Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Searching systematically for coupling of laser and phase-modulation noise in heterodyne interferometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes an analytical framework that systematically searches for, and numerically verifies, the coupling of laser and phase-modulation noises in the heterodyne and modulation frequency bands into the phase readouts of a phase

desk verdict A useful analytical catalog of heterodyne- and modulation-band noise couplings; completeness is asserted, not proven, but the core results are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.17802 v2 pith:2B4OHMRA submitted 2025-12-19 astro-ph.IM physics.app-phphysics.optics

Kohei Yamamoto , Olaf Hartwig , Lennart Wissel , Holly Leopardi , Kenji Numata , Ryan Derosa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.app-phphysics.optics PACS 95.55.Ym07.60.Ly
keywords heterodyneinterferometryphasemodulationphasemeternoisecouplinglaserLISAgravitationalwavedetectorrequirementssidebandanalysis
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 sets out to answer a practical question for LISA and similar space-based gravitational-wave detectors: when a laser beam is phase-modulated (to transfer clock information), how do noises sitting in the heterodyne band (around 10 MHz) and the modulation band (around 2.4 GHz) leak into the low-frequency phase measurements that carry the science signal? The authors construct a first-order analytical framework that treats the beatnote signal, expands the modulated field to sidebands, and applies a phasemeter readout model to derive explicit coupling factors for laser phase noise, modulation amplitude noise, and modulation phase noise into the carrier, upper-sideband, lower-sideband, and combined sideband readouts. Coherence signs are tracked so that cancellations and summations between paths are correctly predicted. The framework is verified against an unapproximated numerical simulation, and then applied to LISA-like parameters to derive high-frequency noise requirements on the laser and the phase modulator. If correct, it converts a previously scattered set of coupling mechanisms into one systematic catalog that can be used directly for instrument specification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-modulated beatnote signal of Eq. (9), which contains three heterodyne beatnotes (carrier-carrier, usb-usb, lsb-lsb) whose phases are extracted by the phasemeter. Acting on it are two general mechanisms: self noise coupling (noise in a beatnote disturbing its own phase readout) and mutual noise coupling (noise in one beatnote disturbing another beatnote's readout), both reduced to a single phasemeter readout formula ϕ_read ≈ ϕ_k + (l/k) sin(ετ + φ_l − φ_k). The modulation-band analysis introduces virtual down-conversion rules (Eqs. 61–66) that map noise at nω_m + Δω into equivalent heterodyne-band amplitude and phase noises with known amplitude scaling fac

What would settle it

A LISA-like numerical experiment at a larger modulation depth (e.g., m0 = 1.2 rad) in which the unmodeled couplings that currently sit below 3×10^-2 in Figure 6 grow to exceed the carrier phase-extraction requirement would falsify the paper's completeness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that all major noise couplings from the heterodyne and modulation frequency bands into a phasemeter's phase extraction can be derived from a single beatnote expression and organized into a closed set of down-conversion rules. Concretely, the paper derives the full first-order coupling of the laser phase noise p_i, the modulation amplitude noise a_i, and the modulation phase noise θ_i (with additive voltage noise n_i equivalent to p_i) into the carrier-carrier, usb-usb, and lsb-lsb beatnote phases — plus the usb−lsb combination used for clock transfer. The couplings are tabulated in Table III with explicit frequency arguments and coherence markers, and the modulation-band

Load-bearing premise

The catalog's completeness rests on the assumption that first-order modulation sidebands together with first-order noise sidebands (supplemented by selected J2(m0) terms) capture every coupling that matters; the numerical simulation found unmodeled peaks below 3×10^-2 that the authors attribute to higher-order sidebands, so if those neglected higher-order paths exceed the phase-extraction requirement in some LISA-like configuration, the 'major couplings' claim would break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The complete Table III enables LISA to convert a target phase-extraction sensitivity into explicit broadband ASD requirements on laser phase noise, modulation amplitude noise, modulation phase noise, and additive voltage noise, without further Monte Carlo or time-domain simulation.
  • The noise couplings identified here cannot be suppressed by filtering in the phasemeter or downstream data processing (unlike aliased laser noise), so the only mitigation is to reduce the noise sources themselves or adjust a few parameters such as Δω_m.
  • The sideband combination (usb−lsb)/2 cancels certain laser phase noise couplings (e.g., p_i at Δω_m and 2ω_het) but coherently sums others (e.g., θ_i at 2Δω_m), so the choice of readout combination directly changes which high-frequency noise requirements dominate.
  • Adding an optical frequency comb to replace the EOM would eliminate all modulation-related couplings derived in this paper, leaving only the carrier self-coupling terms p_i(ε) and p_i(2ω_het).
  • Because additive voltage noise v_i is indistinguishable from laser phase noise p_i after the EOM, the same coupling factors apply to pseudorandom-noise ranging codes, informing the design of PRN code spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework's completeness argument is first-order; a natural stress test is to repeat the numerical verification at a larger modulation depth (e.g., m0 ≈ 1.5 rad), where J2(m0)/J0(m0) is no longer small and second-order sideband paths could couple at levels comparable to first-order paths.
  • The same algebraic machinery — beatnote expansion plus phasemeter readout — could be applied to other modulated metrology systems, such as absolute ranging with binary phase codes or future GW detectors with different frequency planning, by substituting their specific beatnote frequencies and modulation depths.
  • The authors' choice to verify only two modulation-band offsets (ε and 2ω_het) leaves open whether the coherence patterns in Table III generalize to offsets like Δω_m or 2Δω_m; a targeted numerical scan of those offsets would close the gap.
  • If the framework is correct, LISA's high-frequency noise requirements will be dominated by the carrier-carrier readout (as shown in the application), meaning that improving carrier phase extraction precision directly relaxes requirements on all four noise sources.
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. The paper develops an analytical framework for systematically enumerating noise couplings in a phase-modulated heterodyne interferometer, in the format of space-based gravitational-wave detectors such as LISA. The authors consider laser phase noise, modulation amplitude noise, modulation phase noise, and modulation voltage noise, and derive first-order couplings from the heterodyne and modulation frequency bands into the phasemeter readouts of the carrier, upper-sideband, lower-sideband, and the usb-lsb combination. Section III derives self and mutual couplings among the three beatnotes, summarized in Table III with coherence signs. Section IV provides virtual down-conversion rules, Eqs. (61)–(66), and a sideband analysis including selected second-order modulation-sideband terms. Section V reports a numerical simulation with LISA-like parameters that reproduces the predicted coupling factors and coherence signs. Section VI uses the couplings to derive high-frequency noise requirements, Table V, via Eq. (84). The central claim is that the framework captures all major noise couplings and can therefore be used to set LISA noise requirements.

Significance. If correct, the paper fills a real gap: it gives explicit, parameter-free coupling factors and coherence signs for high-frequency laser and modulation noises into heterodyne phase readouts, going beyond the existing treatment of RIN and aliased laser noise. The derivations are detailed and transparent, and the numerical simulation is not a fit — no constants are tuned to make Table III match simulation. This makes the catalog directly usable for LISA-like phasemeter and noise-budget work. The main risk is the completeness claim: the analytical truncation and the limited numerical verification leave potential unmodeled paths that could matter at the LISA phase-extraction requirement level. The paper should therefore be accepted only after the completeness issue is quantified or bounded.

major comments (3)
  1. [V, Fig. 6, Eq. (84)] The completeness of the catalog is load-bearing but not established. Section V reports unmodeled coupling peaks in the gray area below 3×10^-2, attributed to second- or higher-order modulation sidebands. These paths are absent from Table III and from the requirement sum in Eq. (84). No upper bound is given for their total amplitude. This matters quantitatively: with the LISA-like carrier phase-extraction requirement of 0.6 µrad/√Hz in Table IV, a neglected coupling of 3×10^-2 applied to a noise ASD of 1×10^-5 rad/√Hz already produces 3×10^-7 rad/√Hz, half the allowed level. The authors need to either provide an analytic bound on the neglected k≥3 and n≥3 paths, or demonstrate numerically that these paths remain safely below the phase-extraction requirement for the LISA-like parameters used in Section VI.
  2. [V, Fig. 7] The modulation-band verification is limited to two frequency offsets, ϵ and 2ωhet. The framework claims to cover all offsets from integer multiples of the modulation frequency, and the down-conversion rules in Eqs. (61)–(66) apply to general Δω. Other offsets that appear in the catalog, such as Δωm, 2ωhet±Δωm, and 2Δωm, are not directly checked numerically. Since the completeness claim is the paper's central contribution, the authors should either extend the numerical verification to these offsets or provide a structural argument that the two tested offsets are sufficiently representative.
  3. [IV B, Eqs. (69)–(76)] The sideband analysis explicitly considers only modulation-sideband orders k=1 and k=2, and selected values of n. The statement that higher-order modulation sidebands 'would not be dominant' is plausible but not quantified. Because Eq. (8) truncates the modulation expansion at first order and Section IV B adds J2 terms on an ad hoc basis, a systematic search should demonstrate that all k≥3 paths are negligible for the parameter space of interest, or at least give an upper bound in terms of m0. Without this, the 'systematic' nature of the catalog is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Various] The manuscript refers to 'Section A', 'Section B', and 'Section C' when meaning the appendices. These should be 'Appendix A', 'Appendix B', and 'Appendix C' for clarity.
  2. [Eq. (63)] In the second line of Eq. (63), the argument of p_i should be (n+1)ωm,i + Δωθ, not (n+1)ωm,i + Δωa. This appears to be a typo, as the preceding line uses Δωθ.
  3. [V, first paragraph] The sample size is written as '107'; this should be '10^7'.
  4. [Table III / Fig. 3] The notation with ∧, ∨, and tilde-definitions is correct but dense. A brief worked example of how to read one row and one coherence symbol would improve accessibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coupling catalog is derived algebraically from stated expansions and verified by an independent full-sideband simulation; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Table III is not fitted: each entry is obtained by substituting the beatnote terms from Eq. (9) into the general phasemeter readout formula Eq. (15), with all noise sources represented as monochromatic tones per Eq. (13). Section III is a direct algebraic manipulation using Jacobi-Anger expansions and I/Q demodulation; Section IV converts modulation-band noise into heterodyne-band noise by explicit trigonometric identities (Eqs. 61-66) and sideband products (Eqs. 70-76). No parameter is tuned to make the analysis agree with the numerical experiment. The simulation in Section V uses the full time series of Eqs. (81)-(82) without the first-order modulation-sideband truncation, so the agreement tests the validity of the expansion rather than reproducing the analytical inputs. The simulation does share the same physical model, so it is not an external benchmark; this limits the scope of validation but is not circularity. Self-citations such as [14] and [16] are used as context or as names for known effects (2f-RIN, 2f-noise down-conversion), and the relevant formulas are rederived in the paper rather than imported as load-bearing premises. The gray unmodeled peaks below 3e-2 in Fig. 6 and the two-offset modulation-band verification are completeness caveats, not fitted-input circularity; a missing bound on higher-order sidebands is a correctness/completeness risk. Therefore no step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

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

No numerical constants are fitted to make the analytic couplings come out right; the noise amplitudes are expansion variables, and the LISA-like values in Table IV are input assumptions for the demonstration, not fitted outputs. No new physical entities are introduced; 'virtual frequency down-conversion' is a bookkeeping device for the mixing of noise tones with the modulation tone.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Jacobi-Anger expansion truncated to first-order modulation sidebands (J0, J1) in Eq. (8); higher-order sidebands neglected except selected J2 paths.
    The whole PR-signal analysis in Eq. (9) is restricted to first-order sidebands; second-order sidebands are added only in Section IV B and are argued to be secondary.
  • domain assumption Small-noise linearization: m_n << 1; Bessel approximations J0(x(1+δ)) and J1(x(1+δ)) drop O(δx^3), and only first-order terms in m_x are kept.
    Used throughout Sections III–IV (e.g., Eqs. (17)–(23), (25), (29)); the numerical verification intentionally avoids these approximations, which is why agreement supports them.
  • domain assumption EOM treated as a pure linear voltage-to-phase converter with no residual amplitude modulation (Eq. (3)).
    Residual AM would introduce additional intensity-noise couplings not in the model; the paper explicitly says 'neglecting residual amplitude modulation.'
  • domain assumption Phasemeter modeled as ideal I/Q demodulation; an additive tone at frequency offset ε produces phase error l/k sin(...), and PLL phasemeters are asserted to behave the same (Eqs. (A1)–(A4)).
    The central readout equation Eq. (15) depends on this; PLL equivalence is stated, not derived.
  • domain assumption Noise represented as a single monotonic tone with random phase (Eq. (13)); two-beam noise sums incoherently with √2 factor.
    This converts time-domain coupling factors to ASD in Appendix B and underlies all coupling calculations; stochastic noise is represented by the tone amplitude.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching systematically for coupling of laser and phase-modulation noise in heterodyne interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2B4OHMRA

@misc{pith2026251217802,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching systematically for coupling of laser and phase-modulation noise in heterodyne interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2B4OHMRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.17802}
}
read the original abstract

Heterodyne interferometry for precision science often comes with an optical phase modulation, for example, for intersatellite clock noise transfer for gravitational wave (GW) detectors in space, exemplified by the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). The phase modulation potentially causes various noise couplings to the final phase extraction of heterodyne beatnotes by a phasemeter. In this paper, in the format of space-based GW detectors, we establish an analytical framework to systematically search for the coupling of various noises from the heterodyne and modulation frequency bands, which are relatively unexplored so far. In addition to the noise caused by the phase modulation, the high-frequency laser phase noise is also discussed in the same framework. The analytical result is also compared with a numerical experiment to confirm that our framework successfully captures the major noise couplings. We also demonstrate a use case of this study by taking the LISA-like parameters as an example, which enables us to derive requirements on the level of the laser and phase modulation noises in the high frequency regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.17802 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the frequency bands discussed in this paper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of the heterodyne-band noises from Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Diagram comprehensively visualizing coupling of the laser and modulation noise to phase extraction by a phasemeter. Blue arrows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Single beam optical spectrum with the laser phase noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagram highlighting the processing steps of the numerical experiment. All plots are amplitude spectra, instead of ASDs, to properly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of analysis (black horizontal lines with dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of analysis (black or red horizontal lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Requirements on noise sources ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, G. Auger, J. T. Baird, M. Bassan, P. Bi- netruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi, N. Brandt, M. Caleno,et al., Sub-Femto-gFree Fall for Space-Based Gravitational Wave Observatories: LISA Pathfinder Results, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 231101 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    In addition, as mentioned at the end of Sec- tion II D, considering incoherent noise contributions with the same noise amplitude from the two interfering beams, a cou- pling factor gains another factor of √

  3. [3]

    Hence, a total phase noise caused by a noise sourcex(∈{p,v,a,θ}) in phase ex- traction of a beatnotey(∈ {car,usb,lsb,usb−lsb}) can be computed by an incoherent sum: ˜Xy = sX ω 2|Cy τ,ω|˜xω 2 =2 sX ω (|Cy τ,ω|˜xω)2,(83) where ˜xω is the ASD of the noisexat a relevant frequencyω in one of the two beams, andC y τ,ω is its time-domain coupling factor to the b...

  4. [4]

    Abich, A

    K. Abich, A. Abramovici, B. Amparan, A. Baatzsch, B. B. Ok- ihiro, D. C. Barr, M. P. Bize, C. Bogan, C. Braxmaier, M. J. Burke,et al., In-Orbit Performance of the GRACE Follow-on Laser Ranging Interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 031101 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    D. A. Shaddock, Digitally enhanced heterodyne interferometry, Opt. Lett.32, 3355 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Numata and J

    K. Numata and J. Camp, Interferometric testbed for nanome- ter level stabilization of environmental motion over long time scales, Appl. Opt.47, 6832 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    T. D. Nguyen, M. Higuchi, T. T. Vu, D. Wei, and M. Aketa- gawa, 10-pm-order mechanical displacement measurements us- ing heterodyneinterferometry, Appl. Opt.59, 8478 (2020). 24

    2020

  8. [8]

    Colpi, K

    M. Colpi, K. Danzmann, M. Hewitson, K. Holley-Bockelmann, P. Jetzer, G. Nelemans, A. Petiteau, D. Shoemaker, C. Sop- uerta, R. Stebbins,et al., LISA Definition Study Report (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Hartwig and J.-B

    O. Hartwig and J.-B. Bayle, Clock-jitter reduction in LISA time-delay interferometry combinations, Phys. Rev. D103, 123027 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Yamamoto, C

    K. Yamamoto, C. V orndamme, O. Hartwig, M. Staab, T. S. Schwarze, and G. Heinzel, Experimental verification of in- tersatellite clock synchronization at LISA performance levels, Phys. Rev. D105, 042009 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Heinzel, J

    G. Heinzel, J. ´Alvarez-Vizoso, M. Dovale- ´Alvarez, and K. Wiesner, Frequency planning for lisa, Phys. Rev. D110, 042002 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Barke, M

    S. Barke, M. Tr ¨obs, B. Sheard, G. Heinzel, and K. Danzmann, EOM sideband phase characteristics for the spaceborne gravi- tational wave detector LISA, Applied Physics B98, 33 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Numata, A

    K. Numata, A. Yu, C. Brambora, J. Camp, M. Fahey, A. Feizi, K. Heesh, H. Jiao, O. Konoplev, M. Mullin, S. Merritt, W. Mamakos, S. Marlow, D. Poulios, P. Pruessner, M. Ro- driguez, A. Vasilyev, S. Wu, X. Xu, and A. Yevick, Develop- ment of LISA laser system at NASA, inInternati...

    2022

  6. [14]

    H. Zeng, H. Yan, S. Xie, S. Jiang, Y . Li, Y . Pan, D. He, Y . Du, and H. chi Yeh, Experimental demonstration of weak- light inter-spacecraft clock jitter readout for TianQin, Opt. Ex- press31, 34648 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    M. Xu, Y . Tan, H. Wu, P. Wang, H. Yan, Y . Liang, and C. Shao, Influence of EOM sideband modulation noise on space-borne gravitational wave detection, Results in Physics57, 107366 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Wissel, A

    L. Wissel, A. Wittchen, T. S. Schwarze, M. Hewitson, G. Heinzel, and H. Halloin, Relative-Intensity-Noise Coupling in Heterodyne Interferometers, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 024025 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Wissel, O

    L. Wissel, O. Hartwig, J. Bayle, M. Staab, E. Fitzsimons, M. Hewitson, and G. Heinzel, Influence of Laser Relative- Intensity Noise on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 014016 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    C. H. Bode,Noise in the LISA phasemeter, Ph.D. thesis, Got- tfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universit¨at Hannover (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Staab, M

    M. Staab, M. Lilley, J.-B. Bayle, and O. Hartwig, Laser noise residuals in lisa from on-board processing and time-delay inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. D109, 043040 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Vidal, H

    L. Vidal, H. Halloin, N. Dam Quang, P. Prat, and A. Petiteau, Aliased laser noise and TDI coupling with LISA On Table, Classical and Quantum Gravity (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Sutton, K

    A. Sutton, K. McKenzie, B. Ware, and D. A. Shaddock, Laser ranging and communications for lisa, Opt. Express18, 20759 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    J. J. Esteban, A. F. Garc ´ıa, S. Barke, A. M. Peinado, F. G. Cer- vantes, I. Bykov, G. Heinzel, and K. Danzmann, Experimental demonstration of weak-light laser ranging and data communi- cation for lisa, Opt. Express19, 15937 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    S. Xie, H. Zeng, Y . Pan, D. He, S. Jiang, Y . Li, Y . Du, H. Yan, and H. chi Yeh, Bi-directional PRN laser ranging and clock syn- chronization for TianQin mission, Optics Communications541, 129558 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Yamamoto, I

    K. Yamamoto, I. Bykov, J. N. Reinhardt, C. Bode, P. Grafe, M. Staab, N. Messied, M. Clark, G. F. Barranco, T. S. Schwarze, O. Hartwig, J. J. E. Delgado, and G. Heinzel, Ex- perimental end-to-end demonstration of intersatellite absolute ranging for the Laser Interferometer Spac...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Euringer, N

    P. Euringer, N. Houba, G. Hechenblaikner, O. Mandel, F. Soualle, and W. Fichter, Compensation of front-end and mod- ulation delays in phase and ranging measurements for time- delay interferometry, Phys. Rev. D109, 083024 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Yamamoto, J

    K. Yamamoto, J. N. Reinhardt, and O. Hartwig, Observable- based reformulation of time-delay interferometry, Phys. Rev. D 111, 122001 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Tinto and N

    M. Tinto and N. Yu, Time-delay interferometry with optical fre- quency comb, Phys. Rev. D92, 042002 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Vinckier, M

    Q. Vinckier, M. Tinto, I. Grudinin, D. Riel ¨ander, and N. Yu, Experimental demonstration of time-delay interferometry with optical frequency comb, Phys. Rev. D102, 062002 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Tan, M.-Y

    Y .-J. Tan, M.-Y . Xu, P.-P. Wang, H.-Z. Wu, and C.-G. Shao, Modified time-delay interferometry with an optical frequency comb, Phys. Rev. D106, 044010 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Yamamoto, H

    K. Yamamoto, H. Tomio, C. Zehnder, K. Numata, and H. Leop- ardi, Alternative approach to time-delay interferometry with op- tical frequency comb (2025), arXiv:2511.07679 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Tinto and J

    M. Tinto and J. W. Armstrong, Cancellation of laser noise in an unequal-arm interferometer detector of gravitational radiation, Physical Review D59, 10.1103/physrevd.59.102003 (1999)

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    Vallisneri, Geometric time delay interferometry, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Geometric time delay interferometry, Phys. Rev. D72, 042003 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Shaddock, B

    D. Shaddock, B. Ware, P. G. Halverson, R. E. Spero, and B. Klipstein, Overview of the LISA Phasemeter, AIP Confer- ence Proceedings873, 10.1063/1.2405113 (2006)

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.