Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Optimal Calibration-Free Observable for the Nucleon-Coupling Ratio in a Dual-Alkali Comagnetometer for Dark Matter Searches

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optimal dark-matter readout is the complex channel ratio

desk verdict Clean Fisher-information derivation showing the complex inter-channel ratio is the optimal coupling-ratio observable, but the abstract's 'above ~100 Hz' phase sufficiency claim needs an SNR floor. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07456 v1 pith:H6MALY3Q submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph physics.atom-ph

Yossi Rosenzweig , Yevgeny Kats , Eli Sarid , Menachem Givon , Yonathan Japha , Ron Folman This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords axionlikedarkmattercomagnetometercouplingratioFisherinformationcalibration-freeobservabledifferentialphasespincouplingsdetection
topics Dark Matter
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 asks which measurement built from the two optical channels of a dual-alkali 87Rb–39K–3He comagnetometer extracts the ratio $R=\xi_n/\xi_p$ of neutron to proton spin couplings of an axionlike dark matter field with the smallest statistical error. Treating extraction as a parameter-estimation problem with the common drive amplitude profiled out, it shows the optimal observable is the complex inter-channel ratio $Z=\ln(T_b^K/T_b^{Rb})$, which splits into the differential phase $\Delta\varphi$ and a log-amplitude ratio. Only $\Delta\varphi$ is immune to the relative optical gain between channels, and therefore calibration-free. For the chosen operating parameters, above roughly 100 Hz the phase difference alone retains most of the coupling-ratio information; below roughly 40 Hz the amplitude ratio could improve precision by a factor of about two or more, but only if the relative gain is known accurately.

What carries the argument

The central object is the profiled two-channel Fisher information, reduced by Lagrange's identity to $I^x_R(S_B)=|\partial_R Z|^2/w_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Here $Z=\ln(s_K/s_{\mathrm{Rb}})=\ln(T_b^K/T_b^{\mathrm{Rb}})$ is the field-referred log ratio, and $w_{\mathrm{eff}}=w+S_B|1/s_K-1/s_{\mathrm{Rb}}|^2$ combines the independent per-channel readout variances with the correlated magnetic background weighted by a misalignment factor. The argument rests on the response being affine in the coupling angle, $s_j(\theta)=a_j\cos\theta+b_j\sin\theta$, so that differentiating $Z$ separates the information into the squared real part (amplitude) and imaginary part (phase). This object identifies the optimal observable, quantifies the magnetic-background penalty, and yields the phase sufficiency ratio $\sin^2(\arg\partial_\theta Z)$.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment could inject a known oscillating pseudomagnetic field whose coupling orientation $\theta$ is varied, then measure the transfer functions of the two channels. If $T_b^j(\theta)$ deviates from $A_j\cos\theta+B_j\sin\theta$, or if the per-channel noise is not circular and independent at the operating point, the claimed optimality of $Z$ and the greater-than-100 Hz phase sufficiency would fail. Alternatively, at a frequency below roughly 40 Hz, compare the variance of an estimator using $\Delta\varphi$ alone with one using the full complex ratio: if the ratio does not improve precision by approximately a factor of two, the Fisher-information reduction is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, for a single cell with 87Rb and 39K read out through two optical-rotation channels, all information about the coupling ratio $R$ survives profiling the common unknown drive out of the likelihood, and it is fully contained in the complex ratio $Z=\ln(T_b^K/T_b^{Rb})$. Writing $Z$ in Cartesian form, $\operatorname{Re}Z=\ln|T_b^K/T_b^{Rb}|$ is the amplitude-ratio information and $\operatorname{Im}Z=\Delta\varphi$ is the phase information, and the two contributions to the Fisher information add. The inter-channel gain multiplies only the amplitude, so $\Delta\varphi$ is the calibration-free part. Numerically, with the operating point of the companion experimental proposal, $\Delta\varphi$ alone is near-sufficient above roughly 100 Hz, while below roughly 40 Hz the amplitude ratio would improve the precision on $R$ by a factor of about two or more, at the price of gain calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The optimality of $Z$ and the frequency thresholds assume the comagnetometer response is affine in the coupling angle and the noise is independent circular Gaussian per channel with a fully correlated magnetic background, together with the specific operating parameters inherited from the companion proposal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Above roughly 100 Hz and over most coupling angles, the differential phase $\Delta\varphi$ alone achieves near-minimal variance on $R$, so a calibration-free readout is also statistically near-optimal.
  • Below roughly 40 Hz, the full complex ratio beats $\Delta\varphi$ by at least a factor of two in precision on $R$; recovering that gain requires an accurate inter-channel gain calibration.
  • Because the correlated magnetic background only rescales $w_{\mathrm{eff}}$, it changes the overall precision but not the phase–amplitude split or the differential-phase sufficiency.
  • The same $Z$ construction removes information about signal amplitude, making coupling-ratio extraction and field detection complementary uses of the two channels.
  • At fixed frequency, the coupling angles with the strongest response have the worst intrinsic precision, an inverse relation that holds over the mapped band.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the affine-response assumption generalizes, the same drive-profiling construction could apply to cells with more than two readout species, where the calibration-free subspace would be the phase differences around the loop.
  • The roughly 100 Hz sufficiency threshold is tied to the specific alkali pair and operating point; a similar analysis for other pairs or compensation settings could shift where the amplitude ratio becomes informative.
  • The amplitude ratio, though not calibration-free, could serve in a calibrated run as a consistency check: disagreement between $R$ from $\Delta\varphi$ and from the amplitude ratio would flag gain drift or model failure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper formulates the extraction of the nucleon-coupling ratio R = ξ_n/ξ_p in a dual-alkali 87Rb–39K–3He comagnetometer as a statistical estimation problem. It shows that, after profiling the common unknown drive out of the two-channel likelihood, the complex inter-channel ratio Z = ln(Tb_K/Tb_Rb) is the variance-optimal observable, and that its imaginary part (the differential phase Δφ) is calibration-free while its real part (the log-amplitude ratio) is not. Using Fisher information, the paper derives closed-form expressions for the attainable precision (Eqs. 12 and 13), maps the intrinsic precision and the differential-phase sufficiency over the 20–1000 Hz band and the full coupling-angle range, and concludes that above ~100 Hz Δφ captures most of the coupling-ratio information, while below ~40 Hz the amplitude ratio would improve precision by a factor ≳2 if the relative gain were accurately known.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a valuable conceptual clarification: the optimal observable is not Δφ but the complex ratio, and only its phase is calibration-free. The exact reduction of the profiled Fisher information (Eq. 12 and Appendix A) is elegant, self-contained, and appears correct; the structural observations (i)–(iii) of Section 4 are clearly argued and exact within the stated Gaussian model. The numerical maps are potentially useful for experimental design, subject to the adopted response model and operating parameters of ref. [17]. However, the headline quantitative claims—the ~100 Hz sufficiency threshold and the ≳2 factor below ~40 Hz—are derived from the small-noise phase/amplitude split (Eq. 13) and are not valid at the low SNR typical of a dark matter search; the paper's own footnote 6 concedes this. The discrepancy between the exact structural results and the SNR-limited quantitative predictions is the main weakness, and it is fixable by explicitly qualifying the claims or extending the analysis to finite SNR.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5, Eq. (13), footnote 6] The abstract's statements that 'above ~100 Hz the phase difference alone captures most of the coupling-ratio information' and that below ~40 Hz the amplitude ratio improves precision by a factor ≳2 rest on the phase/amplitude split of Eq. (13), which Appendix A derives under the small-noise linearization. Footnote 6 states that this split requires ε = |∂_θ Z| σ_θ ≲ 0.3, i.e., SNR ≳ 80 at 200 Hz for the best intrinsic precision. Dark matter searches typically operate near the detection threshold (SNR of order a few), where the marginal phase of a complex Gaussian is not independent of the amplitude and the phase-only Fisher information is strictly smaller than (Im ∂_R Z)^2/w_eff. Therefore the frequency thresholds and the factor ≳2 are SNR-dependent and are not established for low-SNR runs. The unqualified abstract claims should be revised to state the required SNR floor, or the analysis should be extended to finite SNR using the exact marginal phase distribution.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (13) and Section 5, Figure 3] The derivation of the phase/amplitude split linearizes the log-ratio Z and treats its quadratures as independent Gaussians of common variance w_eff/|N|^2. This is a first-order approximation that ignores the radial–angular correlation of a complex Gaussian at finite SNR; the independence holds only in the limit ε → 0. Since the sufficiency maps in Figures 3(c), 3(e), and 3(f) and the precision factors quoted in the abstract are precisely statements that weigh phase against amplitude, the paper should either restrict all such claims to the regime ε ≲ 0.3 (and state this condition in the relevant figure captions and the abstract) or compute the exact Fisher information of the marginal phase and log-amplitude distributions and show how the sufficiency maps change as a function of SNR. Without this, a reader cannot assess whether the claimed sufficiency percentages are accurate for a realistic weak-signal experiment.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (15)] The 'intrinsic precision' κ_θ is defined as σ_θ SNR. For the full complex-ratio information this quantity is SNR-independent because both σ_θ and SNR scale inversely with |N|. However, for the phase-only observable, σ_θ^{Δφ} is taken from the small-noise CR bound based on the approximate linearized likelihood, so κ_θ^{Δφ} is not the exact intrinsic precision for finite SNR. The text should clarify that the phase-only curves in Figures 3(c) and 3(e) are CR bounds under the small-noise approximation, not exact attainable precisions, and that their SNR-independence holds only in that limit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The entry for 39K in the σ_n and σ_p columns appears as '0.034−0.131', which is visually ambiguous; it should be typeset as '0.034' and '−0.131' with appropriate spacing or a clear minus sign.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5] The frequency thresholds (~100 Hz and ~40 Hz) are stated without reference to the operating parameters α = 0.578 and the noise levels taken from ref. [17]; adding a qualifier such as 'for the baseline parameters of ref. [17]' would make the domain of validity explicit.
  3. [Figure 3, panel (f) caption] The caption says the sufficiency panel is fixed by the transfer functions alone, but the panel's color scale shows percentages that derive from the small-noise split of Eq. (13); it should mention that this definition assumes the small-noise regime.
  4. [Footnote 6] The small-noise condition ε ≲ 0.3 is a central validity condition for Eq. (13) and should be moved from the footnote into the main text, ideally alongside Eq. (13), so that the reader encounters it before the sufficiency claims in Section 5.
  5. [Title] The title 'Optimal Calibration-Free Observable' could be misread as asserting that the optimal observable itself is calibration-free; since the optimal complex ratio is only partially calibration-free, consider rewording to something like 'Optimal Observable and the Calibration-Free Phase Readout for the Nucleon-Coupling Ratio'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimal-observable derivation is self-contained given the stated response model.

full rationale

The central claim is derived, not assumed. The Fisher information for the coupling ratio R follows from profiling the common drive N out of the two-channel Gaussian likelihood; Appendix A proves the reduction to I^x_R = |∂_R Z|^2/w_eff (Eq. 12) using only the affine response form Tb_j(θ) = A_j cosθ + B_j sinθ (Eq. 5), which is justified from the linear dependence of ξ_j on ξ_n and ξ_p in Eq. (1), and the noise covariance C of Eqs. (9)-(10). R is never used to set any constant, and no parameter is fitted to the target conclusion. The phase/amplitude split of Eq. (13) is a small-noise approximation that the paper explicitly flags in footnote 6 as required only for statements weighing phase against amplitude; the exact drive-profiled information is Eq. (12), so this is a validity limitation, not circularity. The reliance on the authors' own refs. [16,17] supplies the physical transfer functions, baseline operating point α=0.578, and noise values; these are external inputs to the estimation calculation and do not themselves assert the optimality of Z or the ~100 Hz sufficiency. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is renamed. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no constants to its target. The quantitative maps rest on operating parameters adopted from the authors' ref [17] (compensation α, noise levels), which are external inputs; the structural optimality result is independent of their values.

free parameters (2)
  • Compensation parameter α = 0.578 (adopted from ref [17])
    Chosen operating point that weights the unequal Fermi-contact factors of 87Rb and 39K; affects antiresonance frequencies and the frequency thresholds for Δφ sufficiency. It is an input from the authors' earlier work, not fitted in this paper.
  • Magnetic background to readout noise ratio S_B/σ̃² = Frequency dependent: ≈5100 at 30 Hz, ≈210 at 200 Hz (from ref [17] noise values)
    Sets the operating-point noise in figures 2 and 3; affects SNR and precision but not the structural optimal-observable result. It is an external input, not a fitted parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-channel response is affine in the coupling ratio: Tb_j(θ) = A_j cosθ + B_j sinθ (equivalently Tb_j(R) = A_j + R B_j).
    Inherited from the Bloch-equation model of ref [17]; R enters only through the per-species drive ξ_j(R) ∝ σ_n^j R + σ_p^j. Central to the Fisher-information reduction; if nonlinear, Z would not capture all information. Location: Section 3, eq. (5).
  • domain assumption Readout noise in each channel is independent circular Gaussian white noise with equal quadrature amplitudes σ_j; the magnetic background is fully correlated between channels with variance S_B.
    Needed for the Gaussian likelihood and profiled Fisher information. If noise is non-Gaussian or the background only partially correlated, eqs. (10)-(12) change. Location: Section 3, eqs. (4), (10).
  • domain assumption The two probe beams share a common phase origin and the optical-rotation gain K_j is real, positive, and frequency-independent; the gain ratio is the only calibration error affecting the amplitude ratio.
    Underpins the claim that Δφ is calibration-free while the amplitude ratio is not. Location: Section 2, end, and Section 4(iii), eq. (14).
  • domain assumption Small-noise linearization: the quadratures of ln(x_K/x_Rb) are independent Gaussians with common variance w_eff/|N|², so phase and amplitude Fisher information split additively.
    Flagged in footnote 6: requires ε ≡ √w_eff/|N| small, imposes SNR ≳ 80 for the phase-vs-amplitude sufficiency statements. The total information eq. (12) is exact without this. Location: Appendix A, eq. (A6), footnote 6.
  • standard math Fisher information and the Cramér-Rao bound relate the variance of any unbiased estimator to the curvature of the log-likelihood.
    Used throughout to quote attainable precision as σλ = 1/√Iλ. Standard statistical estimation theory. Location: Section 3, after eq. (5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Calibration-Free Observable for the Nucleon-Coupling Ratio in a Dual-Alkali Comagnetometer for Dark Matter Searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6MALY3Q

@misc{pith2026260807456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Calibration-Free Observable for the Nucleon-Coupling Ratio in a Dual-Alkali Comagnetometer for Dark Matter Searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6MALY3Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07456}
}
abstract

A dual-alkali single-cell $^{87}$Rb-$^{39}$K-$^{3}$He comagnetometer can read an axionlike dark matter signal through two optical-rotation channels, encoding the ratio $\mathcal{R}=\xi_n/\xi_p$ of the field's neutron and proton spin couplings in their relative response. The inter-species phase difference $\Delta\varphi$ has been proposed as a calibration-free readout that is sensitive to $\mathcal{R}$. Treating the extraction of $\mathcal{R}$ as a statistical estimation problem, we show that the optimal observable is the complex inter-channel ratio, which splits into $\Delta\varphi$ and an amplitude ratio, of which only $\Delta\varphi$ is insensitive to the relative gain and hence calibration-free. For our choice of comagnetometer parameters, above $\sim\!100$ Hz the phase difference alone captures most of the coupling-ratio information. At lower frequencies $\Delta\varphi$ is not near-sufficient: there the amplitude ratio would improve the precision on $\mathcal{R}$ by a factor of $\gtrsim2$ below $\sim\!40$ Hz. Recovering that information, however, requires the relative gain to be known sufficiently accurately, so $\Delta\varphi$ stays the robust observable even where it is not the optimal one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The antiresonances and the differential-phase swings they produce. (a) Magnitude of the exotic response |P j x | for j ∈ {39K, 87Rb} at a pure-proton coupling (R = 0), normalized to its largest value in the band: the destructive interference carves an antiresonance at 157 Hz in 39K and at 131 Hz in 87Rb (dotted vertical lines). (b) The corresponding unwrapped response phases φj . Across the interval between the two … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The correlated magnetic background cost in coupling-ratio precision. (a,b) The cost as a function of the background size at 30 and 200 Hz. The left axis gives the Fisher information for R from eq. (11), normalized to the uncorrelated noise optimum, versus the relative common-mode magnetic background SB/σ˜ 2 ; the right axis gives the expected precision on R, normalized the same way, σR(SB)/σR(0). Six coupling struct… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Extraction of the coupling ratio R = ξn/ξ p. Each panel maps the 20–1000 Hz band against the coupling angle θ (R = tan θ; R-value ticks accompany the θ ticks). (a) Achievable amplitude SNR per unit drive, the drive referred to an equivalent field Beq = |N |/γe: SNR(SB)/Beq = γe √ s †C−1s. (b) The calibration-free readout: the inter-species differential phase ∆φ = arg(T b K /T b Rb) (logarithmic color scale, linear f… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Correlated comagnetometry for precision measurements

    Rosenzweig, Y.; Kats, Y.; Sarid, E.; Givon, M.; Japha, Y.; Folman, R. Correlated comagnetometry for precision measurements.arXiv2026. arXiv:2607.18221v1 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Dark Matter.SciPost Phys

    Cirelli, M.; Strumia, A.; Zupan, J. Dark Matter.SciPost Phys. Rev.2026,1. [CrossRef]

    work page 2026

  3. [2]

    [CrossRef]

    Jackson Kimball, D.F.; van Bibber, K., Eds.The Search for Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [CrossRef]

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Axion Dark Matter

    Adams, C.B.; et al. Axion Dark Matter. In Proceedings of the Snowmass 2021. arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Review of Particle Physics

    Takahashi, F.; et al. Review of Particle Physics. Chapter 89: Axions and Other Similar Particles.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A2026,41, 2630011. [CrossRef]

    work page

  6. [5]

    New Observables for Direct Detection of Axion Dark Matter.Phys

    Graham, P .W.; Rajendran, S. New Observables for Direct Detection of Axion Dark Matter.Phys. Rev. D2013, 88, 035023. [CrossRef]

    work page

  7. [6]

    Axion-like Relics: New Constraints from Old Comagne- tometer Data.JHEP2020,01, 167

    Bloch, I.M.; Hochberg, Y.; Kuflik, E.; Volansky, T. Axion-like Relics: New Constraints from Old Comagne- tometer Data.JHEP2020,01, 167. [CrossRef]

    work page

  8. [7]

    Search for topological defect dark matter with a global network of optical magnetometers

    Afach, S.; et al. Search for topological defect dark matter with a global network of optical magnetometers. Nature Phys.2021,17, 1396–1401. [CrossRef]

    work page 2021

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Laboratory Constraints on the Neutron-Spin Coupling of feV-Scale Axions.Phys

    Lee, J.; Lisanti, M.; Terrano, W.A.; Romalis, M. Laboratory Constraints on the Neutron-Spin Coupling of feV-Scale Axions.Phys. Rev. X2023,13, 011050. [CrossRef]

  2. [9]

    Constraints on axion-like dark matter from a SERF comagnetometer.Nature Commun.2023,14, 5784

    Bloch, I.M.; Shaham, R.; Hochberg, Y.; Kuflik, E.; Volansky, T.; Katz, O. Constraints on axion-like dark matter from a SERF comagnetometer.Nature Commun.2023,14, 5784. [CrossRef]

    2023

  3. [10]

    What Can a GNOME Do? Search Targets for the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic Physics Searches.Annalen Phys.2024,536, 2300083

    Afach, S.; et al. What Can a GNOME Do? Search Targets for the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic Physics Searches.Annalen Phys.2024,536, 2300083. [CrossRef]

    2024

  4. [11]

    Dark matter search with a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin system.Rept

    Wei, K.; et al. Dark matter search with a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin system.Rept. Prog. Phys.2025, 88, 057801. [CrossRef]

    2025

  5. [12]

    Searching for dark matter with a spin-based interferometer.Nature Commun.2025, 16, 4953

    Gavilan-Martin, D.; et al. Searching for dark matter with a spin-based interferometer.Nature Commun.2025, 16, 4953. [CrossRef]

    2025

  6. [13]

    Multimessenger Search for Exotic Field Emission with a Global Magnetometer Network

    Khamis, S.S.; et al. Multimessenger Search for Exotic Field Emission with a Global Magnetometer Network. Phys. Rev. X2025,15, 031048. [CrossRef]

  7. [14]

    Search for a solar-bound axion halo using the global network of optical magnetometers for exotic physics searches.Phys

    Wilson, T.Z.; et al. Search for a solar-bound axion halo using the global network of optical magnetometers for exotic physics searches.Phys. Rev. D2026,113, 115027. [CrossRef]

  8. [15]

    Nuclear spin content and constraints on exotic spin-dependent couplings.New J

    Jackson Kimball, D.F. Nuclear spin content and constraints on exotic spin-dependent couplings.New J. Phys. 2015,17, 073008. [CrossRef]

    2015

  9. [16]

    Atomic probe of dark matter differential interactions with subatomic particles.Phys

    Rosenzweig, Y.; Kats, Y.; Givon, M.; Japha, Y.; Folman, R. Atomic probe of dark matter differential interactions with subatomic particles.Phys. Rev. D2024,110, 015015. [CrossRef]

  10. [18]

    Spin-exchange optical pumping of noble-gas nuclei.Rev

    Walker, T.G.; Happer, W. Spin-exchange optical pumping of noble-gas nuclei.Rev. Mod. Phys.1997,69, 629. [CrossRef]. 13 of 13

    1997

  11. [19]

    Hybrid spin-exchange optical pumping of 3He.Phys

    Babcock, E.; Nelson, I.; Kadlecek, S.; Driehuys, B.; Anderson, L.W.; Hersman, F.W.; Walker, T.G. Hybrid spin-exchange optical pumping of 3He.Phys. Rev. Lett.2003,91, 123003. [CrossRef]

    2003

  12. [20]

    Developments in Alkali-Metal Atomic Magnetometry

    Seltzer, S.J. Developments in Alkali-Metal Atomic Magnetometry. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Response of atomic spin-based sensors to magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations.Sci

    Padniuk, M.; Kopciuch, M.; Cipolletti, R.; Wickenbrock, A.; Budker, D.; Pustelny, S. Response of atomic spin-based sensors to magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations.Sci. Rep.2022,12, 324. [CrossRef]

    2022

  14. [22]

    Universal determination of comagnetometer response to spin couplings.Phys

    Padniuk, M.; Klinger, E.; Lukasiewicz, G.; Gavilan-Martin, D.; Liu, T.; Pustelny, S.; Jackson Kimball, D.F.; Budker, D.; Wickenbrock, A. Universal determination of comagnetometer response to spin couplings.Phys. Rev. Res.2024,6, 013339. [CrossRef]

    2024

  15. [23]

    Response of mica to weakly interacting massive particles

    Engel, J.; Ressell, M.T.; Towner, I.S.; Ormand, W.E. Response of mica to weakly interacting massive particles. Phys. Rev. C1995,52, 2216–2221. [CrossRef]

  16. [24]

    Dependence of nuclear magnetic moments on quark masses and limits on temporal variation of fundamental constants from atomic clock experiments.Phys

    Flambaum, V .V .; Tedesco, A.F. Dependence of nuclear magnetic moments on quark masses and limits on temporal variation of fundamental constants from atomic clock experiments.Phys. Rev. C2006,73, 055501. [CrossRef]

  17. [25]

    Neutron polarization in polarized 3He targets.Phys

    Friar, J.L.; Gibson, B.F.; Payne, G.L.; Bernstein, A.M.; Chupp, T.E. Neutron polarization in polarized 3He targets.Phys. Rev. C1990,42, 2310–2314. [CrossRef]

  18. [26]

    High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spin-exchange relaxation.Phys

    Allred, J.C.; Lyman, R.N.; Kornack, T.W.; Romalis, M.V . High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spin-exchange relaxation.Phys. Rev. Lett.2002,89, 130801. [CrossRef]

    2002

  19. [27]

    Dynamics of two overlapping spin ensembles interacting by spin exchange

    Kornack, T.W.; Romalis, M.V . Dynamics of two overlapping spin ensembles interacting by spin exchange. Phys. Rev. Lett.2002,89, 253002. [CrossRef]

    2002

  20. [28]

    Kay, S.M.Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1993

    1993

  21. [29]

    Lehmann, E.L.; Casella, G.Theory of Point Estimation, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, 1998

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.