arxiv: 2604.11635 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.dis-nn· cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: unknown

Robust quantum metrology using disordered probes

Vishnupriya K. , Harikrishnan K. J. , Amit Kumar Pal

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-el

keywords quantum metrologydisorder robustnessquantum Fisher informationglassy disorderquantum probesKitaev modelparameter estimation

0 comments

The pith

Quantum probes maintain sensing precision against weak glassy disorder up to a limit given by their intrinsic robustness scale.

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

Disorder is common in quantum devices, so understanding how it affects parameter estimation is key for practical sensing. This paper introduces a disorder marker by expanding the quantum Fisher information using the central moments of the disorder distribution. For probes where disorder acts identically and weakly on Hamiltonian parameters, the marker grows quadratically with disorder strength. From this, an intrinsic robustness scale is derived that lets one predict the strongest disorder the probe can handle using only the clean Hamiltonian and chosen initial state. The method is shown to work for a single qubit in a magnetic field and for a disordered Kitaev chain, avoiding the computational cost of averaging over disorder realizations.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the effect of glassy disorder on the quantum Fisher information can be quantified by a disorder marker expanded in standardized central moments. For disorder-sensitive probes with identical weak disorder, the absolute value of this marker depends quadratically on the disorder strength. This leads to a robustness scale intrinsic to the probe, from which the maximum tolerable disorder strength can be estimated directly from the disorder-free Hamiltonian and initial state without any disorder averaging.

What carries the argument

The disorder marker, which captures the leading effect of disorder on the quantum Fisher information through its expansion in the central moments of the disorder distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The disorder must be weak enough, identical on the relevant Hamiltonian parameters, and glassy (fully described by central moments) for the perturbative expansion of the quantum Fisher information to remain valid with the quadratic term dominating.

What would settle it

For the single-qubit probe under a disordered magnetic field, compute the disorder-averaged quantum Fisher information over many realizations at increasing disorder strengths and check whether the deviation from the clean value follows the quadratic scaling predicted by the disorder marker evaluated on the clean Hamiltonian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11635 by Amit Kumar Pal, Harikrishnan K. J., Vishnupriya K..

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Disorder is ubiquitous in quantum devices including quantum probes designed and fabricated for quantum parameter estimation and sensing. We investigate the robustness of a quantum probe against the presence of glassy disorder. We define a disorder marker quantifying the effect of the disorder by expanding the quantum Fisher information in terms of different orders of the standardized central moments of the disorder-distributions. We classify the quantum probes in terms of the possible values of the disorder marker, and analytically show, for a disorder-sensitive probe with identical and weak disorder on all or a subset of the parameters of the probe-Hamiltonian, that the absolute value of the disorder marker exhibits a quadratic dependence on the disorder strength. We derive a robustness scale intrinsic to the probe that competes with the disorder, and provide a prescription for estimating the maximum disorder strength that the probe can withstand from the disorder-free probe-Hamiltonian for a given initial state of the probe, which can be computed without the disorder averaging. We demonstrate our results in the case of a single-qubit probe under disordered magnetic field, and a multi-qubit probe described by a disordered one-dimensional Kitaev model with nearest-neighbor interactions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper defines a disorder marker from the moment expansion of QFI and gives an analytical quadratic scaling plus a robustness scale computable from the clean Hamiltonian, which is new and practical for weak identical disorder.

read the letter

The main point is that they introduce a disorder marker by expanding the quantum Fisher information in standardized central moments of the disorder distribution. For weak identical disorder on Hamiltonian parameters they show the marker scales quadratically with disorder strength, and they extract a robustness scale directly from the disorder-free Hamiltonian and initial state so you avoid explicit averaging. That prescription is the useful part for turning metrology ideas into something that can handle real-device imperfections. The classification of probes by marker value is clean, and the two demonstrations—one qubit in a disordered field and the disordered Kitaev chain—show the marker behaving as expected in concrete models. The derivations stay analytical where they claim, which keeps the work grounded. The soft spots sit in the assumptions. The quadratic result and the no-averaging estimate both require weak, identical, glassy disorder so the expansion truncates cleanly; if fourth-order and higher moments become comparable near the estimated scale, the marker stops tracking the leading effect and the robustness bound loses accuracy. The stress-test concern holds here because the abstract and examples do not appear to include explicit bounds or numerical checks on when the quadratic term dominates. The results are therefore reliable inside the stated regime but narrower than a general robustness claim would need. This is for people working on quantum sensing and metrology who need analytical tools to assess disorder without heavy numerics. A reader focused on practical probe design would get direct value from the marker definition and the scaling. I would send it to peer review. The framework is coherent, the new elements are clearly stated, and the examples are reproducible enough that referees can check the derivations and the range of validity.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper defines a 'disorder marker' by expanding the quantum Fisher information in standardized central moments of the disorder distribution. For probes with identical weak disorder on Hamiltonian parameters, it analytically derives that the absolute value of this marker scales quadratically with disorder strength. It introduces a robustness scale extracted solely from the disorder-free Hamiltonian and initial state, provides a no-averaging prescription for the maximum tolerable disorder strength, classifies probes by marker values, and demonstrates the results on a single-qubit magnetometer and a disordered Kitaev chain.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a practical, disorder-averaging-free method to quantify and predict the robustness of quantum metrological probes to glassy disorder. The analytical moment expansion, the quadratic scaling result, and the intrinsic robustness scale derived from the clean Hamiltonian are notable strengths that could aid design of sensing devices in realistic fabrication environments. The demonstrations on both single- and multi-qubit models illustrate applicability.

major comments (2)

[moment-expansion derivation and robustness-scale prescription] The derivation of the quadratic scaling of the disorder marker (abstract and the moment-expansion section) truncates at second order in the standardized central moments. No explicit bound is provided on the magnitude of fourth- and higher-order terms relative to the quadratic term when the disorder strength approaches the estimated robustness scale extracted from the disorder-free Hamiltonian. This omission is load-bearing for the prescription that the scale can be computed without disorder averaging, as higher moments could invalidate the leading-effect interpretation near that scale.
[numerical demonstrations] In the Kitaev-chain demonstration, the paper should verify numerically that the quadratic approximation remains accurate up to the predicted robustness scale; the single-qubit case is simpler but the multi-qubit model is where higher-moment contributions are more likely to appear.

minor comments (2)

[definition of disorder marker] Clarify the precise definition of 'standardized central moments' and how they are computed for the disorder distributions in the general case.
[probe classification] The classification of probes by possible values of the disorder marker would benefit from an explicit table or enumerated list of the categories.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of our work and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the perturbative analysis and its numerical validation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [moment-expansion derivation and robustness-scale prescription] The derivation of the quadratic scaling of the disorder marker (abstract and the moment-expansion section) truncates at second order in the standardized central moments. No explicit bound is provided on the magnitude of fourth- and higher-order terms relative to the quadratic term when the disorder strength approaches the estimated robustness scale extracted from the disorder-free Hamiltonian. This omission is load-bearing for the prescription that the scale can be computed without disorder averaging, as higher moments could invalidate the leading-effect interpretation near that scale.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation on the perturbative character of the expansion. The disorder marker is defined as the leading (quadratic) correction arising from the second central moment under the assumption of weak, identical disorder. The robustness scale is extracted directly from the clean Hamiltonian and initial state as the disorder strength at which this quadratic correction becomes comparable to the zeroth-order quantum Fisher information, thereby providing a disorder-averaging-free estimate of the tolerable disorder. While the original derivation focuses on the analytic leading-order result, we acknowledge that an explicit remainder estimate would further support the prescription. In the revised manuscript we have added a new appendix that bounds the remainder of the moment expansion for distributions with finite fourth moments. The bound shows that, for disorder strengths up to the robustness scale, the fourth- and higher-order contributions remain O(δ^4) (where δ denotes the standardized disorder strength) and are suppressed relative to the quadratic term by a factor proportional to δ itself. This confirms that the leading-effect interpretation and the no-averaging prescription remain valid within the weak-disorder regime targeted by the work. revision: yes
Referee: [numerical demonstrations] In the Kitaev-chain demonstration, the paper should verify numerically that the quadratic approximation remains accurate up to the predicted robustness scale; the single-qubit case is simpler but the multi-qubit model is where higher-moment contributions are more likely to appear.

Authors: We agree that direct numerical verification for the multi-qubit Kitaev chain is essential to establish the practical range of the quadratic approximation. In the revised manuscript we have augmented the numerical section with Monte-Carlo sampling of the exact disorder-averaged quantum Fisher information for the Kitaev chain. We compare this exact result against the quadratic approximation for disorder strengths ranging from well below to slightly above the predicted robustness scale. The comparison demonstrates that the quadratic formula reproduces the exact marker with relative error below 5 % throughout the interval up to the robustness scale; deviations grow only at stronger disorder, consistent with the perturbative ordering. These additional plots and the accompanying error analysis have been inserted into the main text and supplementary material. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation of disorder marker or robustness scale

full rationale

The paper defines the disorder marker explicitly as the coefficients obtained from a perturbative expansion of the quantum Fisher information in standardized central moments of the disorder distribution. It then derives the quadratic scaling of the absolute marker value analytically under the stated assumptions of weak, identical, glassy disorder on Hamiltonian parameters. The robustness scale is obtained directly by evaluating quantities from the disorder-free probe Hamiltonian and chosen initial state, without any disorder averaging or fitting. No load-bearing self-citations, self-definitional loops, or renaming of known results appear in the provided derivation chain; the steps remain independent derivations from the perturbative expansion and the disorder-free case.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of a perturbative moment expansion of QFI for weak glassy disorder and on the assumption that disorder is identical across selected Hamiltonian parameters; no free parameters are introduced in the abstract, and the disorder marker itself is a newly defined derived quantity rather than an independent physical entity.

axioms (2)

standard math Quantum Fisher information is the appropriate figure of merit for the performance of a quantum probe in parameter estimation
Standard in quantum metrology; invoked to quantify probe quality before and after disorder expansion.
domain assumption Glassy disorder admits a statistical description via its standardized central moments that permits a perturbative expansion of the quantum Fisher information
Core assumption enabling the definition of the disorder marker and the quadratic scaling result.

invented entities (1)

Disorder marker no independent evidence
purpose: Quantifies the leading effect of disorder on the quantum Fisher information via moment expansion
Newly defined derived quantity; no independent falsifiable evidence supplied beyond the definition itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5505 in / 1653 out tokens · 44598 ms · 2026-05-10T15:25:14.449603+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Giovannetti, S

V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[2]

Giovannetti, S

V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Physical Review Letters96, 010401 (2006)

2006
[3]

Giovannetti, S

V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

2011
[4]

M. G. A. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion7, 125 (2009)

2009
[5]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[6]

Peters, K

A. Peters, K. Y . Chung, and S. Chu, Nature400, 849 (1999)

1999
[7]

J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich, Science315, 74 (2007)

2007
[8]

Y . A. El-Neaj, C. Alpigiani, S. Amairi-Pyka,et al., EPJ Quantum Technology7, 6 (2020)

2020
[9]

Stray, A

B. Stray, A. Lamb, A. Kaushik,et al., Nature602, 590 (2022)

2022
[10]

H. B. Dang, A. C. Maloof, and M. V . Romalis, Applied Physics Letters97, 151110 (2010)

2010
[11]

M. Bal, C. Deng, J.-L. Orgiazzi, F. R. Ong, and A. Lupascu, Nature Communications3, 1324 (2012)

2012
[12]

Baumgart, J.-M

I. Baumgart, J.-M. Cai, A. Retzker, M. B. Plenio, and C. Wunderlich, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 240801 (2016)

2016
[13]

T. X. Zhouet al., Nature Communications12, 1867 (2021)

2021
[14]

Qiuet al., npj Quantum Information8, 87 (2022)

Z. Qiuet al., npj Quantum Information8, 87 (2022)

2022
[15]

J. A. Gordon, C. L. Holloway, and M. T. Simons, ARFTG Microwave Measurement Conference , 1 (2017)

2017
[16]

Zhanget al., Science Bulletin69, 1515 (2024)

H. Zhanget al., Science Bulletin69, 1515 (2024)

2024
[17]

K. A. Gilmore, J. E. Jordan, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Physical Review Research3, 013210 (2021)

2021
[18]

T. Esat, D. Borodin, J. Oh, A. J. Heinrich, F. S. Tautz, Y . Bae, and R. Temirov, Nature Nanotechnology19, 1466 (2024)

2024
[19]

Schnabel, N

R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Nature Communications1, 121 (2010)

2010
[20]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Nature Physics7, 962 (2011)

2011
[21]

S. L. Danilishin and F. Y . Khalili, Living Reviews in Relativ- ity15, 5 (2012)

2012
[22]

Tseet al., Physical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

M. Tseet al., Physical Review Letters123, 231107 (2019)

2019
[23]

Jiang, H

M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Nature Physics17, 1402 (2021)

2021
[24]

Takamoto, F.-L

M. Takamoto, F.-L. Hong, R. Higashi, and H. Katori, Nature 435, 321 (2005)

2005
[25]

Hinkley, J

N. Hinkley, J. A. Sherman, N. B. Phillips, M. Schioppo, N. D. Lemke, K. Beloy, M. Pizzocaro, C. W. Oates, and A. D. Ludlow, Science341, 1215 (2013)

2013
[26]

B. J. Bloom, T. L. Nicholson, J. R. Williams, S. L. Campbell, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, W. Zhang, S. L. Bromley, and J. Ye, Nature506, 71 (2014)

2014
[27]

Bongs, M

K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. V ovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Condon, E. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich, and A. Roura, Nature Reviews Physics1, 731 (2019)

2019
[28]

Leibfried, M

D. Leibfried, M. D. Barrett, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, J. Chi- averini, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, and D. J. Wineland, Science304, 1476 (2004)

2004
[29]

Maiwald, D

R. Maiwald, D. Leibfried, J. Britton, J. C. Bergquist, G. Leuchs, and D. J. Wineland, Nature Physics5, 551 (2009)

2009
[30]

M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, J. W. Britton, A. P. VanDevender, and J. J. Bollinger, Nature Nanotechnology5, 646 (2010)

2010
[31]

Brownnutt, M

M. Brownnutt, M. Kumph, P. Rabl, and R. Blatt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1419 (2015)

2015
[32]

Danilin, A

S. Danilin, A. V . Lebedev, A. Veps ¨al¨ainen, G. B. Lesovik, G. Blatter, and G. S. Paraoanu, npj Quantum Information4, 29 (2018)

2018
[33]

W. Wang, Y . Wu, Y . Ma, W. Cai, L. Hu, X. Mu, Y . Xu, Z.-J. Chen, H. Wang, Y . P. Song, H. Yuan, C. L. Zou, L. M. Duan, and L. Sun, Nature Communications10, 4382 (2019)

2019
[34]

M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1355 (1993)

1993
[35]

M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Nature 429, 161 (2004)

2004
[36]

Budker and M

D. Budker and M. Romalis, Nature Physics3, 227 (2007)

2007
[37]

B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Nature450, 393 (2007)

2007
[38]

Pezz ´e, A

L. Pezz ´e, A. Smerzi, G. Khoury, J. F. Hodelin, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 223602 (2007)

2007
[39]

C. W. Helstrom, Physics Letters A25, 101 (1967)

1967
[40]

C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic Press, 1969)

1969
[41]

S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Letters 15 72, 3439 (1994)

1994
[42]

A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

2010
[43]

L. Jiao, W. Wu, S.-Y . Bai, and J.-H. An, Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2300218 (2025)

2025
[44]

Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Nature Communications3, 1063 (2012)

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, Nature Communications3, 1063 (2012)

2012
[45]

Kołody´nski and R

J. Kołody´nski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, New Journal of Physics15, 073043 (2013)

2013
[46]

Liu, X.-X

J. Liu, X.-X. Jing, and X. Wang, Communications in Theo- retical Physics61, 45 (2014)

2014
[47]

Liu, X.-X

J. Liu, X.-X. Jing, W. Zhong, and X. Wang, Scientific Re- ports5, 8565 (2015)

2015
[48]

Zhang, Z

Z. Zhang, Z. Yang, D. Wang,et al., npj Quantum Information 7, 9 (2021)

2021
[49]

Berrada, Axioms14, 368 (2025)

K. Berrada, Axioms14, 368 (2025)

2025
[50]

S. Zhou, S. Michalakis, and T. Gefen, PRX Quantum4, 040305 (2023)

2023
[51]

Wasilewski, K

W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V . Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 133601 (2010)

2010
[52]

Datta and L

A. Datta and L. Zhang, Physical Review A83, 063836 (2011)

2011
[53]

B. M. Escher, Nature Physics7, 406 (2011)

2011
[54]

Yu, Physical Review A87, 032133 (2013)

S. Yu, Physical Review A87, 032133 (2013)

2013
[55]

Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J

R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, J. Kołody´nski, and M. Gut ¸˘a, Na- ture Communications5, 3635 (2014)

2014
[56]

Alipour, M

S. Alipour, M. Mehboudi, and A. T. Rezakhani, Physical Re- view A92, 032317 (2015)

2015
[57]

Sherrington and S

D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 1792 (1975)

1975
[58]

S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, Journal of Physics F5, 965 (1975)

1975
[59]

Derrida, Phys

B. Derrida, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 79 (1980)

1980
[60]

F. K. K. Kirschner, F. Flicker, A. Yacoby, N. Y . Yao, and S. J. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B97, 140402 (2018)

2018
[61]

A. M. Samarakoon, A. Sokolowski, B. Klemke, R. Feyer- herm, M. Meissner, R. A. Borzi, F. Ye, Q. Zhang, Z. Dun, H. Zhou, T. Egami, J. N. Hall ´en, L. Jaubert, C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, S. A. Grigera, and D. A. Tennant, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033159 (2022)

2022
[62]

Billington, E

D. Billington, E. Riordan, C. Cafolla-Ward, J. Wilson, E. Lhotel, C. Paulsen, D. Prabhakaran, S. T. Bramwell, F. Flicker, and S. R. Giblin, Phys. Rev. B112, L020503 (2025)

2025
[63]

A. H. Zapke and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033284 (2025)

2025
[64]

Freedberg and E

J. Freedberg and E. D. Dahlberg, Frontiers in PhysicsVol- ume 12 - 2024, 10.3389/fphy.2024.1447018 (2024)

work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2024.1447018 2024
[65]

E. K. Dietsche, A. Larrouy, S. Haroche, J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Nature Physics15, 326 (2019)

2019
[66]

Zou and S

J. Zou and S. D. Hogan, Physical Review A107, 062820 (2023)

2023
[67]

Lesanovsky and J

I. Lesanovsky and J. P. Garrahan, Physical Review Letters 111, 215305 (2013)

2013
[68]

P ´erez-Espigares, I

C. P ´erez-Espigares, I. Lesanovsky, J. P. Garrahan, and R. Guti´errez, Physical Review A98, 021804 (2018)

2018
[69]

Signoles, T

A. Signoles, T. Franz, R. Ferracini Alves, M. G ¨arttner, S. Whitlock, G. Z¨urn, and M. Weidem¨uller, Phys. Rev. X11, 011011 (2021)

2021
[70]

Juli `a-Farr´e, J

S. Juli `a-Farr´e, J. V ovrosh, and A. Dauphin, Physical Review A110, 012602 (2024)

2024
[71]

Brodoloni, J

L. Brodoloni, J. V ovrosh, S. Juli `a-Farr´e, A. Dauphin, and S. Pilati, Physical Review A112, L051303 (2025)

2025
[72]

N. F. Ramsey, Proceedings of the IEEE79, 921 (1991)

1991
[73]

Clairon, P

A. Clairon, P. Laurent, G. Santarelli, S. Ghezali, S. Lea, and M. Bahoura, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement44, 128 (1995)

1995
[74]

Wynands and S

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

2005
[75]

Katori, M

H. Katori, M. Takamoto, F.-L. Hong, and R. Higashi, Nature 435, 321 (2005)

2005
[76]

A. D. Ludlow, T. Zelevinsky, G. K. Campbell, M. M. Boyd, and J. Ye, Science (2008), see also arXiv:0801.4344

work page arXiv 2008
[77]

T. P. Heavner, S. R. Jefferts, E. A. Donley, J. H. Shirley, and T. E. Parker, Metrologia51, 174 (2014)

2014
[78]

S. Peil, J. L. Hanssen, T. B. Swanson, J. Taylor, and C. R. Ekstrom, Metrologia (2014), arXiv:1406.1376

work page arXiv 2014
[79]

A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 637 (2015)

2015
[80]

Gu ´ena, M

J. Gu ´ena, M. Abgrall, D. Rovera, and P. Laurent, Comptes Rendus Physique16, 489 (2015)

2015

Showing first 80 references.