · v1 · pith:5CMZBK7Hnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.optics

Towards Robust Optimal Measurements Against Noise in Quantum Metrology

Xinglei Yu , Xinzhi Zhao , Liangsheng Li , Stanis{\l}aw Kurdzia{\l}ek , Chengjie Zhang , Chuan-Feng Li , Guang-Can Guo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.optics
keywords quantum metrologyFisher informationnoise susceptibilityphase estimationMach-Zehnder interferometeroptimal measurementsrobustness to noise
0
0 comments X

The pith

Experiments confirm that FI MENOS identifies the worst-case noise impact on estimation precision in quantum metrology.

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

Quantum metrology seeks higher precision than classical methods by exploiting quantum effects, yet noise during measurement reduces that advantage. This paper tests Fisher information measurement noise susceptibility (FI MENOS) as a way to quantify how vulnerable different measurements are to noise. Using a polarizing Mach-Zehnder interferometer for phase estimation, the authors add controlled noise and compare measurement outcomes. The data show that FI MENOS matches the scenario of lowest precision, supplying a practical way to judge the noise immunity of optimal measurements. This matters for real devices where noise cannot be eliminated and precision must be preserved.

Core claim

Through experiments in a polarizing Mach-Zehnder interferometer for phase estimation under controlled noise, we demonstrate that different measurements exhibit distinct sensitivities to noise. We further introduce various noise types and show that FI MENOS corresponds to the worst-case estimation precision, thereby allowing evaluation of the noise immunity of optimal measurements.

What carries the argument

Fisher information measurement noise susceptibility (FI MENOS), a quantity that measures how susceptible a given measurement is to noise and identifies the worst-case loss in estimation precision.

If this is right

  • Measurements can be ranked by their FI MENOS values to select those with greater noise immunity for phase estimation.
  • Different controlled noise types produce measurable differences in precision that FI MENOS captures as its worst-case bound.
  • The method supplies a concrete criterion for assessing robustness when choosing among candidate optimal measurements.
  • The approach extends the analysis of noise effects beyond single noise sources to multiple forms in one setup.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same FI MENOS ranking could be applied to other estimation tasks such as frequency or amplitude to guide sensor design in noisy settings.
  • Protocols that minimize FI MENOS might be combined with error-correction techniques to further improve real-device performance.
  • Long-term tests with uncontrolled environmental noise would reveal whether the laboratory ranking holds outside controlled conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The controlled noise sources introduced in the two experimental setups are representative of the dominant noise mechanisms present in practical quantum metrology implementations outside the laboratory.

What would settle it

An experiment in which a measurement with higher FI MENOS value achieves higher precision than one with lower FI MENOS under the same added noise would falsify the claim that FI MENOS represents the worst-case scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25638 by Chengjie Zhang, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang-Can Guo, Liangsheng Li, Stanis{\l}aw Kurdzia{\l}ek, Xinglei Yu, Xinzhi Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the pure state model. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Experimental setup. The top layer presents the implementation of heralded single-photon source, photon pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Estimation precision and FI MENOS. (a) The probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Estimation precision and FI MENOS. (a) The distribution of estimation results when the noise is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum parameter estimation utilizes quantum mechanical effects to attain higher measurement precision than classical schemes. In practical implementations, however, noise is inevitably present during the measurement process, causing a decrease in precision. Quantifying the impact of noise on different measurements is of considerable significance. Here, we experimentally investigate robust optimal measurements based on the theory of Fisher information measurement noise susceptibility (FI MENOS), which quantifies how susceptible a measurement is to noise. By constructing a polarizing Mach-Zehnder interferometer, we implement phase estimation under controlled noise. Our results indicate that different measurements exhibit distinct sensitivities to noise. To assess the influence of diverse noise types on precision, we further construct an experimental setup capable of introducing various forms of noise. The experimental results affirm that FI MENOS represents the worst-case scenario for estimation precision, enabling us to evaluate the noise immunity of optimal measurements. Our work provides a deeper insight into quantum metrology with noise, marking a notable advancement in quantifying the robustness of quantum estimation schemes against measurement noise effects.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally investigates robust optimal measurements in quantum metrology using the Fisher information measurement noise susceptibility (FI MENOS) framework. By implementing phase estimation in a polarizing Mach-Zehnder interferometer under controlled phase/polarization fluctuations and constructing a second setup for diverse noise types, the authors report that experimental outcomes affirm FI MENOS as the worst-case scenario for estimation precision, thereby enabling evaluation of the noise immunity of optimal measurements.

Significance. If the central experimental claim holds and the tested noises prove representative, the work would supply a concrete experimental benchmark for assessing measurement robustness in noisy quantum parameter estimation, potentially guiding protocol design. The direct comparison of multiple measurements against a pre-existing theoretical quantity is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental Results] Experimental Results section: the claim that outcomes match the worst-case prediction of FI MENOS receives only moderate support because the manuscript provides neither raw data, error bars, exact fitting procedures, nor exclusion criteria.
  2. [Conclusion] Conclusion: the generalization that FI MENOS quantifies noise immunity for optimal measurements in practical settings is load-bearing on the untested assumption that the introduced phase/polarization fluctuations and other controlled noises are representative of dominant mechanisms (e.g., amplitude damping or detector dark counts) outside the laboratory; no comparative analysis or discussion of alternative noise statistics is supplied.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the acronym FI MENOS is used without prior expansion, reducing immediate clarity for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and indicate the changes we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental Results] Experimental Results section: the claim that outcomes match the worst-case prediction of FI MENOS receives only moderate support because the manuscript provides neither raw data, error bars, exact fitting procedures, nor exclusion criteria.

    Authors: We agree that additional details would strengthen the support for the claims. In the revised manuscript we will add error bars to all relevant plots in the Experimental Results section, provide a precise description of the fitting procedures employed, specify any data exclusion criteria, and deposit the raw data in a public repository with a link in the paper. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Conclusion] Conclusion: the generalization that FI MENOS quantifies noise immunity for optimal measurements in practical settings is load-bearing on the untested assumption that the introduced phase/polarization fluctuations and other controlled noises are representative of dominant mechanisms (e.g., amplitude damping or detector dark counts) outside the laboratory; no comparative analysis or discussion of alternative noise statistics is supplied.

    Authors: We accept that the current conclusion extrapolates beyond the specific controlled noises tested. We will revise the Conclusion and add a dedicated Limitations paragraph that (i) explicitly lists the noise types realized in the two setups, (ii) discusses their relevance to laboratory quantum metrology, and (iii) notes that other mechanisms such as amplitude damping or detector dark counts remain untested and would require separate validation. A short comparative remark on the statistics of the implemented noises versus common alternatives will also be included. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental validation of pre-existing FI MENOS theory

full rationale

The manuscript is an experimental study that constructs Mach-Zehnder setups to introduce controlled phase/polarization noise and compares measured estimation precisions against the pre-existing theoretical quantity FI MENOS. The abstract and described results treat FI MENOS as an input from prior theory rather than deriving or fitting it from the present data. No equations are shown that define a prediction in terms of the same fitted parameters, and the central claim (that FI MENOS ranks worst-case noise susceptibility) is tested by direct comparison to independent experimental outcomes. Self-citation, if present for the original FI MENOS definition, is not load-bearing for the reported experimental ranking. The derivation chain therefore remains non-circular and externally falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are mentioned in the provided abstract; the central claim rests on the unelaborated theory of FI MENOS and the assumption that laboratory noise matches practical conditions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5726 in / 994 out tokens · 19969 ms · 2026-06-25T21:14:33.162384+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

70 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Here, the measure- ment noiseϵNis introduced and controlled by the in- terference visibilityV, which is consistent with the the- oretical model

    Notice that our objec- tive is to have measurements influenced by small noise to demonstrate FI MENOS theory. Here, the measure- ment noiseϵNis introduced and controlled by the in- terference visibilityV, which is consistent with the the- oretical model. The exact form of imperfect measure- ment we realized is ˜M={ ˆM ′ ±(φ)}, where ˆM ′ ±(φ) = (1−ϵ) ˆM±(...

  2. [2]

    By changing the operator ˆU1, we could change the form of noiseN

    We can find that the form of noise depends on the unitary operator ˆU1, which cor- responding to the combination of HWPs and QWPs in patha, as shown in the bottom layer of Figure 2(a). By changing the operator ˆU1, we could change the form of noiseN. In our experimental setup, the noisy channel Λϵ is realized by nonpolarizing beam splitter1 (NPBS1). IV. P...

    2020

  3. [3]

    H. Zhou, C. Zhao, M. Cain, D. Bluvstein, N. Maskara, C. Duckering, H.-Y. Hu, S.-T. Wang, A. Kubica, and M. D. Lukin, Nature646, 303 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Aghaee Rad, T

    H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R.N. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. F. Askarani, et al., Nature638, 912 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ma, Q.-X

    D.-Q. Ma, Q.-X. Jie, Y.-D. Hu, W.-Y. Zhu, Y.-C. Zhang, H.-J. Fan, X.-K. Zhong, G.-J. Chen, Y.-L. Zhang, T.-Y. Zhang, X.-F. Ren, L. Chen, Z.-B. Wang, G.-C. Guo, and C.-L. Zou, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 220314 (2026)

    2026

  6. [6]

    Pedalino, B

    S. Pedalino, B. E. Ram´ ırez-Galindo, R. Ferstl, K. Horn- berger, M. Arndt, and S. Gerlich, Nature649, 866 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    X. Yang, X. Yu, L. Li, X. Zhao, T. Zheng, C. Zhang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 250312 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Zheng, H

    Y. Zheng, H. Wang, X. Jia, J. Huang, H. Yuan, C. Zhai, J. Dai, J. Shi, L. Zhang, X. Zhang, M. Zhuang, J. Liu, J. Mao, T. Dai, Z. Fu, Y. Jiao, Y. Shi, D. Dai, X. Wang, Y. Li, Q. Gong, Z. Yuan, L. Chang, and J. Wang,Nature 651, 68 (2026)

    2026

  9. [9]

    Lv, X.-M

    M.-Y. Lv, X.-M. Hu, N.-F. Gong, T.-J. Wang, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 230311 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    D. S. Weiss, B. C. Young, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2706 (1993)

    1993

  11. [11]

    Bouchendira, P

    R. Bouchendira, P. Clad´ e, S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, F. Nez, and F. Biraben, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 080801 (2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science360, 191 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Elder, J

    B. Elder, J. Khoury, P. Haslinger, M. Jaffe, H. M¨ uller, and P. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. D94, 044051 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Hamilton, M

    P. Hamilton, M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, Q. Simmons, H. M¨ uller, and J. Khoury, Science349, 849 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kase- vich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D78, 122002 (2008)

    2008

  16. [16]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    J. M. Hogan and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A94, 033632 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Ganapathy, W

    D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, V. Xu, N. Aritomi, T. Cullen, N. Kijbunchoo, S. E. Dwyer, A. Mullavey et al., Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum detection and estimation the- ory(Academic Press, 1976)

    1976

  20. [20]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quan- tum theory(North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982)

    1982

  21. [21]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  22. [22]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. Milburn, Ann. Phys247, 135 (1996)

    1996

  23. [23]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A54, R4649 (1996)

    1996

  24. [24]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  25. [25]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  26. [26]

    Q. Liu, Z. Hu, H. Yuan, and Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 070803 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science316, 726 (2007)

    2007

  28. [28]

    Xiang, B

    G.-Y. Xiang, B. L. Higgins, D. Berry, H. M. Wiseman, and G. Pryde, Nature Photon5, 43(2011)

    2011

  29. [29]

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

    2007

  30. [30]

    Yuan, C.-H

    H. Yuan, C.-H. F. Fung, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 110401 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Braun, G

    D. Braun, G. Adesso, F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, U. Mar- zolino, M. W. Mitchell, and S. Pirandola, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035006 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Hou, R.-J

    Z. Hou, R.-J. Wang, J.-F. Tang, H. Yuan, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 040501 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Hou, J.-F

    Z. Hou, J.-F. Tang, H. Chen, H. Yuan, G.-Y. Xiang, C.- F. Li and G.-C. Guo, Sci. Adv.7, eabd2986 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    X. Zhao, Y. Yang, and G. Chiribella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 190503 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    P. Yin, X. Zhao, Y. Yang, Y. Guo, W.-H. Zhang, G.- C. Li, Y.-J. Han, B.-H. Liu, J.-S. Xu, G. Chiribella, G. Chen, C.-F. Li and G.-C. Guo, Nat. Phys.19, 1122 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Kurdzia lek, W

    S. Kurdzia lek, W. G´ orecki, F. Albarelli, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 090801 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Wiersig, Phys

    J. Wiersig, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 203901 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    Wiersig, Phys

    J. Wiersig, Phys. Rev. A93, 033809 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    Z.-P. Liu1, J. Zhang, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, B. Peng, H. Jing, X.-Y. L¨ u, C.-W. Li, L. Yang, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110802 (2016)

    2016

  40. [40]

    Chen, S ¸

    W. Chen, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig and L. Yang, Nature548, 192 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Hodaei, A

    H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides and M. Khajavikhan, Nature548, 187 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    Yu and C

    X. Yu and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A108, 022215 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    X. Yu, X. Zhao, L. Li, X.-M. Hu, X. Duan, H. Yuan, and C. Zhang, Science Advances10, eadk7616 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    Datta, L

    A. Datta, L. Zhang, N. Thomas-Peter, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. A83, 063836 (2011)

    2011

  45. [45]

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

    2017

  46. [46]

    Y. L. Len, T. Gefen, A. Retzker and J. Ko lody´ nski, Nat Commun13, 6971 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Kurdzia lek and Rafa l Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Phys

    S. Kurdzia lek and Rafa l Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 160802 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    K. Bai, Z. Peng, H.-G. Luo, and J.-H. An, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 040402 (2019). 8

    2019

  49. [49]

    Bai and J.-H

    S.-Y. Bai and J.-H. An, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 050801 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Bar- rett, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovi´ c, C. Langer, T. Rosenband and D. J. Wineland, Nature422, 412 (2003)

    2003

  51. [51]

    Urbanek, B

    M. Urbanek, B. Nachman, V. R. Pascuzzi, A. He, C. W. Bauer, and W. A. de Jong, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 270502 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Harper, S

    R. Harper, S. T. Flammia and J. J. Wallman, Nat. Phys. 16, 1184 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. v. d. Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme and A. Kandala, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    X.-M. Hu, C. Zhang, Y. Guo, F.-X. Wang, W.-B. Xing, C.-X. Huang, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Liet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 110505 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Bouchard, D

    F. Bouchard, D. England, P. J. Bustard, K. L. Fenwick, E. Karimi, K. Heshami, and B. Sussman, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied15, 024027 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Lamoureux, E

    L.-P. Lamoureux, E. Brainis, N. J. Cerf, Ph. Emplit, M. Haelterman, and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230501 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    K. B. A. Dragan, W. Wasilewski, and C. Radzewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 257901 (2004)

    2004

  58. [58]

    Rubino, L

    G. Rubino, L. A. Rozema, D. Ebler, H. Kristj´ ansson, S. Salek, P. A. Gu´ erin, A. A. Abbott, C. Branciard, ˇC. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Research3, 013093 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    Soare, H

    A. Soare, H. Ball, D. Hayes, J. Sastrawan, M. C. Jar- ratt, J. J. McLoughlin, X. Zhen, T. J. Green and M. J. Biercuk, Nature Phys10, 825 (2014)

    2014

  60. [60]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, Y. Tsaturyan and A. Schliesser, Nature563, 53 (2018)

    2018

  61. [61]

    Magrini, P

    L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi and M. Aspelmeyer, Nature595, 373 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    Z. Zhou, R. Sitler, Y. Oda, K. Schultz, and G. Quiroz, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210802 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    K. Wang, X. Wang, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, J. Li, B. C. Sanders, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. A97, 042112 (2018)

    2018

  64. [64]

    Long, W.-T

    X. Long, W.-T. He, N.-N. Zhang, K. Tang, Z. Lin, H. Liu, X. Nie, G. Feng, J. Liet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 070502 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    Albarelli, I

    F. Albarelli, I. Gianani, M. G. Genoni and M. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. A110, 032436 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    Zhou, C.-L

    S. Zhou, C.-L. Zou and L. Jiang, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5025005 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    T. Kim, M. Fiorentino, and F. N. C. Wong, Phys. Rev. A73, 012316 (2006)

    2006

  68. [68]

    Yamamoto, S

    K. Yamamoto, S. Endo, H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, and Y. Tokunaga, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 250503 (2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    Q. Liu, M. Xue, M. Radzihovsky, X. Li, D. V. Vasilyev, L.-N. Wu, and V. Vuleti´ c,Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 040801 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    J.-X. Peng, B. Zhu, W. Zhang and K. Zhang,Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 090801 (2024)

    2024