Pith. sign in

REVIEW 63 references

Raising the number of measurement settings in generalized Mermin inequalities tightens classical bounds and sharpens Bell certification of large noisy GHZ states.

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

2026-07-30 18:26 UTC pith:YH7CJLSG

load-bearing objection Useful finite-setting Mermin package plus real 80-qubit data: m tightens classical bounds and deepens certification on the same noisy GHZ states.

arxiv 2607.23574 v1 pith:YH7CJLSG submitted 2026-07-26 quant-ph

Generalized Mermin Inequalities for Benchmarking Large-Scale GHZ States

Jianbin Cai , Junxiang Huang , Fynn Otto , Yuan Li , Carlos de Gois , Tao Jiang , Sirui Cao , Fangzheng Chen
show 10 more authors
Hao Fu Jin Lin Wei Xie Naibin Zhou Shibiao Tang Xiang-Yang Li Cheng-Zhi Peng Xiao Yuan Otfried G\"uhne Ming Gong
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords multipartite Bell inequalitiesgeneralized Mermin inequalityGHZ statesnonlocality depthBell benchmarkingsuperconducting qubitsnoise robustness
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.

Multipartite Bell tests can benchmark quantum processors from correlators alone, but noise kills many-body signals and ordinary Bell expressions explode in size. This paper introduces a finite-setting family of generalized Mermin inequalities tailored to GHZ states, treating the local setting count m as a second certification knob alongside system size n. For powers-of-two m, the ideal normalized quantum value stays 1 while the relevant classical and grouping-model bounds fall, so Bell-violation ratios and nonlocality-depth claims strengthen for the same noisy state. On a superconducting processor the authors prepare GHZ states up to 80 qubits, estimate the operators by randomized sampling of correlators, and report exponentially growing ratios plus a certified nonlocality depth of 14 at n=80 for m=8 versus 10 for the standard two-setting test—without readout correction, tomography, or model-based mitigation.

Core claim

For powers-of-two setting numbers m, the normalized generalized Mermin operator has ideal GHZ value 1 while its local and k-producible classical bounds decrease with m, producing larger Bell ratios and deeper nonlocality-depth certification from essentially the same measured correlators; experiment on up to 80-qubit GHZ states confirms exponentially growing ratios and stronger depth claims as m increases.

What carries the argument

The normalized generalized Mermin operator Mm,n, which averages signed products of m coplanar equatorial observables only over setting vectors whose indices sum to a multiple of m; analytic local and grouping-model bounds for this operator (closed forms for powers-of-two m) carry the certification.

Load-bearing premise

The closed-form classical and grouping bounds used for every reported ratio and depth claim must be valid at the experimental pairs (m, n); if those formulas do not apply or are loose at a claimed point, the certified depths and scaling advantage are overstated.

What would settle it

Fix the same noisy n-qubit GHZ preparation and sampling budget, raise m through powers of two, and check whether the measured operator stays near the m=2 value while the experimental Bell ratio and grouping-model depth both increase exactly as the analytic bounds predict; a failure of either the ratio growth or the depth ordering falsifies the central claim.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Bell benchmarks of large GHZ states can be strengthened by changing only the measurement layer, without better state preparation.
  • Nonlocality-depth claims on NISQ hardware become tighter once m is treated as a free certification parameter.
  • Randomized sampling of the finite-setting operator makes direct Bell-operator estimation scalable past exhaustive correlator lists.
  • The same analytic bounds supply a correlation-only figure of merit portable across hardware platforms that can prepare GHZ states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the noise-robustness base continues to improve toward the continuous-setting limit ~2/π, moderate-m tests may already capture most of the available certification gain on present devices.
  • The construction suggests a design pattern for other stabilizer states: enlarge the equatorial setting set to suppress classical bounds while freezing the ideal quantum value.
  • Closing locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes on a future architecture would convert the same operators into a scalable device-independent depth witness rather than a correlation-only benchmark.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: analytic classical/grouping bounds and GHZ quantum value are derived independently of the device data; experimental ratios compare measured correlators to those bounds.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is (i) define the normalized generalized Mermin operator so that every allowed equatorial GHZ correlator contributes +1, hence Q_{m,n}=1 by stabilizer algebra; (ii) bound deterministic LHV strategies via the product form, Fourier vectors v_m(a), Hölder/norm interpolation, and conjugate pairing, yielding closed-form C_{m,n} for m=2^r and n in the stated even/odd regimes (Props. 1–2, Cor. 2); (iii) estimate ⟨M⟩ by randomized sampling of settings-level averages S_i and compare to those analytic thresholds for ratios and depth. None of these steps fits a parameter to the experimental correlators and then re-labels it as a prediction, nor does any uniqueness or bound rest on a load-bearing self-citation. Hardware self-cites (Zuchongzhi 3.1) are platform context only and do not enter Bell estimates. The reported exponential D^{exp}_{8,n} is an empirical fit to measured ratios against independent C_{8,n}, not a first-principles forecast forced by construction. Gaps where some Table S4 depth thresholds for m=16,32 at l=7 sit outside the proven n range are a rigor/conjecture issue, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained against external analytic benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

Core math is standard Bell/LHV and norm analysis plus GHZ stabilizer evaluations. Domain assumptions are the usual Bell-benchmark ones (deterministic classical strategies; grouping/restrained-subset models for depth) and experimental modeling choices (settings-level independence for EB; equatorial Pauli observables). No new physical entities. Free parameters are experimental resource choices (m, N, M) and the empirical scaling fit coefficient, not theory inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • measurement setting count m (powers of two) = primary comparisons m=2 vs m=8; scan to 32 at n=80
    Chosen by experimenters as the certification dial (2,4,8,16,32); theory specializes to m=2^r for the closed forms used in claims.
  • settings sample size N and shots M = M=1500; N up to 3600
    Finite-sample estimator design choices that control EB p-values; M=1500 fixed, N varies with n (e.g. 3600 at n=80).
  • experimental Bell-ratio base for m=8 = 1.5168±0.0024
    Empirical fit D^exp_8,n ∝ (1.5168±0.0024)^n to measured data; not a theory input but used in the scaling claim.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Local bound equals max over deterministic ±1 assignments; continuous LHV need not be considered separately for these correlators.
    Standard in Bell nonlocality; used throughout SM §SIII.C.
  • standard math For m=2^r and n above stated thresholds, n-norm maximizers coincide with ∞-norm half-plane sign strategies, giving C_{m,n}=2 m^{-n} ∑_{j} sin^{-n}((2j+1)π/(2m)) (even n).
    Proposition 1 via Hölder, Parseval, and norm interpolation; load-bearing for ratio claims.
  • standard math k-producible / grouping-model maximum of ⟨M_{m,n}⟩ equals C_{m,⌈n/k⌉}.
    Corollary 2 from restrained-subset reduction; defines certified nonlocality depth.
  • domain assumption Settings-level averages S_i may be treated as independent bounded observations for one-sided empirical Bernstein p-values, with sample size N not total shots.
    SM §SII; conservative stats assumption for all reported p_EB.
  • domain assumption Ideal GHZ plus A_x=cos(πx/m)X+sin(πx/m)Y yields ⟨⊗A_{x_j}⟩=(-1)^{s(x)/m} on allowed settings, hence Q_{m,n}=1.
    Stabilizer evaluation in Theory section; fixes the quantum side of the ratio.
  • standard math Multiplying m by an odd factor cannot improve Q/C (Lemma 1), so only powers of two are optimized.
    SM Lemma 1; justifies the family restriction used experimentally.
invented entities (1)
  • Normalized finite-setting generalized Mermin operator M_{m,n} independent evidence
    purpose: Single Bell functional family with m as certification parameter and analytic classical/depth bounds for large-n sampling.
    Organizes known multi-setting GHZ ideas into a normalized operator with explicit C_{m,n} and grouping bounds used end-to-end in the experiment.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 36793 in / 3683 out tokens · 73820 ms · 2026-07-30T18:26:43.781369+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Mermin Inequalities for Benchmarking Large-Scale GHZ States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YH7CJLSG

@misc{pith2026260723574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Mermin Inequalities for Benchmarking Large-Scale GHZ States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YH7CJLSG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23574}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Multipartite Bell tests provide a correlation-only route to benchmarking quantum processors, but their application at large scales is hindered by the rapid decay of many-body correlators under noise and exponentially many terms in conventional Bell expressions. Here we address these scalability obstacles by introducing a finite-setting generalized Mermin family of state-tailored Bell inequalities with analytic certification bounds, in which the measurement-setting number $m$ provides an additional certification dimension complementary to the system size $n$. We show that, for the powers-of-two setting choices considered here, increasing $m$ leaves the ideal normalized multipartite quantum value unchanged while lowering the relevant classical bounds, thereby strengthening the Bell-violation ratios and yielding an improved noise-robustness scaling compared to the standard Mermin inequality. We test this construction experimentally on a programmable superconducting processor by preparing Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states of up to 80 qubits. Using randomized sampling for direct Bell-operator estimation, we observe Bell ratios that grow exponentially with system size, certify a nonlocality depth of 14, and show that increasing $m$ strengthens both the Bell ratio and depth certification. All results are obtained solely from measured correlators and analytical bounds, without readout correction, tomography, or model-based mitigation. Generalized Mermin inequalities therefore provide a sharper Bell benchmark for noisy large-scale GHZ states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23574 by Carlos de Gois, Cheng-Zhi Peng, Fangzheng Chen, Fynn Otto, Hao Fu, Jianbin Cai, Jin Lin, Junxiang Huang, Ming Gong, Naibin Zhou, Otfried G\"uhne, Shibiao Tang, Sirui Cao, Tao Jiang, Wei Xie, Xiang-Yang Li, Xiao Yuan, Yuan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) shows that the experimental Bell ratio D exp m,80 in￾creases monotonically as m is raised from 2 to 4, 8, 16, and 32. Once m > 2, the observed Bell ratio already exceeds the theoretical ceiling of the standard Mermin inequal￾ity. At the same time, the expectation value changes only weakly with m. This behavior is consistent with the mechanism of the construction: larger m yields a larger quantum-to-cla… 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

63 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  2. [4]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  3. [5]

    M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cav- alcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1727 (2009)

    2009

  4. [6]

    Q. Y. He and M. D. Reid, Physical Review Letters111, 250403 (2013)

    2013

  5. [7]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Physical Review Letters98, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  6. [8]

    S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. A76, 052116 (2007)

    2007

  7. [9]

    Bancal, C

    J.-D. Bancal, C. Branciard, N. Gisin, and S. Pironio, Physical Review Letters103, 090503 (2009)

    2009

  8. [10]

    Baccari, J

    F. Baccari, J. Tura, M. Fadel, A. Aloy, J.-D. Bancal, N. Sangouard, M. Lewenstein, A. Acín, and R. Augusiak, Physical Review A100, 022121 (2019)

    2019

  9. [11]

    Bernards and O

    F. Bernards and O. Gühne, Physical Review A107, 022412 (2023)

    2023

  10. [12]

    A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 230501 (2007)

    2007

  11. [13]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and V. Scarani, New Journal of Physics11, 045021 (2009)

    2009

  12. [14]

    Šupić and J

    I. Šupić and J. Bowles, Quantum4, 337 (2020)

    2020

  13. [15]

    Brukner, M

    Č. Brukner, M. Żukowski, J.-W. Pan, and A. Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters92, 127901 (2004)

    2004

  14. [16]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf, Re- views of Modern Physics82, 665 (2010)

    2010

  15. [17]

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

    2011

  16. [18]

    Schmied, J.-D

    R. Schmied, J.-D. Bancal, B. Allard, M. Fadel, V. Scarani, P. Treutlein, and N. Sangouard, Science352, 441 (2016)

    2016

  17. [19]

    Ansmann, H

    M. Ansmann, H. Wang, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Wei- des, J. Wenner,et al., Nature461, 504 (2009)

    2009

  18. [20]

    Storz, J

    S. Storz, J. Schär, A. Kulikov, P. Magnard, P. Kurpiers, J. Lütolf, T. Walter, A. Copetudo, K. Reuer, A. Akin, et al., Nature617, 265 (2023)

    2023

  19. [21]

    B. Yang, R. Raymond, H. Imai, H. Chang, and H. Hi- raishi, IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems12, 638 (2022)

    2022

  20. [22]

    B. P. Lanyon, M. Zwerger, P. Jurcevic, C. Hempel, W. Dür, H. J. Briegel, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 100403 (2014)

    2014

  21. [23]

    K. Wang, W. Li, S. Xu, M. Hu, J. Chen, Y. Wu, C. Zhang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y. Gao,et al., Physical Review X15, 021024 (2025)

    2025

  22. [25]

    Ardehali, Physical Review A46, 5375 (1992)

    M. Ardehali, Physical Review A46, 5375 (1992)

    1992

  23. [26]

    Gühne and A

    O. Gühne and A. Cabello, Physical Review A77, 032108 (2008)

    2008

  24. [27]

    J. L. Bönsel, O. Gühne, and A. Cabello, Physical Review A111, 012207 (2025)

    2025

  25. [28]

    Z. Bao, S. Xu, Z. Song,et al., Nature Communications 15, 8823 (2024)

    2024

  26. [29]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  27. [31]

    Maurer and M

    A. Maurer and M. Pontil, inProceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Learning Theory (COLT 2009) (2009) pp. 1–9

    2009

  28. [32]

    At the same time, the expectation value changes only weakly withm

    Oncem >2, the observed Bell ratio already exceeds the theoretical ceiling of the standard Mermin inequal- ity. At the same time, the expectation value changes only weakly withm. This behavior is consistent with the mechanism of the construction: largermyields a larger quantum-to-classical separation for essentially the same experimental correlator. At the...

  29. [34]

    B.Hensen, H.Bernien, A.E.Dréau, A.Reiserer, N.Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán,et al., Nature526, 682 (2015)

    2015

  30. [35]

    L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bier- horst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, et al., Physical Review Letters115, 250402 (2015)

    2015

  31. [36]

    Giustina, M

    M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlech- ner, J. Kofler, J.-Å. Larsson, C. Abellán,et al., Physical Review Letters115, 250401 (2015)

    2015

  32. [38]

    Nagata, W

    K. Nagata, W. Laskowski, and T. Paterek, Physical Re- view A74, 062109 (2006)

    2006

  33. [40]

    van Dam, R

    W. van Dam, R. D. Gill, and P. D. Grünwald, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory51, 2812 (2005)

    2005

  34. [41]

    Jungnitsch, S

    B. Jungnitsch, S. Niekamp, M. Kleinmann, O. Gühne, H. Lu, W.-B. Gao, Y.-A. Chen, Z.-B. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Physical Review Letters104, 210401 (2010)

    2010

  35. [42]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Physical Review A58, 2733 (1998)

    1998

  36. [43]

    Generalized Mermin Inequalities for Benchmarking Large-Scale GHZ States

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Nature Physics7, 565 (2011). Supplemental Material for “Generalized Mermin Inequalities for Benchmarking Large-Scale GHZ States” Jianbin Cai,1, 2, 3,∗ Junxiang Huang,4, 5,∗ Fynn Otto,6,∗ Yuan Li,1, 2, 3,∗ Carlos de Gois,6, 7 Tao J...

    2011

  37. [44]

    Considered measurement settings 23

  38. [45]

    Nonlocality depth 23 SIV

    Scaling in comparison to Mermin Inequalities 23 D. Nonlocality depth 23 SIV. Additional GHZ Benchmarks 25 A. Biseparable comparison atn= 1625 B. Detailed nonlocality-depth hierarchy 25 SV. Discussion on Bell Loopholes and Experimental Constraints 26 A. Detection Loophole 26 B. Locality Loophole 27 C. Freedom-of-Choice Loophole 27 8 D. Implications for Ben...

  39. [46]

    They arem= 8forn∈ {3,4,5,6,7,8,16,28,43,60,80}as well asm∈ {4,16,32}for n= 80

    Considered measurement settings Here, we show that the stated bounds hold for the cases considered in the paper including the bounds needed for nonlocality depth certification. They arem= 8forn∈ {3,4,5,6,7,8,16,28,43,60,80}as well asm∈ {4,16,32}for n= 80. All of the cases with evennare covered by Proposition 1 asneven 8 = 4,n even 16 = 8andn even 32 = 24....

  40. [47]

    The local bound of Mermin’s inequalitiesM2,m scale as C2,m ∝(1/ √ 2)n ≈0.707 n

    Scaling in comparison to Mermin Inequalities The improved scaling of the local bounds — and hence the noise robustness — with the number of partiesnis an essential feature of the generalized Mermin inequalities. The local bound of Mermin’s inequalitiesM2,m scale as C2,m ∝(1/ √ 2)n ≈0.707 n. In contrast, our inequalities achieve local boundsCm,n ∝1/(msin π...

  41. [48]

    Jiang, J

    T. Jiang, J. Cai, J. Huang,et al., Nature Physics22, 430 (2026)

    2026

  42. [49]

    S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Physical Review Letters106, 230501 (2011)

    2011

  43. [50]

    S. Cao, B. Wu, F. Chen, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Ye, C. Zha, H. Qian, C. Ying, S. Guo, Q. Zhu, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhao, S. Li, S. Wang, J. Yu, D. Fan, D. Wu, H. Su, H. Deng, H. Rong, Y. Li, K. Zhang, T.-H. Chung, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, L. Sun, C. Guo, N. Li, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, C.-Y. Lu, X. Yuan, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Nature619, 738 (2023)

    2023

  44. [51]

    Maurer and M

    A. Maurer and M. Pontil, inProceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Learning Theory (COLT 2009)(2009) pp. 1–9

    2009

  45. [52]

    N. D. Mermin, Physical Review Letters65, 1838 (1990)

    1990

  46. [53]

    Brassard, A

    G. Brassard, A. Broadbent, and A. Tapp, Foundations of Physics35, 1877 (2005)

    2005

  47. [54]

    Buhrman, P

    H. Buhrman, P. Høyer, S. Massar, and H. Röhrig, Physical Review Letters91, 047903 (2003)

    2003

  48. [55]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  49. [56]

    Żukowski, Physics Letters A177, 290 (1993)

    M. Żukowski, Physics Letters A177, 290 (1993)

    1993

  50. [57]

    Bancal, C

    J.-D. Bancal, C. Branciard, N. Gisin, and S. Pironio, Physical Review Letters103, 090503 (2009). 28

    2009

  51. [58]

    K. F. Pál and T. Vértesi, Physical Review A83, 062123 (2011)

    2011

  52. [59]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  53. [60]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  54. [61]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán,et al., Nature526, 682 (2015)

    2015

  55. [62]

    Giustina, M

    M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlechner, J. Kofler, J.-Å. Larsson, C. Abellán,et al., Physical Review Letters115, 250401 (2015)

    2015

  56. [63]

    P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A47, R747(R) (1993)

    1993

  57. [64]

    Garg and N

    A. Garg and N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. D35, 3831 (1987)

    1987

  58. [65]

    Weihs, T

    G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5039 (1998)

    1998

  59. [66]

    L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bierhorst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy,et al., Physical Review Letters115, 250402 (2015)

    2015

  60. [67]

    M.-H. Li, C. Wu, Y. Zhang, W.-Z. Liu, B. Bai, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, Q. Zhao, H. Li, Z. Wang, L. You, W. J. Munro, J. Yin, J. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, J. Fan, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 080404 (2018)

    2018

  61. [68]

    Storz, J

    S. Storz, J. Schär, A. Kulikov, P. Magnard, P. Kurpiers, J. Lütolf, T. Walter, A. Copetudo, K. Reuer, A. Akin,et al., Nature617, 265 (2023)

    2023

  62. [69]

    Handsteiner, A

    J. Handsteiner, A. S. Friedman, D. Rauch, J. Gallicchio, B. Liu, H. Hosp, J. Kofler, D. Bricher, M. Fink, C. Leung, A. Mark, H. T. Nguyen, I. Sanders, F. Steinlechner, R. Ursin, S. Wengerowsky, A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser, T. Scheidl, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 060401 (2017)

    2017

  63. [70]

    Ursin, B

    D.Rauch, J.Handsteiner, A.Hochrainer, J.Gallicchio, A.S.Friedman, C.Leung, B.Liu, L.Bulla, S.Ecker, F.Steinlechner, R. Ursin, B. Hu, D. Leon, C. Benn, A. Ghedina, M. Cecconi, A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser, T. Scheidl, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 080403 (2018)

    2018