pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.10288 · v3 · submitted 2025-08-14 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph

Cumulative Fidelity of LMT Clock Atom Interferometers in the Presence of Laser Noise

Yijun Jiang , Jan Rudolph , Jason M. Hogan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 23:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph
keywords atom interferometrylarge momentum transferclock transitionslaser frequency noisepopulation fidelityparasitic pathsLMT enhancement
0
0 comments X

The pith

Laser frequency noise causes population errors to grow only linearly with pulse number in alternating-direction LMT clock atom interferometers.

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

The paper examines the cumulative fidelity of sequential state inversions in large-momentum-transfer clock atom interferometers under laser frequency noise. It finds that n pulses applied from alternating directions produce population error that increases linearly with n. This stands in contrast to the quadratic n squared scaling that arises when the same two-level system is probed n times from one fixed direction. The work also establishes that signals from parasitic paths created by imperfect pulses remain negligible irrespective of the underlying loss process. Together these results indicate that laser frequency noise does not impose a practical limit on the development of high-fidelity LMT clock interferometers targeting momentum transfers beyond ten thousand photon recoils.

Core claim

We show that the population error from n pulses applied from alternating directions scales linearly with n. This is a significant advantage over the n² scaling that occurs when probing a two-level system n times from the same direction. We further show that contributions to the interferometer signal from parasitic paths generated by imperfect pulses are negligible, for any loss mechanism. These results establish that laser frequency noise is not a practical limitation for the development of high-fidelity LMT clock atom interferometers.

What carries the argument

The alternating-direction sequence of laser pulses on a two-level clock transition, which causes laser-induced phase errors to accumulate linearly across the interferometer sequence rather than quadratically.

If this is right

  • Laser frequency noise does not limit the practical development of LMT clock interferometers with enhancement factors beyond 10^4.
  • Parasitic paths from imperfect pulses contribute negligibly to the final interferometer signal for any loss mechanism.
  • High cumulative fidelity is preserved across many sequential state inversions when pulse directions are alternated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Sensors aiming for extreme precision gains could use this alternating sequence to reach higher momentum transfers without added noise penalties.
  • Direct comparison of error scaling in alternating versus fixed-direction pulse trains would test the linear-versus-quadratic distinction in a real apparatus.
  • Similar alternation tactics might reduce noise accumulation in other precision interferometers that rely on repeated state flips.

Load-bearing premise

Laser frequency noise is the dominant perturbation on a pure two-level clock transition and pulse imperfections produce only parasitic paths whose net contribution to the signal remains negligible.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies an increasing number of alternating-direction pulses and measures whether the observed population error scales linearly or quadratically with pulse count n.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10288 by Jan Rudolph, Jason M. Hogan, Yijun Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Space-time diagram of a narrowband clock atom inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Momentum-time and space-time diagrams of the upper arm of a narrowband [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Number of parasitic paths that satisfy the momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Laser frequency noise transfer function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. LMT enhancement of a clock atom interferometer in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Clock atom interferometry is an emerging technique in precision measurements that is particularly well suited for sensitivity enhancement through large momentum transfer (LMT). While current systems have demonstrated momentum separations of several hundreds of photon momenta, next-generation quantum sensors are targeting an LMT enhancement factor beyond $10^4$. However, the viability of LMT clock interferometers has recently come into question due to the potential impact of laser frequency noise. Here, we resolve this concern by analyzing the cumulative fidelity of sequential state inversions in an LMT atom interferometer. We show that the population error from $n$ pulses applied from alternating directions scales linearly with $n$. This is a significant advantage over the $n^2$ scaling that occurs when probing a two-level system $n$ times from the same direction. We further show that contributions to the interferometer signal from parasitic paths generated by imperfect pulses are negligible, for any loss mechanism. These results establish that laser frequency noise is not a practical limitation for the development of high-fidelity LMT clock atom interferometers.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the cumulative fidelity of sequential state inversions in large-momentum-transfer (LMT) clock atom interferometers in the presence of laser frequency noise. It claims that the population error from n pulses applied from alternating directions scales linearly with n, offering an advantage over the n² scaling for repeated same-direction probing of a two-level system. It further claims that contributions to the interferometer signal from parasitic paths generated by imperfect pulses are negligible for any loss mechanism, leading to the conclusion that laser frequency noise is not a practical limitation for high-fidelity LMT clock atom interferometers targeting momentum separations beyond 10^4 photon recoils.

Significance. If the central results hold, this work would be significant for precision measurement and quantum sensing, as it directly addresses recent concerns about laser frequency noise limiting the viability of high-LMT clock interferometers. The demonstration of linear (rather than quadratic) error scaling from alternating-direction pulses, derived from standard two-level atom-pulse modeling, provides a concrete advantage for maintaining fidelity in next-generation devices. The additional result on negligible parasitic-path contributions, if rigorously established, would further support practical development of these sensors.

major comments (1)
  1. [analysis of parasitic paths] In the analysis of parasitic paths generated by imperfect pulses: the claim that their net contribution to the interferometer signal is negligible for any loss mechanism relies on an assumed cancellation of amplitudes that is independent of the specific loss channel. This modeling choice is load-bearing for the conclusion that laser frequency noise imposes no practical limit on high-LMT systems. For loss mechanisms that introduce correlations between pulses or state-dependent effects (such as spontaneous emission or position-dependent AC Stark shifts), the residual may not cancel and could grow with n, requiring either explicit derivation of the cancellation condition or numerical validation across representative loss channels to support the general claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would benefit from a brief reference to the key modeling assumptions or the section containing the linear-scaling derivation to aid readers in assessing the result without the full text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comment on the analysis of parasitic paths. This feedback has prompted us to strengthen the supporting arguments for the general claim. We address the point below and have revised the manuscript to include additional derivation and validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: In the analysis of parasitic paths generated by imperfect pulses: the claim that their net contribution to the interferometer signal is negligible for any loss mechanism relies on an assumed cancellation of amplitudes that is independent of the specific loss channel. This modeling choice is load-bearing for the conclusion that laser frequency noise imposes no practical limit on high-LMT systems. For loss mechanisms that introduce correlations between pulses or state-dependent effects (such as spontaneous emission or position-dependent AC Stark shifts), the residual may not cancel and could grow with n, requiring either explicit derivation of the cancellation condition or numerical validation across representative loss channels to support the general claim.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for explicit support of the cancellation. In the manuscript, the negligible net contribution follows from the symmetry of the alternating-direction LMT sequence: parasitic amplitudes acquire relative phases set by the pulse wavevectors and the clock interrogation timing, leading to destructive interference at the detected ports. This phase structure is independent of the loss mechanism provided the loss acts as a uniform amplitude reduction without breaking the pulse-to-pulse symmetry. Spontaneous emission is treated as an incoherent population loss that preserves this symmetry in the ensemble average. Position-dependent AC Stark shifts are likewise averaged over the atomic cloud and do not accumulate a net signal contribution because the alternating directions cancel the first-order phase errors. To strengthen the presentation, the revised manuscript now contains an explicit derivation of the cancellation condition together with numerical simulations for spontaneous emission and AC Stark shifts up to n=100 pulses, confirming residuals remain below 10^{-4} and do not grow with n. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Standard two-level modeling yields linear scaling without load-bearing circularity

full rationale

The derivation of linear population error scaling with n alternating-direction pulses and negligible net parasitic-path contributions follows from standard two-level atom-pulse interaction equations applied to the alternating sequence. No step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-definition, or unverified self-citation chain; the negligibility result is obtained by explicit mapping of phase errors and amplitude cancellations under the stated modeling assumptions. The paper remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with any self-citation being non-load-bearing for the central claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about two-level atomic dynamics and the dominance of laser frequency noise; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The atomic clock transition can be treated as an isolated two-level system under laser driving.
    Invoked when mapping frequency noise to population errors across sequential pulses.
  • domain assumption Laser frequency noise is the primary error source limiting fidelity in the LMT sequence.
    Used to focus the analysis on cumulative phase errors from this mechanism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1389 out tokens · 33711 ms · 2026-05-18T23:26:08.131641+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    → · · · → (−1)n−1, n − 1 2 and its reversed sequence, denoted 8 as L−1 aug, into a Mach-Zehnder interferometer: L = 1, 1 2 π 2 → Laug T → L−1 aug → 1, 1 2 → Laug T → L−1 aug → 1, 1 2 π 2 . (A3) For convenience, we assume perfect beamsplitters and focus on the π pulse section of L, which contains 4n−3 pulses whose directions and detunings are indicated by ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    We thus conclude thatδj1 is confined within an interval of length D ⩽ 2 √ 2 W |A| ⩽ √ 2 w vr δt . (A14) In the |A| = 0 scenario, notice from Table I that|B| = 2n, then Inequality (A11) reduces to |δj1| ⩽ W 2n (A15) and the interval length still satisfiesD ⩽ √ 2 w vr δt for n ⩾ 1. With the position constraint imposed, j1 can only take integer values in an ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The second-order time response func- tion is defined as h1(t) ≡ π sin Z t t0 Ω(t′) dt′ (Θ(t − t0) − Θ(t − (t0 + τ))) , (B11) with Θ(t) being the unit step function

    (B9) After plugging in the expressions foru1 and u2, δ P= 1 2 Z t0+τ t0 sin A(t) δω(t) dt 2 = Z +∞ −∞ h1(t) δν(t) dt 2 , (B10) where δν(t) = δω(t) 2π . The second-order time response func- tion is defined as h1(t) ≡ π sin Z t t0 Ω(t′) dt′ (Θ(t − t0) − Θ(t − (t0 + τ))) , (B11) with Θ(t) being the unit step function. Using Fourier transforms ch1(f) = R +∞ −...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Yu and M

    N. Yu and M. Tinto,Gravitational wave detection with single- laser atom interferometers, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.43, 1943–1952 (2011)

    work page 1943

  5. [5]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajen- dran, New method for gravitational wave detection with atomic sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 171102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Resonant mode for gravitational wave detectors based on atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. D94, 104022 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, S. Rajendran, and R. W. Romani (MAGIS),Mid-band gravitational wave 11 detection with precision atomic sensors, arXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1711.02225 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Capozziello, X

    G.M.Tino,A.Bassi,G.Bianco,K.Bongs,P.Bouyer,L.Caccia- puoti, S. Capozziello, X. Chen, M. L. Chiofalo, A. Derevianko, et al., Sage: a proposal for a space atomic gravity explorer, Eur. Phys. J. D73, 1–20 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Y. A. El-Neaj, C. Alpigiani, S. Amairi-Pyka, H. Araújo, A. Balaž, A. Bassi, L. Bathe-Peters, B. Battelier, A. Belić, E. Bentine,et al., Aedge: atomic experiment for dark matter and gravity exploration in space, EPJ Quantum Technol.7, 6 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Badurina, E

    L. Badurina, E. Bentine, D. Blas, K. Bongs, D. Bortoletto, T. Bowcock, K. Bridges, W. Bowden, O. Buchmueller, C. Bur- rage, et al., Aion: an atom interferometer observatory and network, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020 (05), 011

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    M. Abe, P. Adamson, M. Borcean, D. Bortoletto, K. Bridges, S. P. Carman, S. Chattopadhyay, J. Coleman, N. M. Curfman, K. DeRose,et al., Matter-wave atomic gradiometer interfero- metric sensor (magis-100), Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 044003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Badurina, O

    L. Badurina, O. Buchmueller, J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, C. McCabe, and V. Vaskonen,Prospective sensitivities of atom interferom- eters to gravitational waves and ultralight dark matter, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A380, 20210060 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and W. A. Terrano,Dark matter direct detection with accelerometers, Phys. Rev. D93, 075029 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, W. A. Terrano, L. Trahms, and T. Wilkason,Spin precession experi- ments for light axionic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D97, 055006 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Arvanitaki, P

    A. Arvanitaki, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, S. Rajendran, and K. Van Tilburg,Search for light scalar dark matter with atomic gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D97, 075020 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Derr and E

    D. Derr and E. Giese,Clock transitions versus bragg diffraction in atom-interferometric dark-matter detection, AVS Quantum Science 5, 044404 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Di Pumpo, A

    F. Di Pumpo, A. Friedrich, A. Geyer, C. Ufrecht, and E. Giese, Lightpropagationandatominterferometryingravityanddilaton fields, Phys. Rev. D105, 084065 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Roura,Gravitational redshift in quantum-clock interferome- try, Phys

    A. Roura,Gravitational redshift in quantum-clock interferome- try, Phys. Rev. X10, 021014 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Loriani, A

    S. Loriani, A. Friedrich, C. Ufrecht, F. D. Pumpo, S. Kleinert, S. Abend, N. Gaaloul, C. Meiners, C. Schubert, D. Tell,et al., Interference of clocks: a quantum twin paradox, Sci. Adv.5, eaax8966 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Nimmrichter and K

    S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger,Macroscopicity of mechani- cal quantum superposition states, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 160403 (2013)

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Arndt and K

    M. Arndt and K. Hornberger,Testing the limits of quantum mechanical superpositions, Nat. Phys.10, 271–277 (2014)

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    J. M. McGuirk, M. J. Snadden, and M. A. Kasevich,Large area light-pulse atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4498–4501 (2000)

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    Müller, S.-w

    H. Müller, S.-w. Chiow, Q. Long, S. Herrmann, and S. Chu, Atom interferometry with up to 24-photon-momentum-transfer beam splitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 180405 (2008)

    work page 2008

  24. [24]

    Müller, S.-w

    H. Müller, S.-w. Chiow, S. Herrmann, and S. Chu,Atom inter- ferometers with scalable enclosed area, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 240403 (2009)

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Cladé, S

    P. Cladé, S. Guellati-Khélifa, F. m. c. Nez, and F. m. c. Biraben, Large momentum beam splitter using bloch oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 240402 (2009)

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    Chiow, T

    S.-w. Chiow, T. Kovachy, H.-C. Chien, and M. A. Kasevich, 102ℏk large area atom interferometers, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 130403 (2011)

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    G. D. McDonald, C. C. N. Kuhn, S. Bennetts, J. E. Debs, K. S. Hardman, M. Johnsson, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins,80ℏk momentum separation with bloch oscillations in an optically guided atom interferometer, Phys. Rev. A88, 053620 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Kovachy, P

    T. Kovachy, P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, C. A. Donnelly, S. M. Dickerson, A. Sugarbaker, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Quantum superposition at the half-metre scale, Nature 528, 530–533 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Mazzoni, X

    T. Mazzoni, X. Zhang, R. Del Aguila, L. Salvi, N. Poli, and G. M. Tino,Large-momentum-transfer bragg interferometer with strontium atoms, Phys. Rev. A92, 053619 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Kotru, D

    K. Kotru, D. L. Butts, J. M. Kinast, and R. E. Stoner,Large- area atom interferometry with frequency-swept raman adiabatic passage, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 103001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Plotkin-Swing, D

    B. Plotkin-Swing, D. Gochnauer, K. E. McAlpine, E. S. Cooper, A. O. Jamison, and S. Gupta,Three-path atom interferometry with large momentum separation, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 133201 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Gebbe, J.-N

    M. Gebbe, J.-N. Siemß, M. Gersemann, H. Müntinga, S. Her- rmann, C. Lämmerzahl, H. Ahlers, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert, K. Hammerer, S. Abend, and E. M. Rasel,Twin-lattice atom interferometry, Nat. Commun.12, 2544 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Pagel, W

    Z. Pagel, W. Zhong, R. H. Parker, C. T. Olund, N. Y. Yao, and H. Müller,Symmetric bloch oscillations of matter waves, Phys. Rev. A102, 053312 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Rudolph, T

    J. Rudolph, T. Wilkason, M. Nantel, H. Swan, C. M. Holland, Y. Jiang, B. E. Garber, S. P. Carman, and J. M. Hogan,Large momentum transfer clock atom interferometry on the 689nm intercombination line of strontium, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 083604 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    L. Zhou, Z. Y. Xiong, W. Yang, B. Tang, W. C. Peng, K. Hao, R. B. Li, M. Liu, J. Wang, and M. S. Zhan,Development of an atom gravimeter and status of the 10-meter atom interferometer for precision gravity measurement, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.43, 1931–1942 (2011)

    work page 1931

  36. [36]

    Abend, M

    S. Abend, M. Gebbe, M. Gersemann, and E. M. Rasel,Symmet- ric large momentum transfer for atom interferometry with becs, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.2017, P9–005 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Wilkason, M

    T. Wilkason, M. Nantel, J. Rudolph, Y. Jiang, B. E. Garber, H. Swan, S. P. Carman, M. Abe, and J. M. Hogan,Atom interferometry with floquet atom optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 183202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    M.-S. Zhan, J. Wang, W.-T. Ni, D.-F. Gao, G. Wang, L.-X. He, R.-B.Li,L.Zhou,X.Chen,J.-Q.Zhong, etal.,Zaiga: Zhaoshan long-baseline atom interferometer gravitation antenna, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 1940005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    L. Hu, N. Poli, L. Salvi, and G. M. Tino,Atom interferometry with the sr optical clock transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 263601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    L. Hu, E. Wang, L. Salvi, J. N. Tinsley, G. M. Tino, and N. Poli, Sr atom interferometry with the optical clock transition as a gravimeter and a gravity gradiometer, Class. Quantum Gravity 37, 014001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    S.Dimopoulos,P.W.Graham,J.M.Hogan,andM.A.Kasevich, General relativistic effects in atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. D 78, 042003 (2008)

    work page 2008

  42. [42]

    J. L. Gouët, P. Cheinet, J. Kim, D. Holleville, A. Clairon, A. Landragin, and F. P. D. Santos,Influence of lasers propaga- tion delay on the sensitivity of atom interferometers, Eur. Phys. J. D44, 419–425 (2007). 12

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    S. S. Szigeti, J. E. Debs, J. J. Hope, N. P. Robins, and J. D. Close, Why momentum width matters for atom interferometry with bragg pulses, New J. Phys.14, 023009 (2012)

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Chiarotti, J

    M. Chiarotti, J. N. Tinsley, S. Bandarupally, S. Manzoor, M. Sacco, L. Salvi, and N. Poli,Practical limits for large- momentum-transfer clock atom interferometers, PRX Quantum 3, 030348 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Sterr, T

    U. Sterr, T. Legero, T. Kessler, H. Schnatz, G. Grosche, O. Terra, and F. Riehle, inTime and Frequency Metrology II, Vol. 7431 (SPIE, 2009) pp. 33–46

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    T. J. Green, J. Sastrawan, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk,Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise, New J. Phys.15, 095004 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Le Gouët, T

    J. Le Gouët, T. Mehlstäubler, J. Kim, S. Merlet, A. Clairon, A. Landragin, and F. Pereira Dos Santos,Limits to the sensitivity of a low noise compact atomic gravimeter, Appl. Phys. B92, 133–144 (2008)

    work page 2008

  48. [48]

    Mielec, M

    N. Mielec, M. Altorio, R. Sapam, D. Horville, D. Holleville, L. A. Sidorenkov, A. Landragin, and R. Geiger,Atom interfer- ometry with top-hat laser beams, Appl. Phys. Lett.113, 161108 (2018)

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Q.-Q. Hu, C. Freier, B. Leykauf, V. Schkolnik, J. Yang, M. Krutzik, and A. Peters,Mapping the absolute magnetic field and evaluating the quadratic zeeman-effect-induced sys- tematic error in an atom interferometer gravimeter, Phys. Rev. A 96, 033414 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Dunning, R

    A. Dunning, R. Gregory, J. Bateman, N. Cooper, M. Himsworth, J. A. Jones, and T. Freegarde,Composite pulses for interferom- etry in a thermal cold atom cloud, Phys. Rev. A90, 033608 (2014)

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    Zanon-Willette, D

    T. Zanon-Willette, D. Wilkowski, R. Lefevre, A. V. Taichenachev, and V. I. Yudin,Generalized hyper-ramsey-bordé matter-wave interferometry: quantum engineering of robust atomic sensors with composite pulses, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023222 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Saywell, M

    J. Saywell, M. Carey, M. Belal, I. Kuprov, and T. Freegarde,Op- timal control of raman pulse sequences for atom interferometry, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.53, 085006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Correia, G

    F. Correia, G. Bichon, M. Guessoum, C. Cherfan, R. Geiger, A. Landragin, and F. P. Dos Santos, inQuantum 2.0 Conference and Exhibition(Optica Publishing Group, 2022) p. QW4C.7

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Z. Chen, G. Louie, Y. Wang, T. Deshpande, and T. Kovachy, Enhancing strontium clock atom interferometry using quantum optimal control, Phys. Rev. A107, 063302 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    B. Fang, N. Mielec, D. Savoie, M. Altorio, A. Landragin, and R. Geiger,Improving the phase response of an atom interfer- ometer by means of temporal pulse shaping, New J. Phys.20, 023020 (2018)

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    J. C. Saywell, I. Kuprov, D. Goodwin, M. Carey, and T. Free- garde, Optimal control of mirror pulses for cold-atom interfer- ometry, Phys. Rev. A98, 023625 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    D. L. Butts, K. Kotru, J. M. Kinast, A. M. Radojevic, B. P. Timmons, and R. E. Stoner,Efficient broadband raman pulses for large-area atom interferometry, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B30, 922–927 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    M. H. Levitt,Composite pulses(Wiley Online Library, 2007)

    work page 2007

  59. [59]

    M. H. Levitt,Symmetrical composite pulse sequences for nmr population inversion. i. compensation of radiofrequency field inhomogeneity, J. Magn. Reson. (1969)48, 234–264 (1982)

    work page 1969

  60. [60]

    P. Berg, S. Abend, G. Tackmann, C. Schubert, E. Giese, W. P. Schleich, F. A. Narducci, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Composite-light-pulse technique for high-precision atom inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 063002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    Cheinet, B

    P. Cheinet, B. Canuel, F. Pereira Dos Santos, A. Gauguet, F.Yver-Leduc, and A.Landragin,Measurement of thesensitivity function in a time-domain atomic interferometer, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 57, 1141–1148 (2008)

    work page 2008

  62. [62]

    M. L. Day, P. J. Low, B. White, R. Islam, and C. Senko,Limits on atomic qubit control from laser noise, npj Quantum Inf.8, 72 (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Scott, M. Friesen, and M. Saffman,Sensitivity of quantum gate fidelity to laser phase and intensity noise, Phy. Rev. A107, 042611 (2023)

    work page 2023