Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

On-the-Spot Loading of Single-Atom Traps

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that modulating the depth of a single-atom optical dipole trap can push its average occupation probability beyond the 0.5 limit set by collisional blockade, reaching a filling fraction of (79±2)% without rearranging atoms.

desk verdict Useful lifetime-vs-depth data and a plausible switching scheme, but the 79% filling ratio is a calculated bound from Eq. (5), not a demonstrated closed-loop result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06162 v2 pith:3N7TRICV submitted 2025-01-10 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Mark IJspeert , Naomi Holland , Benjamin Yuen , Axel Kuhn This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics
keywords single-atomtrapsopticaldipolecollisionalblockadefillingfractiontrapdepthmodulationatomloadingtweezerarrays87Rb
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

This paper demonstrates a method to beat the 0.5 time-averaged occupation probability that limits single-atom optical dipole traps operating in the collisional blockade regime. The idea is to load atoms in a shallow trap, where the average wait for a loading event is short, and then deepen the trap once an atom arrives, so the trapped atom lives longer. From measured lifetimes, the authors derive an achievable filling fraction of (79±2)% using a shallow-trap dark time of (2.07±0.25)s and a deep-trap lifetime of (7.92±0.15)s. This could allow near-deterministic filling of tweezer arrays without the need to rearrange atoms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the depth-modulated optical dipole trap: a 1064 nm tweezer whose depth is switched by an acousto-optic modulator between a shallow loading configuration (about 0.8 mK) and a deeper holding configuration (about 1.7 mK). The identity carrying the argument is η = τ/(τ_d+τ), which expresses the achievable filling fraction in terms of the trap's dark time and lifetime; in the collisional blockade regime these are governed by independent Poisson processes, so the shallow trap loads quickly and the deep trap holds long, and switching at capture converts fast loading into long retention.

What would settle it

A closed-loop test that switches the trap to its deep configuration immediately upon atom detection, and then measures the realized fraction of time the trap is occupied over many cycles, would settle the claim. If detection latency, false triggers, or finite switching time add dead time comparable to the 2.07 s dark time, the observed filling fraction will fall below 0.79 toward the 0.5 baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that modulating the depth of a static optical dipole trap can push the time-averaged occupation probability of a single-atom trap in the collisional blockade regime beyond the nominal ceiling of 0.5. The quantitative statement is a filling fraction η = τ/(τ_d+τ), with the trap held shallow while waiting for a loading event (dark time τ_d ≈ 2.07 s) and then switched to a deeper configuration that extends the trapped-atom lifetime (τ ≈ 7.92 s), yielding η = (79±2)%. The demonstration alternates trap power between 10 mW and 21 mW on a fixed 30 s cycle and analyzes the occupation probability in windows centered on the shallow-to-deep switch, conditional on an atom being present at switch time.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate assumes the trap can be switched instantly and without error at the moment an atom is detected, when the actual experiment only alternates the depth on a fixed 30-second cycle and analyzes data selected for having an atom at the switch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The filling fraction of individual optical tweezers in a collisional-blockade array can exceed 0.5 without atom relocation, so deterministic filling no longer requires rearrangement-equipped setups.
  • Because the enhancement is local, the scheme can be parallelized: occupation-triggered holograms can deepen only the traps that have captured an atom.
  • The method remains effective when steady-state filling is below 0.5, as long as the loading-regime dark time is short relative to the holding-regime lifetime.
  • The approach uses less optical power and involves fewer operations than rearrangement, scaling with array size rather than requiring complex transport sequences.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If detection latency and switching time can be made small relative to the 2.07 s dark time, a true closed-loop version should reach filling fractions closer to the authors' 0.85–0.88 estimates obtained with the cooling light off during holding.
  • The measured 0.79 is a post-selected upper bound for the fixed-cycle implementation; a fair comparison with rearrangement schemes would require an end-to-end filling-rate measurement including detection and decision time.
  • The depth-modulation trick may compose with other loading optimizations, such as two-atom collision engineering or gray-molasses loading, because it only requires a contrast between loading and holding timescales.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scheme to increase the time-averaged single-atom occupation probability of an optical dipole trap beyond the collisional-blockade limit of 0.5 by switching the trap depth after an atom is detected. The authors measure trap lifetimes and dark times as functions of trap depth, introduce the filling-fraction formula eta = tau/(tau_d + tau) (Eq. 5), and estimate a maximum filling ratio of (79 +/- 2)%. To support this, they perform a periodic 30 s open-loop depth-switching experiment and analyze occupation probabilities conditional on an atom being present at the shallow-to-deep switch. They report that this method could avoid atom rearrangement for filling arrays.

Significance. The underlying measurements are careful: lifetime and dark-time data are extracted from exponential fits with Wilson confidence intervals, and the paper checks its main estimate against an independent calculation from Figure 5. The central idea, if validated in closed loop, would be a simple and power-efficient alternative to atom rearrangement for increasing array filling. The formula in Eq. (5) is physically motivated and parameter-free given the independently measured timescales. However, the headline filling ratio is not directly demonstrated by the experiment as written: the reported (79 +/- 2)% is a model-based projection that assumes instantaneous, error-free switching upon detection, while the experiment itself uses open-loop modulation and post-selected conditional occupation probabilities. This gap between claim and evidence is the main correctness risk.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (5), Fig. 6] The claimed filling ratio of (79 +/- 2)% is not directly demonstrated. Equation (5) describes a closed-loop renewal process in which the trap waits in the shallow state until an atom is detected and then immediately switches to the deep state. The experiment instead switches the trap depth on a fixed 30 s cycle and analyzes only intervals in which an atom was present at the switch time (Section V, Fig. 6). These conditional occupation probabilities do not by themselves establish that the time-averaged occupation of the proposed feedback protocol would be 0.79. In fact, the unconditional occupation during the shallow phase remains near the steady-state value of about 0.5, and the deep-phase benefit is only realized for intervals that started with an atom present. The abstract and conclusion state that the method 'demonstrates an achievable filling ratio' of 79%, which overstates what the open-loop, post-selected measurement shows. Please reframe the claim as a model-based estimate and either implement the closed-loop protocol or provide a quantitative argument for why the open-loop conditional measurement bounds the closed-loop duty cycle.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (5)] The estimate eta = tau/(tau_d + tau) assumes that the trap depth is switched instantly upon atom detection, with negligible detection latency and no false triggers. The paper reports a 250 ms time resolution for the periodic measurement, which bounds but does not quantify the detection latency, and it provides no false-trigger rate for the atom-detection threshold. If a feedback loop introduces a latency L after an atom enters the trap, the effective dark time becomes tau_d + L, and the filling fraction is reduced to tau/(tau_d + L + tau). For the reported values tau_d = 2.07 s and tau = 7.92 s, a latency of 0.5 s lowers eta from 0.79 to about 0.75. The paper should either report the measured detection latency and false-trigger probability, or present the headline filling fraction as an upper bound under the ideal-switching assumption.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 6(c)] The ensemble-averaged deep-regime lifetime is (6.67 +/- 0.08) s, which differs from the single-trap value of (7.92 +/- 0.15) s by well over the quoted uncertainties. The reported eta = 0.79 +/- 0.02 is calculated from the single-trap lifetime. Using the ensemble lifetime with the same tau_d gives eta approximately 0.76, still above 0.5 but materially lower. The paper attributes the discrepancy to trap-to-trap variation but does not propagate this variation into the uncertainty of the achievable filling ratio for an array. Please state clearly whether 79% is a single-trap value and, if the method is intended for arrays, include trap-to-trap variability in the reported uncertainty or in the array-level filling estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III] There is a typo in the apparatus section: 'Semrok' should be 'Semrock' for the bandpass filter, and 'M 2 beam quality factor' should use a superscript (M^2) for clarity.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says 'maximum achievable filling fraction' while the text and Section V refer to 'estimated filling fractions.' Please unify the wording so that the model-based nature of these values is clear throughout.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'demonstrates an achievable filling ratio' should be softened to 'indicates an achievable filling ratio' or 'predicts an achievable filling ratio,' since the closed-loop protocol itself was not implemented and the 79% value is derived from Eq. (5) using separately measured timescales.
  4. [Section IV] The Wilson score intervals for survival probabilities are appropriate, but the text should state the number of trials and the number of exponential fits used for each lifetime extraction, as small sample sizes can make the quoted standard deviations optimistic.
  5. [Section V, Figure 6] The conditioning on 'an atom present upon switching' should be stated directly in the main text and in the figure caption. As written, the occupation probabilities in Fig. 6(b,c) could easily be misread as unconditional filling fractions, which they are not.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 79% filling ratio follows from independently measured dark time and lifetime via the standard relation eta = tau/(tau_d+tau).

full rationale

The central filling-fraction claim is not circular. The paper measures the dark time and the trap lifetime independently from fluorescence traces (Section IV and Figure 6), then inserts these measured values into Eq. (5), eta = tau/(tau_d + tau), which is the standard steady-state occupancy of an alternating renewal process. The reported eta = 0.79 +/- 0.02 is a model projection of what a feedback-switched trap could achieve; it is not obtained by fitting eta to the claimed outcome, and it is distinct from the measured steady-state filling fraction of 0.49 +/- 0.03. The open-loop 30 s modulation experiment is used to extract the relevant lifetimes, not to measure the closed-loop filling fraction directly. The main weakness is that no closed-loop feedback experiment is performed and the calculation assumes instantaneous switching and negligible detection latency; this is an untested idealization and an overstatement of what is demonstrated, but it is not circularity. The few self-citations (e.g., [21] on DMD transport loss rates) are not load-bearing for the central claim. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its measured inputs, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on measured lifetimes and dark times plus three assumptions about Poisson statistics, detection fidelity, and instantaneous feedback. No new physical entities are introduced. The filling-fraction estimate is model-based, not a directly measured closed-loop result.

free parameters (4)
  • Trap depth as function of optical power = 0.7 to 8.3 mK for 10 to 100 mW
    Calibration used to label axes and to define shallow versus deep regimes; enters the claimed depth dependence of lifetimes.
  • Shallow-regime lifetime (single trap) = 1.99 ± 0.02 s
    Exponential fit to conditional occupation probability before the switch; used as the loading dark time in the filling estimate.
  • Deep-regime lifetime (single trap) = 7.92 ± 0.15 s
    Exponential fit after the switch to deep trap; numerator of the filling-fraction estimate.
  • Dark time / loading wait time = 2.07 ± 0.25 s
    Inferred from the shallow lifetime and the steady-state filling fraction of 0.49; central to the eta = 0.79 projection.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Loading and loss events follow independent Poisson processes, so occupation times and dark times are exponentially distributed.
    Used for exponential fits and for the formula eta = tau/(tau_d+tau) in Section V; only indirectly supported by the observed histograms.
  • domain assumption Fluorescence threshold reliably distinguishes single-atom occupation from zero or two atoms, and double occupation never occurs.
    Section IV threshold method; imperfect detection or any double-occupation events would bias the extracted lifetimes and filling fraction.
  • ad hoc to paper Trap depth can be switched instantaneously upon atom detection with negligible latency and no false triggers.
    Assumed in the filling-fraction estimate and Eq. (5); no closed-loop feedback experiment is performed to validate this.
  • domain assumption Collisional blockade and two-body loss dominate in the shallow regime, limiting steady-state occupation to 0.5.
    Taken from prior literature [25]; this is the basis of the problem statement and the motivation for the feedback scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On-the-Spot Loading of Single-Atom Traps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3N7TRICV

@misc{pith2026250106162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On-the-Spot Loading of Single-Atom Traps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3N7TRICV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06162}
}
abstract

Reconfigurable arrays of trapped single atoms are an excellent platform for the simulation of many-body physics and the realisation of high-fidelity quantum gates. The confinement of atoms is often achieved with focussed laser beams acting as optical dipole-force traps that allow for both static and dynamic positioning of atoms. In these traps, light-assisted collisions -- enhancing the two-atom loss rate -- ensure that single atom occupation of traps can be realised. However, the time-averaged probability of trapping a single atom is limited to $0.5$ when loading directly from a surrounding cloud of laser-cooled atoms, preventing deterministic filling of large arrays. In this work, we demonstrate that increasing the depth of a static, optical dipole trap enables the transition from fast loading on a timescale of $2.1\,$s to an extended trap lifetime of $7.9\,$s. This method demonstrates an achievable filling ratio of $(79\pm2)\,\%$ without the need of rearranging atoms to fill vacant traps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Left) Optical setup for the generation of 1064 nm dipole traps and the detection of fluorescence. A spatial light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Background-corrected fluorescence trace from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Measured atom survival probabilities for varying du [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Extracted trap lifetime and dark time (unoccu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Fluorescence trace for a periodic (30 s) modulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Estimated filling fractions for a feedback mechanism [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr ` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models, Nature 534, 667–670 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Lienhard, S

    V. Lienhard, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, M. Schuler, L.-P. Henry, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Observing the space- and time-dependent growth of cor- relations in dynamically tuned synthetic ising models with antiferromagnetic interactions, Physical Review X 8, 10.1103/physrevx.8.021070 (2018)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.021070 2018

  5. [5]

    Barredo, V

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Synthetic three-dimensional atomic struc- tures assembled atom by atom, Nature 561, 79 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, E. Oelker, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Seconds-scale coherence on an optical clock transition in a tweezer array, Science 366, 93–97 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    T.-Y. Wu, A. Kumar, F. Giraldo, and D. S. Weiss, Stern–gerlach detection of neutral-atom qubits in a state- dependent optical lattice, Nature Physics 15, 538–542 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, W. R. Milner, D. Kedar, M. A. Norcia, E. Oelker, N. Schine, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Half-minute-scale atomic coherence and high relative stability in a tweezer clock, Nature 588, 408–413 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Beugnon, C

    J. Beugnon, C. Tuchendler, H. Marion, A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, Y. R. P. Sortais, A. M. Lance, M. P. A. Jones, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grang- ier, Two-dimensional transport and transfer of a sin- gle atomic qubit in optical tweezers, Nature Physics 3, 696–699 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451–456 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279–284 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2023

  7. [15]

    T. Wilk, S. C. Webster, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, Single- atom single-photon quantum interface, Science 317, 488 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Ritter, C

    S. Ritter, C. N¨ olleke, C. Hahn, A. Reiserer, A. Neuzner, M. Uphoff, M. M¨ ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, and G. Rempe, An elementary quantum network of single atoms in optical cavities, Nature 484, 195 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    J. P. Covey, H. Weinfurter, and H. Bernien, Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes, npj Quan- tum Information 9, 10.1038/s41534-023-00759-9 (2023)

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Pause, L

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits, Optica 11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    W. Alt, D. Schrader, S. Kuhr, M. M¨ uller, V. Gomer, and D. Meschede, Single atoms in a standing-wave dipole trap, Physical Review A 67, 10.1103/physreva.67.033403 (2003)

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    Gallego, W

    J. Gallego, W. Alt, T. Macha, M. Martinez-Dorantes, D. Pandey, and D. Meschede, Strong purcell effect on a neutral atom trapped in an open fiber cavity, Physi- cal Review Letters 121, 10.1103/physrevlett.121.173603 (2018)

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Stuart and A

    D. Stuart and A. Kuhn, Single-atom trapping and trans- port in DMD-controlled optical tweezers, New Journal of Physics 20, 023013 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Bergamini, B

    S. Bergamini, B. Darqui´ e, M. Jones, L. Jacubowiez, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Holographic generation of microtrap arrays for single atoms by use of a pro- grammable phase modulator, Journal of the Optical So- ciety of America B 21, 1889 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    H. Kim, W. Lee, H.-G. Lee, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, In situ single-atom array synthesis using dynamic holographic optical tweezers, Nature Communications 7, 10.1038/ncomms13317 (2016). 7

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem¨ uller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Optical dipole traps for neutral atoms, in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics(Elsevier, 2000) pp. 95–170

    2000

  17. [25]

    Schlosser, G

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, Collisional blockade in microscopic optical dipole traps, Physical Re- view Letters 89, 10.1103/physrevlett.89.023005 (2002)

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    Whilst this is typically accomplished with acousto- optic beam deflectors [5], atom relocation has also been achieved through the use of dynamic holograms [23, 28]

    or to relocate ancillary atoms to vacant positions [27]. Whilst this is typically accomplished with acousto- optic beam deflectors [5], atom relocation has also been achieved through the use of dynamic holograms [23, 28]. When atoms are transported by means of dynamic holo- gr...

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y. Fung, A. Carpentier, P. Sompet, and M. Andersen, Two-atom collisions and the loading of atoms in micro- traps, Entropy 16, 582 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    J. Vala, A. V. Thapliyal, S. Myrgren, U. Vazirani, D. S. Weiss, and K. B. Whaley, Perfect pattern formation of neutral atoms in an addressable optical lattice, Physical Review A 71, 10.1103/physreva.71.032324 (2005)

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    H. Kim, M. Kim, W. Lee, and J. Ahn, Gerchberg-saxton algorithm for fast and efficient atom rearrangement in optical tweezer traps, Optics Express 27, 2184 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    McGloin, G

    D. McGloin, G. Spalding, H. Melville, W. Sibbett, and K. Dholakia, Applications of spatial light modulators in atom optics, Optics Express 11, 158 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Pasienski and B

    M. Pasienski and B. DeMarco, A high-accuracy algo- rithm for designing arbitrary holographic atom traps, Optics Express 16, 2176 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    E. B. Wilson, Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference, Journal of the American statis- tical association 22, 209 (1927)

    1927

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.