Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 85 references

Higher-order statistics of common noise restore Heisenberg scaling for entangled probes under collective dephasing.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 05:47 UTC pith:ZE3UHLQD

load-bearing objection Clean theorems show finite-rate kick statistics restore GHZ Heisenberg scaling under collective dephasing where Gaussian noise floors it, with the Gaussian case proven worst at fixed T2.

arxiv 2607.02962 v1 pith:ZE3UHLQD submitted 2026-07-03 quant-ph

Higher-order noise statistics restore Heisenberg scaling under collective dephasing

Jiaxin Liu , Xing Heng , Zuoxian Wang , Danyue Ma This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum metrologycollective dephasingHeisenberg scalingGHZ statesnon-Gaussian noisecompound-Poisson bathLévy phase noiseentangled atomic clocks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Standard noisy metrology treats decoherence through its two-point correlation or single-atom coherence time. This paper shows that is not enough for entangled probes: two collective baths with identical single-atom T2 but different higher-order statistics produce opposite scaling. Under ordinary Gaussian Markovian collective dephasing a GHZ state hits an atom-number-independent sensitivity floor. When the same single-atom rate is realized by a finite-rate sequence of unitary phase kicks, the collective decoherence rate saturates instead of growing as N squared, and the GHZ probe recovers Heisenberg scaling over a usable window. The Gaussian floor is proved to be the exact worst case; only the residual diffusive component of any Lévy noise sets the ultimate asymptotic floor. The mechanism is purely exponential and Markovian, needing neither memory, Zeno dynamics, nonlinear generators nor error correction.

Core claim

At fixed single-atom coherence time, every finite-rate kick statistics strictly beats the Gaussian collective-dephasing sensitivity floor for a GHZ probe. For any absolutely continuous kick law the GHZ decoherence rate saturates at the event rate, restoring Heisenberg scaling δω ∝ 1/N while collective finite-rate noise dominates residual independent decoherence; for arbitrary Lévy phase noise the asymptotic entangled-probe floor is set exclusively by the diffusive component.

What carries the argument

The saturated collective rate Γ_q = Γ[1 − Re φ(q)], where φ is the kick characteristic function: for absolutely continuous kick laws this rate approaches the finite event rate Γ rather than growing as q², so the GHZ Fisher information yields Heisenberg scaling after time optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The common bath must be a white, finite-rate compound-Poisson or Lévy process whose kick distribution is continuous enough that the high-order coherence rate truly saturates; if the noise remains dominantly diffusive on the interrogation timescale, the Heisenberg window collapses.

What would settle it

Prepare GHZ states of increasing N under a common phase noise engineered (or measured) to be jump-dominated at fixed single-atom T2; if the optimized frequency sensitivity fails to improve as 1/N before independent decoherence takes over, or if the measured high-order coherence rates keep growing as N², the claim is false.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Entangled-clock stability is controlled by the jump-to-diffusion ratio of the local oscillator, not only by its single-atom linewidth.
  • Noise spectroscopy that stops at the two-point spectrum is blind to the distinction that decides whether entanglement helps or fails under common dephasing.
  • A residual diffusive component re-imposes a hard floor eσ², so any practical gain is bounded by how jump-like the actual common noise is.
  • The same saturation caps the peak of a Dicke superradiant cascade at an N-independent value set by the bath event rate.
  • No parallel strategy (arbitrary state, ancilla or measurement) improves on the asymptotic GHZ scaling once the kick law is absolutely continuous.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Registers of entangled atoms can be run as tomographs of their own common-noise kick law by measuring the decay rates of successive coherence orders and Fourier-inverting.
  • Engineering LO or environmental noise toward finite-rate jump statistics becomes a design axis complementary to lowering the overall noise strength.
  • The same saturation should appear in any multi-particle sensor whose common noise is event-like (shared fluctuators, correlated quasiparticle bursts) once the probe coherence order exceeds 1/μ.
  • Combining finite-rate common noise with existing spin-squeezing or critical-metrology protocols could extend the Heisenberg window rather than replace those methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper shows that noisy quantum metrology under collective dephasing is controlled by higher-order bath statistics, not only the two-point spectrum or single-atom T2. Modeling common noise as a white compound-Poisson process of unitary phase kicks (master equation (1)), it derives that a Dicke coherence of order q decays at Γq=Γ[1-Re φ(q)]. For any absolutely continuous kick law, Riemann–Lebesgue implies saturation Γq oΓ rather than the Gaussian q^{2} growth, so a GHZ probe recovers Heisenberg scaling δω√T ≃ √(2eΓ)/N in the common-noise-dominated window (Eqs. (3)–(4)). At fixed single-atom coherence time the Gaussian floor is proved the exact worst case via a classical characteristic-function inequality (Eq. (5)); for Lévy phase noise the asymptotic floor is set solely by the diffusive component σ^{2} (Eq. (6)). A converse bound (Eq. (7)) establishes asymptotic optimality of GHZ among parallel strategies. A dissipative analogue caps the Dicke burst, and residual independent decoherence opens a finite Heisenberg window. The mechanism is purely exponential and CP-divisible.

Significance. If correct, the work identifies full counting statistics of common noise as a previously under-used control axis for entanglement-enhanced metrology, complementary to Zeno, non-Markovian, nonlinear-generator, and error-correction routes. The extremality and converse theorems upgrade an example into a characterization: the Gaussian floor is the worst case, the asymptotic sensitivity is fixed by σ^{2} alone, and GHZ is asymptotically optimal. The claims rest on standard Lindblad/compound-Poisson structure, characteristic-function identities, Riemann–Lebesgue, Stam’s inequality, and an ancilla-reduction argument; the main text states the theorems and the SM is said to contain the proofs. Concrete diagnostic illustrations with public GPS clock-jump and LIGO magnetometer records make the modeling falsifiable and give a clear experimental path for entangled clocks and burst-noise platforms.

minor comments (5)
  1. The Supplemental Material is repeatedly invoked for the full proofs of the extremality theorem, converse bound, ancilla-reduction lemma, and lattice-kick counterexample. For archival completeness it would help to include a short self-contained sketch of the key inequalities (Heathcote–Pitman and Stam) already in the main text or an appendix.
  2. Figure 1 caption and surrounding text use both “finite-rate” and “non-Gaussian”; a single consistent label (e.g., “compound-Poisson”) would reduce ambiguity when comparing to the Gaussian diffusion limit.
  3. Table I lists several kick laws calibrated to the same Γ0; adding one sentence on how the crossover order q*∼1/μ is extracted for the α-stable case would make the table fully self-contained.
  4. In the Physical realization section the illustrative parameters (μ∼0.2, Γ∼1 Hz, γ'∼1 mHz) are clearly labeled as such, but a brief remark that they are not fitted to any particular LO would further forestall misreading of Fig. 3(b).
  5. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “W orst case” with a space, occasional missing spaces around “Lévy”). A light copy-edit pass would clean them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: saturation, worst-case Gaussian floor, Lévy asymptotics, and GHZ optimality follow by direct calculation from the stated master equation and classical characteristic-function inequalities, without self-definitional loops or fitted inputs re-labeled as predictions.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain begins from the compound-Poisson master equation (1), which is a standard Poisson mixture of unitary channels and yields the exact coherence rates Γ_q = Γ[1−Re φ(q)] by diagonalization in the |m⟩⟨m′| basis. Saturation Γ_q → Γ for absolutely continuous kick laws is the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma applied to φ; the Gaussian floor is recovered only in the singular diffusion limit of the same family. The extremality claim (5) is the classical Heathcote–Pitman inequality for characteristic functions (cited externally), and the Lévy asymptotics (6) follow by dominated convergence on the Lévy–Khintchine formula. The converse bound (7) conditions on the Poisson number of kicks and invokes Stam’s inequality on the location family of each kicked branch; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors’ prior work. Illustrative parameters (μ, Γ, γ′) and the three public-record panels fix model inputs from measured jump catalogues and then evaluate the already-derived Γ_q formula; they do not fit a free parameter to force the Heisenberg claim. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own equations and external classical inequalities; no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims are mathematical consequences of a standard open-system model (compound-Poisson / Lévy collective dephasing) plus classical inequalities on characteristic functions. No new particles or forces are introduced. Free parameters appear only in illustrative numerics and public-record mappings, not as fitted constants that define the scaling theorems. Load-bearing modeling choices are the white finite-rate kick assumption and absolute continuity of p(a).

free parameters (3)
  • kick scale μ (and equivalent for other laws)
    Sets the crossover N*∼1/μ and is chosen by hand for figures (e.g. μ=0.1, 0.2); central theorems hold for any absolutely continuous law once single-atom rate is fixed.
  • event rate Γ and residual independent rates γ′, γ1
    Illustrative values (Γ∼1 Hz, γ′∼1 mHz, etc.) define the width of the Heisenberg window in figures; not fitted to entangled-clock data.
  • GPS jump catalogue parameters (Γ_J, median |Δy|)
    Extracted from 56-day IGS solutions for one Block IIF Rb clock; used only for the diagnostic panel, not to prove the scaling theorems.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Collective dephasing is generated by a Poisson process of unitary kicks (or more generally a Lévy process) yielding the time-local Lindblad master equation (1).
    Standard compound-Poisson open-system model; invoked from the Model section onward as the definition of the finite-rate bath.
  • standard math Riemann–Lebesgue lemma: φ(q)→0 as |q|→∞ for absolutely continuous kick densities, hence Γ_q→Γ.
    Used to prove saturation of the collective rate (Eq. 2 and Table I).
  • standard math Classical inequality 1−Re φ(q) ≤ q²[1−Re φ(1)] for characteristic functions (Heathcote–Pitman).
    Used to prove the Gaussian floor is the exact worst case at fixed single-atom rate (Eq. 5).
  • standard math Stam’s inequality bounds Fisher information of location families; used with conditioning on kick number for the converse bound.
    Invoked for the converse theorem (Eq. 7) and ancilla-reduction lemma in SM.
  • ad hoc to paper Lattice or deterministic kicks (persistent oscillations of φ) are excluded so that saturation holds.
    Explicitly stated after Eq. 2 and in SM; without it Γ_q need not converge.
  • domain assumption Independent per-atom dephasing/amplitude damping adds a term linear in N to Γ_GHZ, restoring SQL at large N.
    Standard uncorrelated noise; verified by 2^N Liouvillian integration for amplitude damping (Eq. 9).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17415 in / 3654 out tokens · 33642 ms · 2026-07-12T05:47:57.131606+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-order noise statistics restore Heisenberg scaling under collective dephasing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZE3UHLQD

@misc{pith2026260702962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-order noise statistics restore Heisenberg scaling under collective dephasing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZE3UHLQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02962}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Noisy-metrology theory characterizes decoherence by its two-point correlation function, equivalently the single-atom coherence time or noise spectrum. We show this is insufficient for entangled probes: two collective baths with identical single-atom $T_2$ but different higher-order statistics yield opposite entanglement-enhanced scaling. Under Gaussian Markovian collective dephasing a Greenberger--Horne--Zeilinger (GHZ) probe reaches an atom-number-independent sensitivity floor. For a fully Markovian compound-Poisson bath, in which collective dephasing is generated by a finite-rate sequence of unitary phase kicks, a Dicke coherence of order $q$ (a difference of $J_z$ eigenvalues) decays at $\Gamma_q=\Gamma[1-\mathrm{Re}\,\varphi(q)]$, with $\varphi$ the kick characteristic function; for any absolutely continuous kick law this rate saturates at large $q$ instead of growing as $q^2$, and a GHZ probe recovers Heisenberg scaling $\delta\omega\propto1/N$ over the window in which collective finite-rate noise dominates residual independent decoherence. We prove that the Gaussian floor is the exact worst case: at fixed single-atom coherence time every finite-rate kick statistics strictly beats it, and for arbitrary L\'evy phase noise the asymptotic entangled-probe sensitivity is set exclusively by the diffusive component. A converse bound shows that no input state, ancilla, or measurement improves on the GHZ scaling. The mechanism is purely exponential and CP-divisible, distinct from the Zeno, non-Markovian, nonlinear-generator, and error-correction routes. A dissipative analogue caps the Dicke superradiant burst. The full counting statistics of common noise thus emerge as a control axis for noisy quantum metrology, beyond the spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02962 by Danyue Ma, Jiaxin Liu, Xing Heng, Zuoxian Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Restoration of Heisenberg scaling under finite-rate common noise. (a) Optimized frequency sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Non-Gaussian noise caps the superradiant burst. (a) Peak emission rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Robustness: adding independent dephasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measured-record demonstrations. (a) The frequency-jump component of a flying GPS rubidium clock (PRN G03, SVN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

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

85 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  2. [2]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory(Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    1976

  3. [3]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  4. [4]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  5. [5]

    M. G. A. Paris, Int. J. Quantum Inf.7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, J. Phys. A53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Giovannetti, S

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

    2004

  8. [8]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  9. [9]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photon- ics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  10. [10]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, J. Phys. A47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

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

    2017

  12. [12]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  14. [14]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  15. [15]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A50, 67 (1994)

    1994

  16. [16]

    A. S. Sørensen, L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature (London)409, 63 (2001)

    2001

  17. [17]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep.509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    Est` eve, C

    J. Est` eve, C. Gross, A. Weller, S. Giovanazzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature (London)455, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, and V. Vuleti´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 073602 (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est` eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature (London)464, 1165 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    M. F. Riedel, P. B¨ ohi, Y. Li, T. W. H¨ ansch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, Nature (London)464, 1170 (2010)

    2010

  22. [22]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature (London)529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Science352, 1297 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3865 (1997)

    1997

  25. [25]

    B. M. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, Nat. Phys.7, 406 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, J. Ko lody´ nski, and M. Gut ¸˘ a, Nat. Commun.3, 1063 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    Ko lody´ nski and R

    J. Ko lody´ nski and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, New J. Phys.15, 073043 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski and L

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 250801 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fr¨ owis, and B. Kraus, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 080801 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nat. Com- mun.9, 78 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Kurdzia lek, F

    S. Kurdzia lek, F. Albarelli, and R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´ nski, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 130801 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Riberi, G

    F. Riberi, G. A. Paz-Silva, and L. Viola, arXiv:2603.23804

    arXiv

  33. [33]

    A. Dey, S. Mouradian, C. Lupo, and Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2025), DOI:10.1103/v4x6-2dzs

    work page doi:10.1103/v4x6-2dzs 2025

  34. [34]

    Dorner, New J

    U. Dorner, New J. Phys.14, 043011 (2012)

    2012

  35. [35]

    Matsuzaki, S

    Y. Matsuzaki, S. C. Benjamin, and J. Fitzsimons, Phys. Rev. A84, 012103 (2011)

    2011

  36. [36]

    A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 233601 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    Smirne, J

    A. Smirne, J. Ko lody´ nski, S. F. Huelga, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120801 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Sekatski, M

    P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, J. Ko lody´ nski, and W. D¨ ur, Quantum1, 27 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    J. F. Haase, A. Smirne, J. Ko lody´ nski, R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´ nski, and S. F. Huelga, New J. Phys.20, 053009 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Optimal asymptotic precision bounds for nonlin- ear quantum metrology under collective dephasing, arXiv:2501.00189 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Matsuzakiet al., Phys

    Y. Matsuzakiet al., Phys. Rev. Applied16, 064026 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Funo and A

    K. Funo and A. Ishizaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 170402 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    M. R. Gallis and G. N. Fleming, Phys. Rev. A42, 38 (1990)

    1990

  44. [44]

    Hornberger and J

    K. Hornberger and J. E. Sipe, Phys. Rev. A68, 012105 (2003)

    2003

  45. [45]

    Vacchini, Phys

    B. Vacchini, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 230402 (2005)

    2005

  46. [46]

    C. R. Heathcote and J. W. Pitman, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.6, 1 (1972)

    1972

  47. [47]

    A. J. Stam, Inf. Control2, 101 (1959)

    1959

  48. [48]

    Lindblad, Commun

    G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  49. [49]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  50. [50]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  51. [51]

    Andr´ e, A

    A. Andr´ e, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 230801 (2004)

    2004

  52. [52]

    E. M. Kessler, P. K´ om´ ar, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 190403 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    Borregaard and A

    J. Borregaard and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 090801 (2013)

    2013

  54. [54]

    K´ om´ ar, E

    P. K´ om´ ar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Nat. Phys.10, 582 (2014)

    2014

  55. [55]

    Schulte, C

    M. Schulte, C. Lisdat, P. O. Schmidt, U. Sterr, and K. Hammerer, Nat. Commun.11, 5955 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. H¨ ansel, M. Hen- nrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130506 (2011)

    2011

  57. [57]

    Yuet al., Phys

    J. Yuet al., Phys. Rev. X13, 041002 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Kielinski, P

    T. Kielinski, P. O. Schmidt, and K. Hammerer, Sci. Adv. 10, eadr1439 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Johnston, A

    G. Johnston, A. Riddell, and G. Hausler, inSpringer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems, edited by P. J. G. Teunissen and O. Montenbruck (Springer, Cham, 2017), pp. 967–982

    2017

  60. [60]

    Formichella, Metrologia53, 1346 (2016)

    V. Formichella, Metrologia53, 1346 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    Formichella, J

    V. Formichella, J. Camparo, and P. Tavella, Appl. Phys. Lett.110, 043506 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), SoftwareX13, 100658 (2021)

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), SoftwareX13, 100658 (2021). 8

    2021

  63. [63]

    Kowalska-Leszczynskaet al., Class

    I. Kowalska-Leszczynskaet al., Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 074002 (2017)

    2017

  64. [64]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  65. [65]

    Pedrozo-Pe˜ nafielet al., Nature (London)588, 414 (2020)

    E. Pedrozo-Pe˜ nafielet al., Nature (London)588, 414 (2020)

    2020

  66. [66]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  67. [67]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Phys. Rep.93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  68. [68]

    J. G. Bohnet, Z. Chen, J. M. Weiner, D. Meiser, M. J. Holland, and J. K. Thompson, Nature (London)484, 78 (2012)

    2012

  69. [69]

    M. A. Norcia, M. N. Winchester, J. R. K. Cline, and J. K. Thompson, Sci. Adv.2, e1601231 (2016)

    2016

  70. [70]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Alt- shuler, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 361 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    Bergli, Y

    J. Bergli, Y. M. Galperin, and B. L. Altshuler, New J. Phys.11, 025002 (2009)

    2009

  72. [72]

    L. M. Norris, G. A. Paz-Silva, and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 150503 (2016)

    2016

  73. [73]

    Sunget al., Nat

    Y. Sunget al., Nat. Commun.10, 3715 (2019)

    2019

  74. [74]

    C. D. Wilenet al., Nature (London)594, 369 (2021)

    2021

  75. [75]

    McEwenet al., Nat

    M. McEwenet al., Nat. Phys.18, 107 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    Commun.16, 4677 (2025); arXiv:2402.04245

    Cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in a supercon- ducting qubit array, Nat. Commun.16, 4677 (2025); arXiv:2402.04245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Garbe, M

    L. Garbe, M. Bina, A. Keller, M. G. A. Paris, and S. Felicetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120504 (2020)

    2020

  78. [78]

    Di Candia, F

    R. Di Candia, F. Minganti, K. V. Petrovnin, G. S. Paraoanu, and S. Felicetti, npj Quantum Inf.9, 23 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    Alushi, A

    O. Alushi, A. Coppo, V. Brosco, R. Di Candia, and S. Felicetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 040801 (2024)

    2024

  80. [80]

    von L¨ upkeet al., PRX Quantum1, 010305 (2020)

    U. von L¨ upkeet al., PRX Quantum1, 010305 (2020)

    2020

Showing first 80 references.