Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Sensitivity Enhancement in Atom-Interferometer Gyroscopes via Phase-Modulation Signal Readout Scheme

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Phase-modulation readout improves atom-interferometer gyroscope sensitivity by a factor of 1.20.

desk verdict A real experimental demonstration of a practical readout upgrade, but the headline sensitivity gain is measured against a phase-sweep baseline that is never shown to be optimal. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23250 v1 pith:UQ3GG52Z submitted 2025-06-29 physics.atom-ph

Sotatsu Otabe , Naoki Kaku , Tomoya Sato , Martin Miranda , Takuya Kawasaki , Mikio Kozuma This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords atominterferometergyroscopephasemodulationmulti-harmonicdemodulationSagnacsensitivityenhancementangularrandomwalkRamanpulses
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 experimentally demonstrates that reading out an atom-interferometer gyroscope with phase-modulated Raman light and multi-harmonic demodulation improves rotation-rate sensitivity compared with the conventional phase-sweep readout. The measured improvement factor of $1.20\pm0.04$ at the dark fringe matches the theoretical prediction of $2J_1(2\beta)$ when the noise floor is dominated by modulation-index-independent sources. Because the scheme is implemented by changing only the drive signal of an optical modulator that is already present in most such interferometers, it can be applied to a broad class of atom interferometers without redesigning optical or vacuum systems. The authors also show that phase-dispersion compensation control removes the nonlinearity that multi-harmonic demodulation would otherwise introduce into the rotation estimate, and they demonstrate linear rotation readout. The result matters for compact inertial navigation systems and large-baseline atomic sensors, where shot-noise-limited performance could gain more than the factor of 1.2 seen here.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the phase-modulation readout of the atomic interference fringe: the Raman-pulse phase is modulated as $\phi_m = 2\beta\sin(\omega_m t) + \omega_s t + \phi_0$, transferring the modulation to the atomic phase, and the photodetected population is demodulated at $\omega_m$ and $2\omega_m$. The Bessel-function expansion, $$P = \tfrac{1}{2}\left[1 - J_0(2\$\beta$)\cos(\Phi_S+\phi_0)\right] + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left[J_{2k-1}(2\$\beta$)\sin(\Phi_S+\phi_0)\sin((2k-1)\omega_m t) - J_{2k}(2\$\beta$)\cos(\Phi_S+\phi_0)\cos(2k\omega_m t)\right],$$ connects the demodulated amplitudes $X_1 = k_1 J_1(2\beta)\sin(\Phi_S+\phi_0)$ and $X_2 = k_2 J_2(2\beta)\cos(\Phi_S+\phi_0)$ to the Sagnac phase. The phase estimate is the arctangent of $X_1/X_2$ times the calibrated factor $k_2 J_2(2\beta)/(k_1 J_1(2\beta))$. Phase-dispersion compensation control, which adjusts the Raman-beam frequencies to counteract velocity dispersion and preserve contrast at high angular rate, is the second load-bearing element because it removes the rotation-rate-dependent nonlinearity that a miscalibrated $k_1/k_2$ would otherwise inject into the angular-velocity estimate.

What would settle it

Measure the angular-velocity-equivalent amplitude spectral density as a function of $\beta$ at the dark fringe with interferometer contrast artificially increased (for example, by velocity selection or using a colder atomic beam), and check whether the noise floor rises with $\beta$; if the shot-noise contribution grows with $\beta$, the optimal modulation index and the improvement factor would shift away from the predicted $2J_1(2\beta)$ curve, indicating that part of the measured gain is a modulation artifact rather than a genuine readout improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that applying a phase modulation with index $\beta$ to the Raman-pulse light of a Mach-Zehnder atom interferometer, and demodulating the fluorescence signal at the first and second harmonics of the modulation frequency, yields a larger effective signal at the dark fringe than the phase-sweep readout for the same noise floor. The interference signal is expanded in Bessel functions, and the Sagnac phase $\Phi_S$ is recovered from the arctangent of the ratio of the demodulated amplitudes $X_1/X_2$ after calibrating the dephasing-factor ratio $k_1/k_2$. The observed angular-velocity-equivalent amplitude spectral density improvement factor of $1.20\pm0.04$ over phase sweep agrees with the theoretical curve $2J_1(2\beta)$ at the optimal $\beta\simeq 0.29\pi$, while the mid-fringe data show a sensitivity loss, as the theory also predicts. The paper further claims that phase-dispersion compensation control, which restores contrast at high rotation rates, removes the nonlinearity that dephasing-factor errors would otherwise put into the estimated angular velocity, preserving a linear rotation readout.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity comparison assumes that the dominant noise sources — photodetector noise, background fluorescence, and shot noise — do not change with the modulation index $\beta$, with any $\beta$-dependence of shot noise negligible because the interferometer contrast is only about 2%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A shot-noise-limited atom interferometer would gain more than the factor 1.20 seen here, with the paper's theoretical upper bound at roughly 1.63.
  • Because the scheme is implemented by changing only the drive signal of the existing optical modulator, it can be retrofitted to current atom-interferometer gyroscopes and other time-domain interferometers without hardware redesign.
  • The calibrated multi-harmonic demodulation, combined with phase-dispersion compensation control, keeps the rotation-rate readout linear, which is a prerequisite for inertial navigation.
  • The phase-modulation readout preserves the zero-offset and drift-resistant features of the phase-sweep readout while operating at a lower noise floor at the dark fringe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the noise floor is truly independent of $\beta$, the same readout could be applied to gravity gradiometers, atom gravimeters, or tests of fundamental physics that use similar Raman-pulse interferometers, as long as a phase drive is available.
  • The theory's Bessel-function dependence suggests that using third or higher harmonics could raise the sensitivity further, but the paper notes that atomic velocity dispersion would likely erase the gain; whether velocity-selected or cold-atom sources change that trade-off remains open.
  • A direct test of the mechanism would be to raise the interferometer contrast (for example, with a colder beam) and check whether the modulation-index dependence of shot noise appears and shifts the optimal $\beta$; the current experiment relies on contrast of only about 2% to make that dependence negligible.
  • The demonstrated linear closed-loop rotation readout implies the scheme is compatible with strapdown inertial sensing, which could accelerate field deployment of atom-interferometer gyroscopes in vehicles or aircraft.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental implementation of a phase-modulation signal readout scheme in a thermal-87Rb atom-interferometer gyroscope. The authors measure the angular-velocity-equivalent amplitude spectral density (ASD) under dark-fringe and midfringe operation, compare the phase-modulation scheme with a conventional phase-sweep readout at 2δ2/2π = 320 Hz, and report a sensitivity improvement factor of 1.20 ± 0.04 at a modulation index near 0.29π. They calibrate the dephasing-factor ratio k1(ωm)/k2(ωm), present a noise budget identifying photodetector, background-fluorescence, and shot noise as the dominant dark-fringe contributions, and demonstrate that phase-dispersion compensation control restores linearity in rotation-rate estimation against a fiber-optic gyroscope reference.

Significance. If the comparison is valid, this is the first experimental demonstration that phase-modulation readout with multi-harmonic demodulation can improve the dark-fringe sensitivity of a thermal-atom gyroscope relative to phase-sweep readout without hardware modifications to the optical or vacuum systems. The noise budget, the explicit standard errors, and the independent FOG-based linearity check are strengths of the manuscript. However, the headline quantitative claim rests on the choice of the phase-sweep baseline and on the assumed modulation-index independence of the dominant noise sources; these points must be supported before the result can be regarded as fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results and Fig. 3(c)] The sensitivity improvement factor of 1.20 ± 0.04 is measured against a single phase-sweep baseline at 2δ2/2π = 320 Hz, but the paper does not report the dephasing factor k_sweep for this baseline, nor does it show a scan over sweep frequencies to verify that this baseline is optimal. Because the same paper reports k1(ωm)/k2(ωm) = 1.420 ± 0.006 and 1.582 ± 0.012 at the modulation frequency, velocity dispersion is evidently not negligible, so the velocity-negligible formula 2J1(2β) ≈ 1.16 cannot be assumed to apply. If k_sweep at 320 Hz is smaller than k1(ωm), part of the observed improvement would represent recovery of velocity-dephasing loss rather than a genuine readout gain. Please provide k_sweep at the chosen frequency and/or sensitivity measurements at several sweep frequencies, for example 40, 80, 160, and 320 Hz, to establish that the phase-sweep reference is at or near its optimum.
  2. [Discussion, sensitivity-ratio formula] The comparison of the measured 1.20 ± 0.04 with the theoretical maximum of about 1.16 is internally inconsistent with the measured dephasing factors. Equation (6) explicitly includes k1(ωm) and k2(ωm), and the fitted ratio k1/k2 ≈ 1.42–1.58 implies that velocity dispersion significantly affects the demodulated signal amplitudes. The paper should derive a corrected sensitivity-ratio prediction that incorporates k1(ωm), k2(ωm), and the phase-sweep dephasing factor, and compare the measured ratio with that corrected prediction. As written, the statement that the observed improvement agrees with theoretical predictions is not quantitatively supported.
  3. [Results, noise budget] The conclusion that the improvement factor is not an artifact of modulation-index-dependent noise rests on the statement that background and photodetector noise are independent of the modulation index and that shot noise is negligible because the interferometer contrast is about 2%. This is plausible but is not backed by a direct measurement of the shot-noise or total-noise dependence on β. Please quantify the shot-noise contribution relative to the total dark-fringe noise and provide either a direct measurement or a quantitative estimate of its β-dependence; otherwise the small 20% improvement factor could be partly explained by a noise variation that is not captured by the current noise budget.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(c) caption] The caption states that the vertical axis is normalized by the signal amplitude obtained using the phase sweep and demodulation at 2δ2/2π = 326 Hz and 320 Hz, respectively, while the text and Fig. 3(c) use 320 Hz throughout; please clarify whether 326 Hz is intentional and how this normalization affects the fitted k1/k2 values.
  2. [Introduction, after Eq. (2)] The symbol keff is used without a formal definition; please define it explicitly as the effective two-photon wave vector at first use rather than only in a parenthetical clause.
  3. [Results, rotation calibration] The fitted pulse separation of (6.923 ± 0.002) × 10^-2 m is not compared with the design value; please state the nominal pulse separation and any systematic uncertainty associated with the calibration fit.
  4. [Introduction, first paragraph] The abbreviation for angular random walk appears as "AR W" with a space; please correct it to "ARW" for consistency with standard notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the measured sensitivity improvement is an external ASD ratio, and the cited theory is independently derivable from the paper's own Eq. (3).

full rationale

The central claim is the measured ratio of two noise floors: the dark-fringe ASD with phase-modulation readout is compared directly with the ASD of the phase-sweep readout at 2δ2/2π=320 Hz, giving 1.20±0.04. This number is not produced by the fitted dephasing factors: k1/k2 is calibrated from the modulation-index dependence of signal amplitudes (Fig. 2(c)) and used only to keep the phase estimate in Eq. (6) linear; it is not adjusted to reproduce the gain and does not enter the theoretical sensitivity ratio 2J1(2β). That ratio, though attributed to ref. [74] by the same group, follows directly from the in-paper expansion Eq. (3): at the dark fringe the first-harmonic amplitude of the phase-modulation signal is J1(2β), whereas the conventional phase-sweep demodulation amplitude is 1/2, yielding a predicted improvement of 2J1(2β) under the stated assumptions of modulation-index-independent noise and negligible velocity dispersion. The self-citation is therefore corroborative, not load-bearing, and the measured 1.20±0.04 is an external falsification test of that prediction. The possible suboptimality of the 320-Hz phase-sweep baseline or the effect of velocity dispersion is a benchmarking/correctness concern, not a case where the prediction is definitionally equal to its input. No equation in the paper defines the improvement factor in terms of the fitted parameters, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard atom-interferometer models and a noise-independence assumption. The only data-fitted parameter entering the phase estimate is the dephasing-factor ratio. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • dephasing factor ratio k1(ωm)/k2(ωm) = 1.420 ± 0.006 (LOI), 1.582 ± 0.012 (ROI)
    Fitted from the modulation-index dependence of demodulated signal amplitudes (Fig. 2(c)); used in Eq. (6) to convert X1/X2 into the Sagnac phase, so it directly calibrates the rotation estimate.
  • optimal modulation index β = ~0.29π rad (dark fringe), 0.3108π rad used in noise budget
    Chosen by hand to maximize measured sensitivity; this is a control setting, not a fit to the improvement factor, but the sensitivity-vs-β curve is used to read off the optimum.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mach-Zehnder atom interferometer output P = (1 - cos Φ)/2 with Φ = ΦS + φm (Eq. 1).
    Standard model for light-pulse atom interferometers; invoked at the start of the rotation measurement section.
  • domain assumption Sagnac phase formula ΦS = 2keff Ω L^2 / v (Eq. 2).
    Standard relation for atom-interferometer gyroscopes; used to convert measured phase to rotation rate.
  • standard math Bessel-function expansion of cos(a + b sin ωt) (Eq. 3).
    Underlies the multi-harmonic demodulation; a mathematical identity.
  • domain assumption Dominant noise sources are independent of the modulation index, and shot-noise β-dependence is negligible at ~2% contrast.
    Used to compare sensitivity across β values and to interpret the improvement factor; if false, the measured gain could be an artifact.
  • domain assumption Phase-dispersion compensation control suppresses rotation-induced dephasing and eliminates phase nonlinearity (citing refs. [70,75]).
    The linear rotation measurement in Fig. 4 depends on this control working as described; the detailed implementation is in the Supplemental Material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity Enhancement in Atom-Interferometer Gyroscopes via Phase-Modulation Signal Readout Scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQ3GG52Z

@misc{pith2026250623250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity Enhancement in Atom-Interferometer Gyroscopes via Phase-Modulation Signal Readout Scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQ3GG52Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23250}
}
abstract

Quantum sensors based on atom interferometers are advancing both fundamental physics and practical applications, with higher sensitivity being a key requirement for these investigations. Here, we experimentally demonstrate a sensitivity enhancement of an atom-interferometer gyroscope using a phase-modulation signal readout scheme. Phase modulation applied to the laser light used for atomic state manipulation is transferred to the atomic phase and read out via multi-harmonic demodulation. The observed sensitivity improvement factor of $1.20\pm0.04$ over the conventional phase sweep scheme agrees with theoretical predictions. We also found that phase-dispersion compensation control, which compensates atomic velocity dispersion and preserves interference contrast at high angular rates, effectively eliminates the nonlinearity inherent in multi-harmonic demodulation. The sensitivity improvement achieved by our method is applicable to a broad class of atom interferometers and requires no modifications to the optical or vacuum systems, making it particularly effective for size-constrained applications such as large-baseline experiments and inertial navigation systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of atomic interferometry based on stim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Experimental setup. Atomic beams were opti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Rotation rate estimation using the phase modu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a),(b) Noise budget of AIG for dark fringe and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [74]

    Kawasaki, S

    T. Kawasaki, S. Otabe, T. Sato, M. Miranda, N. Takei, and M. Kozuma, Phys. Rev. A 111, 013302 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [71]

    L. A. Kraft, S. A. Meek, N. Marliere, A. J. Jozani, and G. W. Biedermann, arXiv:2505.03865

    work page arXiv

  3. [1]

    Riehle, T

    F. Riehle, T. Kisters, A. Witte, J. Helmcke, and C. J. Bord´ e, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 177 (1991)

    1991

  4. [2]

    T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2046 (1997)

    1997

  5. [3]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 181 (1991)

    1991

  6. [4]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, Nature (London) 400, 849 (1999)

    1999

  7. [5]

    M. J. Snadden, J. M. McGuirk, P. Bouyer, K. G. Haritos, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 971 (1998)

    1998

  8. [6]

    J. M. McGuirk, G. T. Foster, J. B. Fixler, M. J. Snadden, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A 65, 033608 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich, Science 315, 74 (2007)

    2007

  2. [8]

    Bouchendira, P

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

    2011

  3. [9]

    G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, Nature (London) 510, 518 (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science 360, 191 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Na- ture (London) 588, 61 (2020)

    2020

  6. [12]

    Buchmueller, J

    O. Buchmueller, J. Ellis, and U. Schneider, Contemp. Phys. 64, 93 (2023)

    2023

  7. [13]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 171102 (2013)

    2013

  8. [14]

    Canuel, A

    B. Canuel, A. Bertoldi, L. Amand, E. Pozzo di Borgo, T. Chantrait, C. Danquigny et al., Sci. Rep. 8, 14064 (2018)

    2018

  9. [15]

    Ellis and V

    J. Ellis and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124013 (2020)

    2020

  10. [16]

    M.-S. Zhan, J. Wang, W.-T. Ni, D.-F. Gao, G. Wang, L.-X. He et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29, 1940005 (2020)

    2020

  11. [17]

    Badurina, D

    L. Badurina, D. Blas, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023006 (2022)

    2022

  12. [18]

    Y. Du, C. Murgui, K. Pardo, Y. Wang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095041 (2022)

    2022

  13. [19]

    Arvanitaki, P

    A. Arvanitaki, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, S. Rajen- dran, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075020 (2018). 6

    2018

  14. [20]

    Badurina et al., J

    L. Badurina et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020 (05), 011

    2020

  15. [21]

    Y. A. El-Neaj et al., Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 7, 6 (2020)

    2020

  16. [22]

    Abe et al., Quantum Sci

    M. Abe et al., Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 044003 (2021)

    2021

  17. [23]

    Badurina, O

    L. Badurina, O. Buchmueller, J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, C. Mc- Cabe, and V. Vaskonen, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 380, 20210060 (2022)

    2022

  18. [24]

    C. F. A. Baynham, R. Hobson, O. Buchmueller, D. Evans, L. Hawkins, L. Iannizzotto-Venezze et al., arXiv:2504.09158

    arXiv

  19. [25]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, J. Curti, M. Kim, and M. A. Kasevich, Science 375, 226 (2022)

    2022

  20. [26]

    S. Fray, C. A. Diez, T. W. H¨ ansch, and M. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 240404 (2004)

    2004

  21. [27]

    Bonnin, N

    A. Bonnin, N. Zahzam, Y. Bidel, and A. Bresson, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043615 (2013)

    2013

  22. [28]

    Schlippert, J

    D. Schlippert, J. Hartwig, H. Albers, L. L. Richardson, C. Schubert, A. Roura, W. P. Schleich, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 203002 (2014)

    2014

  23. [29]

    M. G. Tarallo, T. Mazzoni, N. Poli, D. V. Sutyrin, X. Zhang, and G. M. Tino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 023005 (2014)

    2014

  24. [30]

    L. Zhou, S. Long, B. Tang, X. Chen, F. Gao, W. Peng et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 013004 (2015)

    2015

  25. [31]

    Duan, X.-B

    X.-C. Duan, X.-B. Deng, M.-K. Zhou, K. Zhang, W.-J. Xu, F. Xiong, Y.-Y. Xu, C.-G. Shao, J. Luo, and Z.-K. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 023001 (2016)

    2016

  26. [32]

    G. Rosi, G. D’Amico, L. Cacciapuoti, F. Sorrentino, M. Prevedelli, M. Zych, ˇC. Brukner, and G. M. Tino, Nat. Commun. 8, 15529 (2017)

    2017

  27. [33]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, T. Kovachy, R. Notermans, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 183604 (2018)

    2018

  28. [34]

    Asenbaum, C

    P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, M. Kim, J. Curti, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 191101 (2020)

    2020

  29. [35]

    Barrett, G

    B. Barrett, G. Condon, L. Chichet, L. Antoni-Micollier, R. Arguel, M. Rabault et al., A VS Quantum Sci. 4, 014401 (2022)

    2022

  30. [36]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 111102 (2007)

    2007

  31. [37]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. D 78, 042003 (2008)

    2008

  32. [38]

    Kovachy, P

    T. Kovachy, P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, C. A. Donnelly, S. M. Dickerson, A. Sugarbaker, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature (London) 528, 530 (2015)

    2015

  33. [39]

    Overstreet, J

    C. Overstreet, J. Curti, M. Kim, P. Asenbaum, M. A. Kasevich, and F. Giacomini, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084038 (2023)

    2023

  34. [40]

    Hamilton, M

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

    2015

  35. [41]

    Jaffe, P

    M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, V. Xu, P. Hamilton, A. Upadhye, B. Elder, J. Khoury, and H. M¨ uller, Nat. Phys. 13, 938 (2017)

    2017

  36. [42]

    D. O. Sabulsky, I. Dutta, E. A. Hinds, B. Elder, C. Bur- rage, and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 061102 (2019)

    2019

  37. [43]

    C. D. Panda, M. J. Tao, M. Ceja, J. Khoury, G. M. Tino, and H. M¨ uller, Nature (London)631, 515 (2024)

    2024

  38. [44]

    Bongs, M

    K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. Vovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Con- don, E. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich, and A. Roura, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 731 (2019)

    2019

  39. [45]

    Vovrosh, A

    J. Vovrosh, A. Dragomir, B. Stray, and D. Boddice, Sen- sors 23, 7651 (2023)

    2023

  40. [46]

    Schmidt, A

    M. Schmidt, A. Senger, M. Hauth, C. Freier, V. Schkol- nik, and A. Peters, Gyroscopy Navig. 2, 170 (2011)

    2011

  41. [47]

    Bidel, O

    Y. Bidel, O. Carraz, R. Charri` ere, M. Cadoret, N. Za- hzam, and A. Bresson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 144107 (2013)

    2013

  42. [48]

    M´ enoret, P

    V. M´ enoret, P. Vermeulen, N. Le Moigne, S. Bonvalot, P. Bouyer, A. Landragin, and B. Desruelle, Sci. Rep. 8, 12300 (2018)

    2018

  43. [49]

    Stray, A

    B. Stray, A. Lamb, A. Kaushik, J. Vovrosh, A. Rodgers, J. Winch et al., Nature (London) 602, 590 (2022)

    2022

  44. [50]

    Antoni-Micollier, D

    L. Antoni-Micollier, D. Carbone, V. M´ enoret, J. Lautier- Gaud, T. King, F. Greco, A. Messina, D. Con- trafatto, and B. Desruelle, Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL097814 (2022)

    2022

  45. [51]

    Li, J.-B

    C.-Y. Li, J.-B. Long, M.-Q. Huang, B. Chen, Y.-M. Yang, X. Jiang et al., Phys. Rev. A 108, 032811 (2023)

    2023

  46. [52]

    X. Wu, Z. Pagel, B. S. Malek, T. H. Nguyen, F. Zi, D. S. Scheirer, and H. M¨ uller, Sci. Adv.5, eaax0800 (2019)

    2019

  47. [53]

    Zhang, W.-J

    J.-Y. Zhang, W.-J. Xu, S.-D. Sun, Y.-B. Shu, Q. Luo, Y. Cheng, Z.-K. Hu, and M.-K. Zhou, AIP Adv. 11, 115223 (2021)

    2021

  48. [54]

    H. Wang, K. Wang, Y. Xu, Y. Tang, B. Wu, B. Cheng et al., Sensors 22, 6172 (2022)

    2022

  49. [55]

    Bidel, N

    Y. Bidel, N. Zahzam, C. Blanchard, A. Bonnin, M. Cadoret, A. Bresson, D. Rouxel, and M. F. Lequentrec-Lalancette, Nat. Commun. 9, 627 (2018)

    2018

  50. [56]

    Qiao, Z.-h

    Z.-k. Qiao, Z.-h. Shen, R. Hu, L.-l. Li, P. Yuan, G.-c. Wu, Y. Yuan, Y. Zhou, B. Wu, and Q. Lin, Sci. Rep. 15, 8864 (2025)

    2025

  51. [57]

    Geiger, V

    R. Geiger, V. M´ enoret, G. Stern, N. Zahzam, P. Cheinet, B. Battelier et al., Nat. Commun. 2, 474 (2011)

    2011

  52. [58]

    Barrett, L

    B. Barrett, L. Antoni-Micollier, L. Chichet, B. Battelier, T. L´ ev` eque, A. Landragin, and P. Bouyer, Nat. Commun. 7, 13786 (2016)

    2016

  53. [59]

    Bidel, N

    Y. Bidel, N. Zahzam, A. Bresson, C. Blanchard, M. Cadoret, A. V. Olesen, and R. Forsberg, J. Geodes. 94, 20 (2020)

    2020

  54. [60]

    M. D. Lachmann, H. Ahlers, D. Becker, A. N. Dinkelaker, J. Grosse, O. Hellmig et al., Nat. Commun. 12, 1317 (2021)

    2021

  55. [61]

    J. R. Williams, C. A. Sackett, H. Ahlers, D. C. Aveline, P. Boegel, S. Botsi et al., Nat. Commun. 15, 6414 (2024)

    2024

  56. [62]

    J. Li, X. Chen, D. Zhang, W. Wang, Y. Zhou, M. He et al., Natl. Sci. Rev. 12, nwaf012 (2025)

    2025

  57. [63]

    T. L. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M. A. Kasevich, Classical Quantum Gravity 17, 2385 (2000)

    2000

  58. [64]

    Gautier, M

    R. Gautier, M. Guessoum, L. A. Sidorenkov, Q. Bou- ton, A. Landragin, and R. Geiger, Sci. Adv. 8, eabn8009 (2022)

    2022

  59. [65]

    Canuel, F

    B. Canuel, F. Leduc, D. Holleville, A. Gauguet, J. Fils, A. Virdis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 010402 (2006)

    2006

  60. [66]

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

    2006

  61. [67]

    J. K. Stockton, K. Takase, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 133001 (2011)

    2011

  62. [68]

    Dutta, D

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

    2016

  63. [69]

    Savoie, M

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

    2018

  64. [70]

    T. Sato, N. Nishimura, N. Kaku, S. Otabe, T. Kawasaki, T. Hosoya, and M. Kozuma, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 044001 (2025). 7

    2025

  65. [72]

    V. M. N. Passaro, A. Cuccovillo, L. Vaiani, M. De Carlo, and C. E. Campanella, Sensors 17, 2284 (2017)

    2017

  66. [73]

    El-Sheimy and A

    N. El-Sheimy and A. Youssef, Sat. Nav. 1, 2 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Joyet, G

    A. Joyet, G. Di Domenico, and P. Thomann, Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 61 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    P. R. Berman, Atom interferometry (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1997)

    1997

  69. [77]

    See Supplemental Material for additional information on theory of phase-modulated AIGs, experimental proce- dures, noise estimation methods, and the developed con- trol system

  70. [78]

    Bernauer, J

    F. Bernauer, J. Wassermann, F. Guattari, A. Frenois, A. Bigueur, A. Gaillot, E. de Toldi, D. Ponceau, U. Schreiber, and H. Igel, Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 620 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    Welch, IEEE Trans

    P. Welch, IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 15, 70 (1967)

    1967

  72. [80]

    Gauguet, B

    A. Gauguet, B. Canuel, T. L´ ev` eque, W. Chaibi, and A. Landragin, Phys. Rev. A 80, 063604 (2009)

    2009

  73. [81]

    T. M. Niebauer, R. Schilling, K. Danzmann, A. R¨ udiger, and W. Winkler, Phys. Rev. A 43, 5022 (1991)

    1991

  74. [82]

    M. B. Gray, A. J. Stevenson, H.-A. Bachor, and D. E. McClelland, Opt. Lett. 18, 759 (1993)

    1993

  75. [83]

    Miranda, N

    M. Miranda, N. Takei, Y. Miyazawa, and M. Kozuma, Sensors 23, 4442 (2023)

    2023

  76. [84]

    D´ ecamps, J

    B. D´ ecamps, J. Gillot, J. Vigu´ e, A. Gauguet, and M. B¨ uchner, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 053004 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    D´ ecamps, J

    B. D´ ecamps, J. Gillot, A. Gauguet, J. Vigu´ e, and M. B¨ uchner, Eur. Phys. J. D71, 334 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.