Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Noise budget of a trapped on chip cold atom Rubidium 87 clock

T0 review · 4 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 establishes that the residual frequency noise of an on-chip rubidium-87 Ramsey clock is accounted for by a measured budget of known noises, with single-shot stability between 3.6e-12 and 5e-12.

desk verdict A transparent, useful noise-budget case study for an unshielded on-chip Rb-87 clock, but the agreement claim rests on parameters fitted to the same data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12240 v2 pith:WF42BQVC submitted 2025-01-21 physics.atom-ph

M. Dupont-Nivet , B. Wirtschafter , S. Hello , C. I. Westbrook This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords coldatomclockchipRamseyinterferometrynoisebudgetAllandeviationrubidium-87collisionalfrequencyshiftmagneticfield
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 reports a working cold-atom clock on an atom chip and, more importantly, a complete accounting of why its frequency fluctuates. The central claim is that every known noise source—magnetic field, temperature, atomic collisions, detection, quantum projection, Rabi-pulse parameters, atomic loss, and local-oscillator aliasing (the Dick effect)—has been modelled and measured, and that the sum agrees with the measured Allan deviation. The clock gives 3.6e-12 to 5e-12 relative stability in a single shot, integrates to about 1e-12 after 1000 s, and improves to 1.3–1.4e-12 at one shot after correcting for atom-number and temperature correlations. The authors frame the work not as the best on-chip clock but as the first step toward a noise budget for the atom-chip accelerometers and gyroscopes that share the same trap and Ramsey sequence.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Ramsey interferometer in a dimple magnetic trap created by currents on an atom chip. The transition frequency is written $f=f_0+\delta f_B+\delta f_{col}$, where the magnetic shift is quadratic in the field offset, $\delta f_B=b(B-B_0^m)^2$, and the collisional mean-field shift is $\delta f_{col}=-2\hbar(a_{aa}-a_{bb})/(mN)\int n^2\,dV$. The density correction uses the estimator $n_{\rm est}=(O_{\max}^b+O_{\max}^a)^{3/2}(N_{\rm tot})^{1/2}$ with a linear slope $k$ fitted to measured frequency shifts. The noise budget combines measured magnetic and temperature fluctuations ($\sigma_B=0.791$ mG, $\sigma_T=28.3$ nK) with the Dick-effect sensitivity function $g(t)$, the quantum projection noise formula, and a camera-photon-noise model for detection.

What would settle it

Repeat the Allan-deviation measurement while actively suppressing magnetic-field noise, with all other settings unchanged: if the density-correction slope $k$ shifts or the residual scatter is no longer linear in $n_{\rm est}$, the correction is absorbing magnetic or thermal correlations rather than only collisions. A second independent check is to measure $k$ on two long datasets of the same run; the paper already reports a 20% difference, so an experiment that explains that difference would settle whether the correction is unbiased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Operating between the two magnetically trappable rubidium-87 states $|F=1, m_F=-1\rangle$ and $|F=2, m_F=1\rangle$ near the 3.229 G magic field, with two-photon microwave/RF $\pi/2$ pulses and a Ramsey time of 603 ms, the clock reaches a single-shot relative stability of 3.6–5e-12. The claim is that this stability is quantitatively understood: the measured noise budget totals 5.1e-12 at one shot, or 3.8e-12 when the density correction is included in the magnetic and thermal estimates, matching the measured values. The dominant contribution is magnetic-field noise (4.69e-12, from unshielded current supplies), followed by the density-correction noise (1.13e-12), thermal noise (1.28e-12, or 0.45e-12 after density correction), the Dick effect (0.72e-12), technical detection (0.56e-12), and quantum projection noise (0.50e-12). Applying an empirical third-order polynomial correction in the measured atom number and temperature reduces the single-shot stability to 1.3–1.4e-12, and the authors argue that better supplies, a longer Ramsey time, and lower detection noise could bring it to a few times 1e-13.

Load-bearing premise

The density-correction protocol assumes that the image-derived quantity $n_{\rm est}$ stays proportional to the collisional mean-field density across runs and that the single fitted slope $k$ removes only the collisional shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the budget is correct, the single highest-leverage improvement is to cut magnetic-field noise: the measured 0.791 mG field noise contributes 4.7e-12 at one shot.
  • With the empirical $N_{tot}$-and-$T$ correction, one-shot stability falls to 1.3–1.4e-12, and the cross-calibrated version reaches 1.8–1.9e-12.
  • Extending the Ramsey time to 6 s, lengthening the trap lifetime, and reducing the cycle time to 7.3 s would bring the projected total noise to about 3.2e-13, dominated by the density-correction term.
  • Because the same trap and Ramsey sequence underlie the atom-chip accelerometer and gyroscope configurations, the clock noise budget sets the floor for those inertial sensors as well.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported 20% run-to-run variation in the density-correction slope $k$ implies that the density estimator tracks something beyond the true collisional shift, so a physical model of that correlation would tighten the accuracy budget.
  • A testable consequence of the budget is that a version of this clock with magnetic shielding and quieter current sources should have its one-shot stability set by the sum of density-correction, detection, and quantum projection noises, around the low 1e-12 range.
  • The cross-calibration stability (1.8–1.9e-12) is the safer estimate of what the empirical correction achieves, since it leaves no freedom to fit the noise being corrected.
  • The budget's separation into atomic, local-oscillator, and technical terms can be transferred to other atom-chip clock geometries or species once the density estimator is recalibrated for each trap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 reports a compact cold-atom rubidium-87 clock on an atom chip, based on a Ramsey interferometer with ~600 ms interrogation in a magnetic trap, operated without magnetic shielding and under large laboratory temperature drift. The authors measure single-shot stabilities of 3.6e-12 and 5.0e-12 on two datasets, construct a noise budget from magnetic-field and temperature instabilities, quantum projection noise, detection noise, Rabi-pulse noise, density-correction noise, atomic-loss noise, and the Dick effect, and show that the total budget is close to the measured Allan deviation. They further apply a polynomial correction in atom number and temperature that reduces the one-shot stability to 1.3-1.4e-12, with a cross-dataset degradation to 1.8-1.9e-12, and discuss routes toward a few times 1e-13 stability.

Significance. A detailed, self-contained noise budget for an on-chip cold-atom clock is of genuine value to the atom-chip metrology community, particularly because the paper goes beyond the usual headline stability number and documents the experimental sources of noise, including the image-denoising protocol based on reference-image eigenfaces and the density-correction procedure. The manuscript is also useful as a reference for the expected noise contributions in chip-based accelerometers and gyroscopes that share the same clock architecture. The paper's strengths include a relatively complete derivation of the magnetic-field and temperature sensitivity, a transparent account of the detection noise, and an explicit cross-dataset check for the higher-order correction in Fig. 8(b). However, the central claim that the noise budget accounts for the measured stability is weakened by in-sample fitting of the key parameters sigma_B, sigma_T, and the density-correction slope k, and by the paper's own disclosure that k varies by 20% between datasets.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.E, Eq. (11), Table I] The density correction is the load-bearing element of the reported stability: applying Eq. (11) with a slope k fitted to the same data reduces the fluctuations seen in Fig. 5(b) to Fig. 5(c). Section II.E discloses that k differs by 20% between the two datasets of Fig. 3(d), and states that this implies 'other experimental correlations between the density n and the frequency displacement δf than the collisional frequency shift', with a possible systematic effect of about 5e-12. Yet the noise-budget entry 'Density correction' in Table I is computed from Eq. (45) using δk = 1.8% of k, which is the intra-dataset fit uncertainty, not the inter-dataset reproducibility. The paper therefore omits from the budget the largest known uncertainty in the correction that produces the headline 3.6-5.0e-12 stability. The authors should either propagate the 20% k variation into σ_DensCorr and into the total budget, or justify why the 1.8% value is the appropriate uncertainty for the correction.
  2. [III.D and IV.A, Eq. (28), Eq. (30)-(31), Table I] The magnetic-field instability σ_B = 0.791 ± 0.055 mG and temperature instability σ_T = 28.3 ± 1.2 nK are obtained by fitting Eq. (28) to the measured Allan deviations of Fig. 6(a). These same fitted values are then used in Section IV.A to predict the magnetic and thermal contributions to the noise budget, and in the third column of Table I they are refit to the same data while applying the density correction. This is an in-sample fit, so the 'agreement' between the budget total and the measured Allan deviation is partly built into the parameters rather than being an independent test of the model. To support the claim that the noise budget explains the measured stability, the authors should provide an out-of-sample check: for example, use the σ_B and σ_T values obtained from one dataset or from an independent measurement (e.g., magnetometer or current-noise calibration) to predict the Allan deviation of the other dataset, or report the covariance and fitting residuals explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 3(d), Fig. 6, Fig. 8] The Allan deviation data are shown without error bars or confidence intervals. With only two datasets, and with the measured one-shot values (3.6e-12 and 5.0e-12) differing by 40% while the budget total is 5.1e-12 (uncorrected) or 3.8e-12 (corrected), the reader cannot judge whether the discrepancies are statistically significant. The paper should provide uncertainty estimates on the Allan-deviation points, for example using the effective number of independent samples or bootstrap/overlapping-sample confidence intervals, at least for the first few points that carry the headline stability claim.
  4. [V.A, Eq. (55), Fig. 8] The cross-dataset check for the polynomial correction in Fig. 8(b) is commendable, but it shows a degradation from 1.3-1.4e-12 to 1.8-1.9e-12 when the 10 fitted coefficients are transferred between datasets, indicating that a substantial part of the improvement is dataset-specific. The analogous cross-validation is not shown for the linear density correction k that produces the main result of Section II.E. Since the paper's conclusion emphasizes both the 3.6-5.0e-12 budget agreement and the 1.4e-12 corrected stability, the authors should apply the same transfer test to the linear k correction, or at least state whether the 20% k variation between datasets already provides that test and how it affects the interpretation of Fig. 3(d).
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.E, Eq. (6)] The density estimator n_est is defined up to a proportionality factor, but the text does not discuss how sensitive the correction is to the assumed scaling n ∝ (O_max)^(3/2) sqrt(N_tot); a brief justification or reference for this functional form would improve readability.
  2. [Table I] The table header 'Sumary' should be 'Summary'.
  3. [II.D.1] The phrase 'lead to two biaises' should be 'lead to two biases'.
  4. [V.B.g] The sentence 'It remains to improve σ_DensCorr which is link to the improvement...' contains a typo ('link' should be 'linked') and should be reworded.
  5. [III.D.d] The text says 'the first point of the Allan deviation as a function of the magnetic field is shown in figure 6.a', but the units and the fitted curve in Fig. 6(a) are not clearly defined in the caption; adding a caption note that the y-axis is σ_y(τ0) and that the line is the fit to Eq. (28) would help.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The noise-budget 'agreement' is largely an in-sample fit: σ_B and σ_T are fitted to the very Allan-vs-field data they are said to explain, and the density-correction slope k is fitted to the same data it corrects, varying 20% between datasets while budgeted at 1.8%. Out-of-sample checks exist only for the polynomial correction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.D (fit of Eq. 28), Section IV.A (Eqs. 30-31), Section IV.H / Table I]
    "The data is adjusted with equation (28) to find the value of σ_B = 0.791±0.055 mG and σT = 28.3±1.2 nK ... If we fit the value of σ_T and σ_B to the same data as in figure 6.a while using the density correction while computing the Allan deviations, we find σ_T = 10.0±1.8 nK and σ_B = 0.579±0.081 mG. These values lead to the noise levels given in the third column of the table I: 3.8·10−12 at one shot in better agreement with the measured values."

    The two dominant noise-budget entries (magnetic 46.9e-13 and thermal 12.8e-13; 34.3e-13 and 4.5e-13 in the preferred column of Table I) are not independent measurements: σ_B and σ_T are free parameters of Eq. (28) fitted to the σ_y(B0) Allan-deviation curve of Fig. 6(a), and the budget total is then compared with that same data. The third column is produced by re-fitting σ_T and σ_B to the same figure-6 data and reporting the resulting total as 'in better agreement with the measured values', so passing near the fit target is guaranteed by the fit rather than by the model. Partial independent support exists (the trap-lifetime estimate gives 0.90 mG versus the fitted 0.791 mG), so the agreement is partially, not wholly, by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section II.E (Eq. 11), Section IV.E (Eq. 45), Section IV.H / Table I, Section V.A / Fig. 8]
    "δfcor = δf−kn est (11) where k is the fitted slope of the data in figure 5.a ... The values of k found for the two previous datasets of figure 3.d differ by 20 %, ... This could lead to a shift on the correction of the frequency on the order of 20 %×k×< n est > /fmean ≈5·10−12 which needs to be taken into account in the accuracy budget ... δk is estimated to 1.8% of k."

    The headline stabilities (3.6-5.0e-12, Fig. 3(d)) are Allan deviations of δf_cor = δf − k·n_est, i.e., residuals of a regression of δf on n_est with k fitted to the same data (Fig. 5(a)). In-sample fitting removes any component of δf correlated with n_est, including temperature or magnetic correlations, so part of the reported variance reduction is a statistical artifact. The paper itself discloses that k differs by 20% between the two datasets (implying other correlations and a ~5e-12 systematic that 'needs to be taken into account in the accuracy budget'), yet Eq. (45) and Table I use only the intra-dataset fit error δk = 1.8% of k. The out-of-sample check is performed only for the higher-order correction (Fig.

full rationale

Assessment: partial circularity, score 6. The central claim — that the measured single-shot stability is reproduced by the noise budget and that the known noises agree with the measured Allan deviation — rests partly on parameters fitted to the same data the budget is said to explain. Two circular steps were identified. First (fitted-input-called-prediction): the two largest budget entries, magnetic noise (46.9e-13, later 34.3e-13) and thermal noise (12.8e-13, later 4.5e-13), come from σ_B and σ_T that are free parameters of Eq. (28) fitted to the measured Allan deviation as a function of the magnetic field (Fig. 6(a)). Section IV.H then re-fits the same parameters to the same figure-6 data with the density correction applied and reports the resulting 3.8e-12 total as 'in better agreement with the measured values'; matching the fit target is guaranteed by the fit, not by the model. This is mitigated by the trap-lifetime cross-check giving 0.90 mG versus the fitted 0.791 mG for σ_B, and by the independently measured QPN, Dick-effect, and detection-noise terms. Second (fitted-input-called-prediction): the headline 3.6-5.0e-12 stability is the Allan deviation of δf − k·n_est with k fitted in-sample to the same δf data. Any noise correlated with n_est is partially absorbed into k, so part of the variance reduction is a fitting artifact. The paper itself discloses that k differs by 20% between the two datasets, implying a ~5e-12 systematic that, by its own text, must be taken into account in the accuracy budget; nevertheless Eq. (45) and Table I use only δk = 1.8% of k. The out-of-sample check is shown only for the higher-order correction (Fig. 8(b), where transfer degrades stability from 1.3-1.4e-12 to 1.8-1.9e-12), not for the linear k behind the headline numbers. Self-citations ([20], [21], [27], [34], [39]) concern sensor implementation, STIRAP, and trap loading; they are not load-bearing for the noise-budget claim, so no self-citation-chain circularity is present. The paper's transparency about the 20% k variation does not remove the circularity: the disclosed instability is precisely the evidence that the correction is dataset-specific and that the budget understates the correction uncertainty. The remaining budget terms (QPN, Dick, detection, Rabi, losses) are independent of the fitted values, which keeps the paper from being entirely circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on several fitted parameters (sigma_B, sigma_T, k, polynomial coefficients) and on modeling assumptions about the density distribution, noise independence, and the origin of trap lifetime. The independent current-noise estimate and the cross-validation of the polynomial correction provide partial external grounding.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_B (magnetic field instability) = 0.791 +/- 0.055 mG without density correction; 0.579 +/- 0.081 mG with correction
    Fitted from Eq. (28) to the measured first-point Allan deviation versus magnetic field in Fig. 6(a). Used in the noise budget and in the predicted contributions of Table I.
  • sigma_T (temperature instability) = 28.3 +/- 1.2 nK without density correction; 10.0 +/- 1.8 nK with correction
    Fitted together with sigma_B from the same Eq. (28) fit. Used in the noise budget and in Table I.
  • k (density correction slope) = -17 Hz/a.u.
    Linear fit of measured frequency displacement versus estimated density in Fig. 5(a); applied as delta f_cor = delta f - k n_est in Eq. (11). The paper reports a 20% variation between datasets.
  • polynomial coefficients a_j,k in Eq. (55) = not listed
    Ten coefficients of a third-order polynomial in N_tot and T fitted to the same data to produce the corrected Allan deviations in Fig. 8.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Density distribution of the thermal cloud is Gaussian in the harmonic trap (Eq. 9)
    Used to derive the mean-field collisional shift and the density correction. Assumes thermal equilibrium and a harmonic trap.
  • domain assumption The estimated density n_est from Eq. (6) is proportional to the actual atomic density entering the collisional shift
    Central to the density correction; if the proxy is biased by detection artifacts or temperature effects, the correction removes or adds spurious signal.
  • domain assumption Noise sources are independent and add in quadrature as in Table I
    Used to sum noise contributions; the paper later discusses correlations between magnetic and temperature fluctuations that break this assumption.
  • domain assumption The trap lifetime is limited by white current noise in the chip wires (Eq. 29)
    Used to derive an independent estimate of current noise and magnetic-field noise; relies on a model from reference [69].
  • domain assumption The local oscillator noise is fully described by Eq. (53) and the Dick effect sensitivity function g(t) of Eq. (52)
    Used to compute the Dick effect contribution; assumes the sensitivity function and that the oscillator noise is stationary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise budget of a trapped on chip cold atom Rubidium 87 clock." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WF42BQVC

@misc{pith2026250112240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise budget of a trapped on chip cold atom Rubidium 87 clock},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WF42BQVC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12240}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present a realisation of an on chip atomic clock using a cold cloud of Rubidium 87 atoms. This clock is based on a Ramsey interferometer with a Ramsey time around 600 ms. This is realized with large lab temperature drift during the measurement (few degrees per day) and without magnetic field shielding. We review the experimental implementation of this clock and give a full study of the known noises present in this atomic clock.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) (a) Layout of the atom chip wires [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. c shows the population in state |b⟩ after the interferometry sequence for long interrogation times and for the same excitation frequency as in figure 3.b. The fitting function reads (before starting the interferometer, atoms are prepared in state |b⟩): P|b⟩ = 1 2 {1 − cos [(ω − ω0) TR]} . (4) Although the fringes oscillate at δ21 due to our choice of ωMW and ωRF , the light shift itself does not add noise to the clo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Main experimental steps leading to the Allan deviation (d) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Measurement of the drift of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Correlation between the frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: figure 3.d differ by 20 %, The variation of the value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Allan deviations recorded in the traps of figure 9 using the Ramsey times computed from the data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: figure 6.a while using the density correction while com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Correlations between the frequency displacement, the atom number and the temperature used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) (a) Allan deviation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) Calibration of the magnetic field at the bottom of the trap for several traps. (a) Magnetic field at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Determination of the Rabi oscillations parameters - frequency of the two photon field and pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Ramsey fringes recorded in the traps of figure 9 with the Rabi pulse parameters found in figure 10. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Dupont-Nivet, C

    M. Dupont-Nivet, C. I. Westbrook, and S. Schwartz, New J. Phys.18, 113012 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    Choosing the Rabi pulse parameters The clock interrogation takes place in a dimple mag- netic trap with the following parameters (see figure 1 for the notational definitions):I 0 = 278 mA,I 1 = 102 mA, A0 ≈4.5 G andA 1 ≈5.3 G. This results in a trap with aB 0 ≈3.160±0.005 G magnetic field at the bottom of the trap which is slightly shifted from the magic ...

  3. [2]

    Recording Ramsey fringes Figure 3.c shows the population in state|b⟩after the interferometry sequence for long interrogation times and for the same excitation frequency as in figure 3.b. The fitting function reads (before starting the interferometer, atoms are prepared in state|b⟩): P|b⟩ = 1 2 {1−cos [(ω−ω 0)T R]}.(4) Although the fringes oscillate atδ 21...

    2016

  4. [3]

    Error bars on the frequency are dominated by the error on the determi- nation of the frequencyf M W+f RF that minimizes the frequency of the Rabi oscillations (see section II D)

    Clock frequency as a function of the magnetic field and atom density Using the Ramsey fringes recorded with the previously described protocol, and as shown in appendix figures 11.b to 11.h for several values of the magnetic field at the bot- tom of the trap, we computed the clock frequency as a function of this magnetic field in figure 4. Error bars on th...

  5. [4]

    Pelle, A

    B. Pelle, A. Hilico, G. Tackmann, Q. Beaufils, and F. Pereira dos Santos, Phys. Rev. A87, 023601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Abgrall, B

    M. Abgrall, B. Chupin, L. D. Sarlo, J. Gu´ ena, P. Lau- rent, Y. L. Coq, R. L. Targat, J. Lodewyck, M. Lours, P. Rosenbusch, G. D. Rovera, and S. Bize, C. R. Phys. 16, 461 (2015)

    2015

  7. [6]

    Koller, J

    S. Koller, J. Grotti, A. Al-Masoudi, S. D¨ orscher, S. H¨ afner, U. Sterr, C. Lisdat,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 073601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, and J. Ye, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    Hu, B.-L

    Z.-K. Hu, B.-L. Sun, X.-C. Duan, M.-K. Zhou, L.-L. Chen, S. Zhan, Q.-Z. Zhang, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. A88, 043610 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    Alauze, A

    X. Alauze, A. Bonnin, C. Solaro, and F. P. Dos Santos, New J. Phys.20, 083014 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    V. Xu, M. Jaffe, C. D. Panda, S. L. Kristensen, L. W. Clark, and H. M¨ uller, Science366, 745 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    Gillot, O

    P. Gillot, O. Francis, A. Landragin, F. P. Dos Santos, and S. Merlet, Metrologia51, L15 (2014)

    2014

  5. [12]

    Dutta, D

    I. Dutta, D. Savoie, B. Fang, B. Venon, C. L. G. Alzar, R. Geiger, and A. Landragin, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 183003 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Dickerson, J

    S. Dickerson, J. Hogan, A. Sugarbaker, D. Johnson, and M. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 083001 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    Y.-J. Chen, A. Hansen, G. W. Hoth, E. Ivanov, B. Pelle, J. Kitching, and E. A. Donley, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 014019 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    Perrin, J

    I. Perrin, J. Bernard, Y. Bidel, A. Bonnin, N. Zahzam, C. Blanchard, A. Bresson, and M. Cadoret, Phys. Rev. A100, 053618 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Reichel and V

    J. Reichel and V. Vuletic,Atom Chips(John Wiley & Sons, 2010)

    2010

  10. [17]

    Canuel, F

    B. Canuel, F. Leduc, D. Holleville, A. Gauguet, J. Fils, A. Virdis, A. Clairon, N. Dimarcq, C. J. Bord´ e, A. Lan- dragin, and P. Bouyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 010402 (2006)

    2006

  11. [18]

    D. S. Durfee, Y. K. Shaham, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 240801 (2006)

    2006

  12. [19]

    Savoie, M

    D. Savoie, M. Altorio, B. Fang, L. Sidorenkov, R. Geiger, and A. Landragin, Sci. Adv.4, eaau7948 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Ammar, M

    M. Ammar, M. Dupont-Nivet, L. Huet, J.-P. Pocholle, P. Rosenbusch, I. Bouchoule, C. I. Westbrook, J. Est` eve, J. Reichel, C. Guerlin, and S. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. A 91, 053623 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Reichel, W

    J. Reichel, W. H¨ ansel, and T. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3398 (1999)

    1999

  15. [22]

    Reichel, Appl

    J. Reichel, Appl. Phys. B74, 469 (2002)

    2002

  16. [23]

    B¨ ohi, M

    P. B¨ ohi, M. Riedel, J. Hoffrogge, J. Reichel, T. Hansch, and P. Treutlein, Nat. Phys.5, 592 (2009)

    2009

  17. [24]

    Treutlein, P

    P. Treutlein, P. Hommelhoff, T. Steinmetz, T. W. H¨ ansch, and J. Reichel, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 203005 (2004). 15 FIG. 9. (Color online) Calibration of the magnetic field at the bottom of the trap for several traps. (a) Magnetic field at the bottom of the trapB 0 [G] as a funct...

    2004

  18. [26]

    C. L. G. Alzar, W. Yan, and A. Landragin, inResearch in Optical Sciences(Optical Society of America, 2012) p. JT2A.10

    2012

  19. [27]

    Horne and C

    R. Horne and C. Sackett, Rev. Sci. Instrum.88, 013102 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Navez, S

    P. Navez, S. Pandey, H. Mas, K. Poulios, T. Fernholz, and W. von Klitzing, New J. Phys.18, 075014 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Szmuk, V

    R. Szmuk, V. Dugrain, W. Maineult, J. Reichel, and P. Rosenbusch, Phys. Rev. A92, 012106 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Wirtschafter,Interferom` etre ` a atomes froids pi´ eg´ es sur puce avec s´ eparation spatiale, Ph.D

    B. Wirtschafter,Interferom` etre ` a atomes froids pi´ eg´ es sur puce avec s´ eparation spatiale, Ph.D. thesis, Univer- sit´ e Paris Saclay (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    US10375813B2: On- chip trapped ultracold atom sensor allowing rotational velocity to be measured,

    M. Dupont-Nivet and S. Schwartz, “US10375813B2: On- chip trapped ultracold atom sensor allowing rotational velocity to be measured,” (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    L. Huet, M. Ammar, E. Morvan, N. Sarazin, J.-P. Pocholle, J. Reichel, C. Guerlin, and S. Schwartz, Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 121114 (2012). 16 FIG. 11. (Color online) Ramsey fringes recorded in the traps of figure 9 with the Rabi pulse parameters found in figure 10. (a) Frequency ...

    2012

  25. [33]

    Pandey, H

    S. Pandey, H. Mas, G. Drougakis, P. Thekkeppatt, V. Bolpasi, G. Vasilakis, K. Poulios, and W. von Kl- itzing, Nature570, 205 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    D. M. Harber, H. J. Lewandowski, J. M. McGuirk, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. A66, 053616 (2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    Deutsch, F

    C. Deutsch, F. Ramirez-Martinez, C. Lacroˆ ute, F. Rein- hard, T. Schneider, J. N. Fuchs, F. Pi´ echon, F. Lalo¨ e, J. Reichel, and P. Rosenbusch, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 020401 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    M. B. Squires,High repetition rate Bose-Einstein con- densate production in a compact, transportable vacuum system, Ph.D. thesis (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Huet,Gravim´ etrie atomique sur puce et applications embarqu´ ees, Ph.D

    L. Huet,Gravim´ etrie atomique sur puce et applications embarqu´ ees, Ph.D. thesis, Universit´ e Paris-Est (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Dupont-Nivet,Vers un acc´ el´ erom´ etre atomique sur puce, Ph.D

    M. Dupont-Nivet,Vers un acc´ el´ erom´ etre atomique sur puce, Ph.D. thesis, Universit´ e Paris Saclay (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Farkas, K

    D. Farkas, K. Hudek, E. Salim, S. Segal, M. Squires, and D. Anderson, Appl. Phys. Lett.96, 093102 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Dieckmann, R

    K. Dieckmann, R. J. C. Spreeuw, M. Weidem¨ uller, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. A58, 3891 (1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

    Schoser, A

    J. Schoser, A. Bat¨ ar, R. L¨ ow, V. Schweikhard, A. Grabowski, Y. B. Ovchinnikov, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. A66, 023410 (2002)

    2002

  35. [43]

    Dupont-Nivet, M

    M. Dupont-Nivet, M. Casiulis, T. Laudat, C. I. West- brook, and S. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. A91, 053420 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    M. A. Turk and A. P. Pentland, inProceedings. 1991 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition(IEEE Computer Society, 1991) pp. 586–587

    1991

  37. [45]

    Ketterle, D

    W. Ketterle, D. Durfee, and D. Stamper-Kurn, arXiv preprint arXiv:cond-mat/99040345(1999)

    1999 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lewandowski, D

    H. Lewandowski, D. Harber, D. Whitaker, and E. Cor- nell, J. Low Temp. Phys.132, 309 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Turk and A

    M. Turk and A. Pentland, J. Cognit. Neurosci.3, 71 (1991)

    1991

  40. [48]

    Deutsch,Trapped atom clock on a chip: identical spin rotation effects in an ultracold trapped atomic clock, Ph.D

    C. Deutsch,Trapped atom clock on a chip: identical spin rotation effects in an ultracold trapped atomic clock, Ph.D. thesis, Paris 6 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Pissarenko, Eigenface-based facial recognition (2002)

    D. Pissarenko, Eigenface-based facial recognition (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    Sirovich and M

    L. Sirovich and M. Kirby, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A4, 519 (1987)

    1987

  43. [51]

    X. Li, M. Ke, B. Yan, and Y. Wang, Chinese Optics Letters5, 128 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Rosenbusch, Appl

    P. Rosenbusch, Appl. Phys. B95, 227 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    C. F. Ockeloen, A. F. Tauschinsky, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and S. Whitlock, Phys. Rev. A82, 061606 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    atom number

    agree. As atoms progressively leave the trap, the density decreases as does the collisional frequency shift, this leads to a change of the frequency of the Ramsey fringes with the Ramsey time. In figure 4, we display the changes of the clock frequency with the Ramsey time. As ...

  47. [55]

    Probing fluctuations in a lattice of meso- scopic atomic ensembles,

    C. F. Ockeloen, “Probing fluctuations in a lattice of meso- scopic atomic ensembles,” (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Ockeloen,Quantum Metrology with a Scanning Probe Atom Interferometer, Ph.D

    C. Ockeloen,Quantum Metrology with a Scanning Probe Atom Interferometer, Ph.D. thesis, University of Basel (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    T. R. Gentile, B. J. Hughey, D. Kleppner, and T. W. Ducas, Phys. Rev. A40, 5103 (1989)

    1989

  50. [58]

    D. A. Steck, Source–http://steck.us/alkalidata (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    Santarelli, P

    G. Santarelli, P. Laurent, P. Lemonde, A. Clairon, A. G. Mann, S. Chang, A. N. Luiten, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4619 (1999)

    1999

  52. [60]

    J. E. Lye, C. S. Fletcher, U. Kallmann, H.-A. Bachor, and J. D. Close, J. Opt. B-Quantum S. O.4, 57 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    L. S. Cutler, Metrologia42, S90 (2005)

    2005

  54. [62]

    Laurent, F

    P. Laurent, F. Esnaut, K. Gibble, P. Peterman, T. L´ ev` eque, C. Delaroche, O. Grosjean, I. Moric, M. Ab- grall, D. Massonnet,et al., Metrologia57, 055005 (2020). 17

    2020

  55. [63]

    Ovchinnikov and G

    Y. Ovchinnikov and G. Marra, Metrologia48, 87 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Wynands and S

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

    2005

  57. [65]

    S. A. Diddams, J. C. Bergquist, S. R. Jefferts, and C. W. Oates, Science306, 1318 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    S. Bize, P. Laurent, M. Abgrall, H. Marion, I. Mak- simovic, L. Cacciapuoti, J. Gr¨ unert, C. Vian, F. P. Dos Santos, P. Rosenbusch,et al., C. R. Phys.5, 829 (2004)

    2004

  59. [67]

    Gu´ ena, M

    J. Gu´ ena, M. Abgrall, D. Rovera, P. Laurent, B. Chupin, M. Lours, G. Santarelli, P. Rosenbusch, M. E. Tobar, R. Li,et al., IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroellectr. Freq. Control59, 391 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Clairon, P

    A. Clairon, P. Laurent, G. Santarelli, S. Ghezali, S. Lea, and M. Bahoura, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.44, 128 (1995)

    1995

  61. [69]

    Walraven, Les Houches lectures, unpublished (2010)

    J. Walraven, Les Houches lectures, unpublished (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    Egorov, B

    M. Egorov, B. Opanchuk, P. Drummond, B. V. Hall, P. Hannaford, and A. I. Sidorov, Phys. Rev. A87, 053614 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    W. J. Riley,Handbook of frequency stability analysis(US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD, 2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    Although the data is a few years old at the time of this publication, it was chosen because it is the most compre- hensive and complete data set we have for noise analy- sis, and other data collected is consistent with this noise analysis

  65. [73]

    Henkel, P

    C. Henkel, P. Kr¨ uger, R. Folman, and J. Schmiedmayer, Appl. Phys. B76, 173 (2003)

    2003

  66. [74]

    W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, J. M. Gilli- gan, D. J. Heinzen, F. L. Moore, M. G. Raizen, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A47, 3554 (1993)

    1993

  67. [75]

    The measurement ofδN a andδN b without loading atoms on the chip allows us to measure the technical detection noise without the contribution of the quantum projection noise from the atoms

  68. [76]

    We considered thatδτ p/τp is negligeable in our experi- ment

  69. [77]

    Szmuk,Atom chips for metrology, Ph.D

    R. Szmuk,Atom chips for metrology, Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris VI (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    G. J. Dick, inProceedings of the 19th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval Systems and Applications Meet- ing(1989) pp. 133–147

    1989

  71. [79]

    Santarelli, C

    G. Santarelli, C. Audoin, A. Makdissi, P. Laurent, G. J. Dick, and A. Clairon, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroel- lectr. Freq. Control45, 887 (1998)

    1998

  72. [80]

    Our local oscillator is a GNSS disciplined quartz. We know that around 1 s the relative frequency stability of the quartz is about 2.5·10 −13, which is below the value given in equation (53), and that the time constant of the lock on GNSS is around 10 4 s

  73. [81]

    Deutsch, F

    C. Deutsch, F. Ramirez-Martinez, C. Lacroˆ ute, W. Maineult, F. Reinhard, T. Schneider, J.-N. Fuchs, F. Pi´ echon, F. Lalo¨ e, J. Reichel, and P. Rosenbusch, Revue fran¸ caise de m´ etrologie2012–1, 3 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Rudolph, W

    J. Rudolph, W. Herr, C. Grzeschik, T. Sternke, A. Grote, M. Popp, D. Becker, H. M¨ untinga, H. Ahlers, A. Peters, et al., New J. Phys.17, 065001 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    Maussang,Etats comprim´ es atomiques sur puce ` a atomes, Ph.D

    K. Maussang,Etats comprim´ es atomiques sur puce ` a atomes, Ph.D. thesis, Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie- Paris VI (2010)

    2010

  76. [84]

    Johnston and J

    J. Johnston and J. Dinardo,Econometric Methods (McGraw-Hill)

  77. [85]

    Treutlein,Coherent manipulation of ultracold atoms on atom chips, Ph.D

    P. Treutlein,Coherent manipulation of ultracold atoms on atom chips, Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig Maximilians Uni- versit¨ at M¨ unchen (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

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