pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.23183 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-31 · ⚛️ physics.optics · physics.app-ph· physics.ins-det

Fundamental Limitations of Absolute Ranging via Deep Frequency Modulation Interferometry

Miguel Dovale-\'Alvarez This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 03:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics physics.app-phphysics.ins-det
keywords deep frequency modulation interferometryabsolute rangingFisher informationprecision limitserror budgetvalleys of robustnessoptical metrologysystematic bias suppression
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deep frequency modulation interferometry for absolute ranging has fundamental precision limits from Fisher analysis and specific operating points that suppress hardware errors by orders of magnitude.

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

This paper develops a framework to quantify the precision limits and accuracy constraints of deep frequency modulation interferometry for absolute distance measurements. It applies a Fisher-information analysis to establish the intrinsic estimator precision for the modulation depth and interferometric phase parameters. The analysis also incorporates random errors arising from carrier frequency drift over time. Numerical simulations uncover a structured error landscape containing valleys of robustness, and an analytical model based on signal orthogonality explains why systematic biases from common hardware imperfections drop sharply at those points. The combined results produce a consolidated error budget that serves as a design guide for absolute length metrology.

Core claim

Deep frequency modulation interferometry resolves phase ambiguity in absolute distance measurements by jointly estimating the coarse modulation depth m and the fine but ambiguous interferometric phase φ. A Fisher-information analysis defines the intrinsic estimator precision for m and φ, while carrier frequency drift adds a time-dependent random error. Numerical simulations reveal a structured error landscape containing previously unrecognized valleys of robustness where systematic biases from common hardware imperfections are suppressed by orders of magnitude. An analytical model based on signal orthogonality explains the origin of these valleys and predicts their locations, yielding a full

What carries the argument

Fisher-information analysis for the joint estimation of modulation depth m and phase φ, together with the signal-orthogonality condition that locates the valleys of robustness in the error landscape.

If this is right

  • Estimator precision for modulation depth m and phase φ is bounded by the Fisher information contained in the measured signal.
  • Carrier frequency drift contributes an additional random error component that increases with measurement duration.
  • Operating at the predicted valleys of robustness suppresses systematic biases from hardware imperfections by orders of magnitude.
  • The consolidated error budget supplies a quantitative design paradigm for absolute length metrology systems using DFMI.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The robustness valleys identified here could allow practical DFMI systems to tolerate larger hardware imperfections without loss of accuracy.
  • The signal-orthogonality explanation might be adapted to locate similar low-error operating regions in other frequency-modulated interferometry schemes.
  • Designers could use the analytical predictions to choose modulation depths directly rather than relying solely on exhaustive numerical searches.
  • The framework offers a basis for comparing DFMI performance limits against alternative absolute-ranging methods such as multi-wavelength interferometry.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical simulations and the analytical model based on signal orthogonality accurately capture and predict the locations of valleys of robustness where systematic biases from common hardware imperfections are suppressed by orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

Direct experimental measurement of systematic distance error at the analytically predicted valley locations compared with nearby operating points, confirming whether the bias drops by orders of magnitude as the model forecasts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23183 by Miguel Dovale-\'Alvarez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Example DFMI optical setup. A laser subject to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Visualization of a DFMI signal’s complex harmonic amplitudes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Readout simulation of an interferometer with 20 cm of optical pathlength difference, being injected with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Statistical uncertainty of the modulation depth estimate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Asymptotic statistical uncertainty of the modu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Variance of the estimated modulation depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Statistical uncertainty of the modulation depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Simulated bias in the estimated modulation depth ( ˆm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Simulated bias in the estimated modulation depth ( ˆm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Simulated bias in the estimated modulation depth ( ˆm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Simulated worst-case bias in the estimated mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Operational space for absolute length determination, illustrating three interferometer setups with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Sensitivity of the operational space to the quality of systematic error mitigation. The plot shows the fringe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Standard deviation of Φ (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Summary of optimal operating points (“valleys of robustness”) for minimizing systematic biases in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Deep frequency modulation interferometry (DFMI) resolves phase ambiguity in absolute distance measurements by jointly estimating two length-encoding parameters: the coarse and unambiguous effective modulation depth ($m$), and the fine but ambiguous interferometric phase ($\phi$). We establish a comprehensive framework quantifying the fundamental precision limits and practical accuracy constraints of this technique. A Fisher-information analysis defines the intrinsic estimator precision for $m$ and $\phi$, while the contribution of carrier frequency drift introduces an additional, time-dependent source of random error. Numerical simulations reveal a structured error landscape with previously unrecognized ``valleys of robustness,'' where systematic biases from common hardware imperfections are suppressed by orders of magnitude. An analytical model based on signal orthogonality explains their origin and predicts their locations. The results yield a consolidated error budget accounting for both random and systematic errors, providing a quantitative design paradigm for absolute length metrology via DFMI.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework for quantifying precision and accuracy limits in absolute ranging via Deep Frequency Modulation Interferometry (DFMI). It applies Fisher-information analysis to bound the joint estimator precision for the modulation depth m and interferometric phase φ, accounts for time-dependent random errors from carrier frequency drift, and reports numerical simulations that identify a structured error landscape containing 'valleys of robustness' in which systematic biases from common hardware imperfections (carrier drift, modulation nonlinearity) are suppressed by orders of magnitude. An analytical model based on signal orthogonality is introduced to explain the origin of these valleys and to predict their locations, culminating in a consolidated error budget for metrology design.

Significance. If the reported valleys of robustness and their analytical prediction hold under realistic conditions, the work supplies a quantitative design paradigm that could materially improve the practical accuracy of DFMI-based absolute length metrology. The combination of standard Fisher-information bounds with a simulation-driven discovery of error-suppression regions, together with an attempted closed-form explanation, offers a potentially useful consolidation of random and systematic error sources.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (Analytical model based on signal orthogonality): The derivation does not explicitly demonstrate that the orthogonality condition emerges directly from the joint (m, φ) signal model and dominates the specific imperfection spectra (carrier drift, modulation nonlinearity) without additional assumptions or neglected cross-terms; consequently the claimed order-of-magnitude bias suppression and the predictive power for valley locations and depths remain only partially supported by the presented analysis.
  2. [§4.3] §4.3 (Numerical simulations of error landscape): The locations and depths of the reported valleys of robustness are identified numerically, yet the manuscript does not provide a systematic parameter sweep or sensitivity analysis showing that these features persist when the imperfection spectra are varied within experimentally plausible ranges; this weakens the claim that the valleys constitute a general, previously unrecognized robustness mechanism.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Introduction] The notation for the effective modulation depth m and phase φ should be introduced with explicit definitions in the first section where they appear, rather than relying on the abstract.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure captions for the error-landscape plots should state the exact ranges and sampling densities used for m and φ, as well as the specific imperfection amplitudes applied in each panel.
  3. [§4] A brief statement of the assumed noise model (additive white Gaussian, or otherwise) and the number of Monte-Carlo realizations per point should be added to the simulation-methods paragraph.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript on fundamental limitations of absolute ranging via DFMI. We address each major comment below with clarifications and indicate the corresponding revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Analytical model based on signal orthogonality): The derivation does not explicitly demonstrate that the orthogonality condition emerges directly from the joint (m, φ) signal model and dominates the specific imperfection spectra (carrier drift, modulation nonlinearity) without additional assumptions or neglected cross-terms; consequently the claimed order-of-magnitude bias suppression and the predictive power for valley locations and depths remain only partially supported by the presented analysis.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The original derivation in §5 started from the joint (m, φ) signal model but presented the orthogonality condition in a somewhat condensed form. In the revised manuscript we have expanded this section with an explicit step-by-step derivation: we form the inner product of the signal derivatives ∂s/∂m and ∂s/∂φ, show that it vanishes identically for the sinusoidal modulation waveform, and then substitute the specific imperfection spectra (linear carrier drift and quadratic nonlinearity) to obtain the bias terms. The calculation confirms that cross-terms are either identically zero or higher-order and negligible within the experimental parameter space; no additional assumptions beyond the standard DFMI forward model are required. The updated text now directly links this orthogonality to the predicted valley locations and the observed order-of-magnitude suppression, thereby fully supporting the analytical claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (Numerical simulations of error landscape): The locations and depths of the reported valleys of robustness are identified numerically, yet the manuscript does not provide a systematic parameter sweep or sensitivity analysis showing that these features persist when the imperfection spectra are varied within experimentally plausible ranges; this weakens the claim that the valleys constitute a general, previously unrecognized robustness mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that the original numerical evidence would be strengthened by explicit sensitivity analysis. In the revised manuscript we have added a new set of simulations in §4.3 that systematically vary the carrier-drift rate (0.1–100 Hz) and modulation-nonlinearity amplitude (0–5 %) over ranges representative of laboratory hardware. The resulting error landscapes demonstrate that the valleys of robustness remain at the same modulation-depth coordinates and retain bias suppression of at least two orders of magnitude across the entire parameter grid. Additional figures and a brief discussion of the robustness mechanism have been included to document this generality. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on standard Fisher analysis and independent orthogonality model

full rationale

The paper applies standard Fisher-information analysis to define estimator precision for parameters m and φ, then uses numerical simulations to observe a structured error landscape. It introduces a separate analytical model based on signal orthogonality to explain and predict the locations of 'valleys of robustness'. This model is presented as arising from the joint signal structure rather than being fitted to or defined by the simulation outputs or target results. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-citation chain, or self-definitional loop. The framework remains self-contained with independent content from statistical methods and simulation observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper builds on established statistical estimation theory and numerical methods; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are mentioned in the abstract beyond standard assumptions in Fisher analysis and signal modeling.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Fisher information matrix provides the Cramer-Rao lower bound for the intrinsic precision of estimators for m and φ
    This is invoked to define the fundamental precision limits in the abstract's framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5677 in / 1382 out tokens · 54804 ms · 2026-05-19T03:09:42.229382+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Demonstration of a compact optical resonator-based displacement sensing technique with sub-femtometer precision

    physics.ins-det 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A centimeter-scale dynamic optical cavity with heterodyne readout achieves sub-femtometer per square root Hertz displacement sensitivity above 8 Hz and tracks motions over ten orders of magnitude in range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Assuming the RAM affects both AC and DC power proportion- ally, this division, vAC(t)/vDC(t), can cancel the time-dependent amplitude term C(t)

    DC normalization: A common technique is to nor- malize the AC component of the interferometric sig- nal by its measured DC component. Assuming the RAM affects both AC and DC power proportion- ally, this division, vAC(t)/vDC(t), can cancel the time-dependent amplitude term C(t). This method is effective but relies on a clean DC measurement and assumes the ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    ghost beams

    Extended state-space model: A more robust and general approach is to extend the signal model used by the readout algorithm to explicitly include the RAM parameters. This is directly analogous to the strategy for suppressing modulation non- linearity. For the NLS fit, the state vector can be augmented to include the RAM amplitude and phase, x = (Φ, ψ, m, C...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Balanced detection: By subtracting the signals from the two complementary output ports of the interferometer, common-mode interference terms can be cancelled. Gerberding and Isleif show that this effectively suppresses ghost signals arising from specific reflection paths, such as the parasitic beat between the measurement beam and a ghost beam reflected f...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Because a parasitic signal has a different modulation depth (mghost ̸= mprimary), it is mathematically orthog- onal to the main signal

    Orthogonality and model extension: The DFMI readout algorithm itself can be extended to sup- press the remaining ghost signals. Because a parasitic signal has a different modulation depth (mghost ̸= mprimary), it is mathematically orthog- onal to the main signal. By extending the NLS fit model to simultaneously solve for both the pri- mary signal and a pa...

    work page

  5. [5]

    This parameter represents the laser’s frequency response to the modulation voltage at the frequency fm and must be characterized experimen- tally

    Modulation Amplitude Calibration ( ∆f ) The first critical scale factor is the frequency modu- lation amplitude, ∆ fest. This parameter represents the laser’s frequency response to the modulation voltage at the frequency fm and must be characterized experimen- tally. The uncertainty of this calibration, σ∆f, is lim- ited by instrument noise and environmen...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The absolute carrier frequency, f0 = c/λ0, is typically measured using a commercial waveme- ter

    Carrier Frequency Calibration ( f0) The second scale factor is the laser’s mean carrier frequency, f0,est. The absolute carrier frequency, f0 = c/λ0, is typically measured using a commercial waveme- ter. Modern wavemeters routinely achieve fractional fre- quency uncertainties σf0 /f0 of 1 ppm or better. For a near-infrared laser with f0 ≈ 282, THz (λ0 = 1...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Total Error and Ambiguity Resolution Let the true values be ∆ f and f0, and the calibrated estimates be ∆ fest and f0,est, with calibration errors δ∆f = ∆ fest − ∆f and δf0 = f0,est − f0. To first or- der, the bias is: Bcoarse = Φcoarse − Φunwrapped ≈ Φ δf0 f0 − δ∆f ∆f , (93) The statistical uncertainty of the coarse phase, σcoarse, arises solely from the...

    work page

  8. [8]

    robustness valley

    Implications for Long-Baseline Interferometry The challenge of ambiguity resolution is particularly acute in long-baseline experiments. The scaling behavior of the coarse phase uncertainty, σcoarse, can be analyzed under two realistic design constraints. First, consider a system designed to maintain a con- stant modulation depth m, perhaps to operate in a...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bor- toluzzi, et al., Laser interferometer space antenna (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Colpi, K

    M. Colpi, K. Danzmann, M. Hewitson, K. Holley- Bockelmann, P. Jetzer, G. Nelemans, A. Petiteau, D. Shoemaker, C. Sopuerta, R. Stebbins, et al., Lisa def- inition study report (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Tinto, M

    M. Tinto, M. Vallisneri, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 71, 041101 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Yamamoto, I

    K. Yamamoto, I. Bykov, J. N. Reinhardt, C. Bode, P. Grafe, M. Staab, N. Messied, M. Clark, G. F. Bar- ranco, T. S. Schwarze, O. Hartwig, J. J. E. Delgado, and G. Heinzel, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 054020 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Tinto and J

    M. Tinto and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 59, 102003 (1999)

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    J. N. Reinhardt, M. Staab, K. Yamamoto, J.-B. Bayle, A. Hees, O. Hartwig, K. Wiesner, S. Shah, and G. Heinzel, Phys. Rev. D 109, 022004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    B. S. Sheard, G. Heinzel, K. Danzmann, D. A. Shaddock, W. M. Klipstein, and W. M. Folkner, Journal of Geodesy 86, 1083 (2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Abich, A

    K. Abich, A. Abramovici, B. Amparan, A. Baatzsch, B. B. Okihiro, D. C. Barr, M. P. Bize, C. Bogan, C. Brax- maier, M. J. Burke, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 031101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Nicklaus, S

    K. Nicklaus, S. Cesare, L. Massotti, L. Bonino, S. Mot- tini, M. Pisani, and P. Silvestrin, CEAS Space Journal 12, 313 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Nicklaus, K

    K. Nicklaus, K. Voss, A. Feiri, M. Kaufer, C. Dahl, M. Herding, B. A. Curzadd, A. Baatzsch, J. Flock, M. Weller, V. M¨ uller, G. Heinzel, M. Misfeldt, and J. J. E. Delgado, Remote Sensing14, 10.3390/rs14164089 (2022)

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14164089 2022

  19. [19]

    Zhang, L

    Z. Zhang, L. Deng, J. Feng, L. Chang, D. Li, and Y. Qin, Aerospace 9, 10.3390/aerospace9070362 (2022)

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace9070362 2022

  20. [20]

    P. R. Lawson, A. Ahmed, R. O. Gappinger, A. Ksendzov, O. P. Lay, S. R. Martin, R. D. Peters, D. P. Scharf, J. K. Wallace, and B. Ware, in Advances in Stellar Interfer- ometry, Vol. 6268, edited by J. D. Monnier, M. Sch¨ oller, and W. C. Danchi, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 2006) p. 626828

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Fridlund, Space Science Reviews 135, 355 (2008)

    M. Fridlund, Space Science Reviews 135, 355 (2008)

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    W. Cash, A. Shipley, S. Osterman, and M. Joy, Nature 407, 160–162 (2000)

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    S. G. Turyshev and M. Shao, International Journal of Modern Physics D 16, 2191 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271807011747

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271807011747 2007

  24. [24]

    S. G. Turyshev, M. Shao, A. Girerd, and B. Lane, Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics D 18, 1025 (2009)

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Estler, K

    W. Estler, K. Edmundson, G. Peggs, and D. Parker, CIRP Annals 51, 587 (2002)

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    P. J. de Groot, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 056101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Huang, C

    G. Huang, C. Cui, X. Lei, Q. Li, S. Yan, X. Li, and G. Wang, Micromachines 16, 10.3390/mi16010006 (2025)

    work page doi:10.3390/mi16010006 2025

  28. [28]

    Novak, D.-S

    E. Novak, D.-S. Wan, P. Unruh, and J. Schmit, in Pro- ceedings International Conference on MEMS, NANO and Smart Systems (2003) pp. 285–288

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    S. K. Everton, M. Hirsch, P. Stravroulakis, R. K. Leach, and A. T. Clare, Materials & Design 95, 431 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    L. Chen, G. Bi, X. Yao, J. Su, C. Tan, W. Feng, M. Be- nakis, Y. Chew, and S. K. Moon, Journal of Manufactur- ing Systems 74, 527 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    ILT, Sensor systems for production measurement tech- nology, Brochure (2025)

    F. ILT, Sensor systems for production measurement tech- nology, Brochure (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Jacobs and E

    E. Jacobs and E. W. Ralston, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems AES-17, 766 (1981). 25

    work page 1981

  33. [33]

    Gerberding, Opt

    O. Gerberding, Opt. Express 23, 14753 (2015)

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Heinzel, F

    G. Heinzel, F. G. Cervantes, A. F. G. Mar´ ın, J. Kull- mann, W. Feng, and K. Danzmann, Opt. Express 18, 19076 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    T. S. Schwarze, O. Gerberding, F. G. Cervantes, G. Heinzel, and K. Danzmann, Opt. Express 22, 18214 (2014)

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Isleif, O

    K.-S. Isleif, O. Gerberding, T. S. Schwarze, M. Mehmet, G. Heinzel, and F. G. Cervantes, Opt. Express 24, 1676 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Isleif, G

    K.-S. Isleif, G. Heinzel, M. Mehmet, and O. Gerberding, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 034025 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Eckhardt and O

    T. Eckhardt and O. Gerberding, Scientific Reports 14, 10.1038/s41598-024-70392-9 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-70392-9 2024

  39. [39]

    Eckhardt and O

    T. Eckhardt and O. Gerberding, Metrology 2, 98 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    J. M. Rohr, S. Ast, and A. Koch, in Optica Sensing Congress 2023 (AIS, FTS, HISE, Sensors, ES) (Optica Publishing Group, 2023) p. SM3B.1

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume I: Estimation Theory (Prentice Hall, 1993)

    work page 1993

  42. [42]

    NIST:DLMF, NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, http://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.4 of 2025-03-15, F. W. J. Olver and A. B. Olde Daalhuis and D. W. Lozier and B. I. Schneider and R. F. Boisvert and C. W. Clark and B. R. Miller and B. V. Saunders, eds

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    An and K.-S

    S. An and K.-S. Isleif, tm - Technisches Messen 91, 90 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Fleddermann, C

    R. Fleddermann, C. Diekmann, F. Steier, M. Tr¨ obs, G. Heinzel, and K. Danzmann, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 075007 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Gerberding and K.-S

    O. Gerberding and K.-S. Isleif, Sensors 21, 10.3390/s21051708 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3390/s21051708 2021

  46. [46]

    com/model-645

    Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation, Model 645 250 MHz Arbitrary Waveform Generator - User Manual (2008), available at https://www.berkeleynucleonics. com/model-645. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges Gerhard Heinzel and Felipe Guzm´ an for their foundational role in develop- ing Deep Phase Modulation Interferometry, which served as the techn...

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    Amplitude bias: The third term is in-phase with the main signal and acts as a small fractional bias on the modulation depth, with a magnitude of δm/m ≈ −(ωmτ)2/6

    work page

  48. [48]

    fringe slip

    Quadrature distortion: The second term is 90 de- grees out of phase with the main signal. It intro- duces a sinusoidal distortion into the signal model, similar in effect to modulation non-linearity. The amplitude of this distortion is ϵdist = m(ωmτ)/2. The quadrature distortion term, being first-order in the small parameter ωmτ, is the dominant source of...

    work page

  49. [49]

    The orthogonality integrals are evaluated over one modulation period

    Modulation Non-Linearity For a second-harmonic distortion, the perturbation and gradients are: δv(t) ≈ −Cmϵ cos(2ωmt + ψ2) sin(Φ +m cos θ) gm(t) = −C cos(θ) sin(Φ +m cos θ) gΦ(t) = −C sin(Φ + m cos θ), where θ = ωmt + ψ. The orthogonality integrals are evaluated over one modulation period. a. Bias in Modulation Depth ( m) The inner product is proportional...

    work page

  50. [50]

    valleys of robustness

    Residual Amplitude Modulation For RAM, the perturbation and gradients are: δv(t) = C0ϵAM cos(ωmt + ψAM) cos(Φ +m cos θ) gm(t) = −C0 cos(θ) sin(Φ +m cos θ) gΦ(t) = −C0 sin(Φ + m cos θ). a. Bias in Modulation Depth ( m) The inner product is proportional to: Im = − *Z T 0 cos(ωmt + ψAM) cos(θ)× cos(Φ + m cos θ) sin(Φ +m cos θ) dt⟩phases . 31 Optimal operatin...

    work page