Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Angle-of-arrival detection of radio-frequency waves via Rydberg atom fluorescence imaging of standing waves in a glass vapor cell

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Imaging the standing waves of a 40 GHz radio wave inside a glass vapor cell reveals the wave's angle of arrival to about one degree in a plane and a few degrees in three dimensions.

desk verdict Solid in-plane angle-of-arrival demonstration from standing-wave imaging; 3D claims need better calibration and the abstract overstates the 4π claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18028 v1 pith:A7PREP6S submitted 2025-04-25 physics.atom-ph

Noah Schlossberger , Rajavardhan Talashila , Nikunjkumar Prajapati , Christopher L. Holloway This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords angle-of-arrivalRydbergatomsstandingwavesglassvaporcellelectricfieldimaginglightsheetfluorescenceAutler-TownessplittingRFmetrology
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

This paper claims that the standing-wave pattern formed inside a rectangular glass vapor cell by reflections of an incoming radio wave can be used to measure the wave's angle of arrival. The pattern is a regular grid whose horizontal and vertical fringe spacings depend on the two angles of the wavevector, so a single two-dimensional image of the field inside the cell is enough to recover both angles. The authors demonstrate the idea at 40 GHz using rubidium atoms and light-sheet fluorescence imaging of Rydberg states, achieving about one degree of uncertainty for angles in a plane and several degrees for three-dimensional arrival directions. The reason this matters is that it offers a compact, low-complexity alternative to phased arrays, with an active area of nearly $4\pi$ steradians and sensitivity to all RF polarizations.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the standing-wave node-spacing relation $\{d_x = \lambda/(2\sin\theta\cos\phi),\; d_z = \lambda/(2\cos\theta)\}$, which follows from modeling the cell walls as two orthogonal partially reflective surfaces that produce the RMS field $E_0 + E_1|\cos(k_x x)\cos(k_z z)|$. That relation converts a spatial image into an angle: the fringe periods in the two directions determine the wavevector components. The experimental machinery is light-sheet fluorescence imaging of Rydberg atoms — a probe laser and a coupling laser expanded into a thin sheet excite the atoms, and the fluorescence change as the coupling laser is scanned gives a per-pixel readout of the RF Rabi frequency, hence of $|E|$. Integrating the field image along $x$ and $z$ and minimizing a squared-sinusoid fit (Eq. 5 or Eq. 7) is what produces the reported angle and its uncertainty.

What would settle it

Coat the inner walls of an identical vapor cell with a thin resistive film that absorbs 40 GHz radiation, and repeat the measurement with the source at a known angle (say $\theta = 30^\circ$, $\phi = 0$). The simple model predicts that the reflected waves vanish, so the standing-wave grid disappears and the fitting procedure should find no well-defined angle; if the algorithm still returns a stable angle near $30^\circ$, the angle extraction is an artifact of the fitting procedure rather than of the node-spacing relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the RMS field inside a rectangular vapor cell with partially reflective glass walls is, to good approximation, $E_\text{RMS} = E_0 + E_1|\cos(k_x x)\cos(k_z z)|$, with node spacings $d_x = \lambda/(2\sin\theta\cos\phi)$ and $d_z = \lambda/(2\cos\theta)$; the wavevector components $k_x$ and $k_z$ are thus read directly off the fringe periods in the measured field image. The authors map the field using light-sheet fluorescence imaging of a Rydberg EIT transition, where the RF-induced Autler-Townes splitting is fit at every pixel. By integrating the field image along each axis and fitting the resulting one-dimensional profiles to the cosine model, they recover the arrival angle. For in-plane incidence ($\phi = 0$) they measure accurate angles from $-80^\circ$ to $80^\circ$ with uncertainty around one degree in an 11 s measurement, and for arbitrary $(\theta,\phi)$ they report angle uncertainty on the order of several degrees, with the magnitude of all three wavevector components $|k_x|,|k_y|,|k_z|$ discernible from a single planar image.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, in the region of the cell where the fit is performed, the field is well described by one plane wave interfering with reflections from two perpendicular walls, so the fringe spacings obey $d_x = \lambda/(2\sin\theta\cos\phi)$ and $d_z = \lambda/(2\cos\theta)$; if the real standing wave in that region is shaped differently, the recovered angle will be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single planar image of the cell yields the magnitudes of all three wavevector components, so a three-dimensional arrival direction can be constrained without rotating the sensor (the paper demonstrates $|k_x|, |k_y|, |k_z|$ discernment from one image).
  • Because the sensor is passive and nearly invisible to RF, it avoids the scattering and radar cross-section problems of phased arrays; the paper notes the method's active solid angle is nearly $4\pi$ steradians, limited only by the tabletop optics, not by the detection scheme.
  • With a $D_{5/2}\to F_{7/2}$ transition, polarization changes the strength of the splitting but not the fringe spacing, so the angle estimate remains valid for arbitrary RF polarization.
  • The same cell and imaging approach in principle covers the full 360 degrees in azimuth; the demonstrated range is limited by the optical swing-arm, not by the detection physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the standing-wave model holds for other wall thicknesses, the technique could be retuned to other frequencies by choosing a cell wall thickness near a quarter wavelength at the frequency of interest; nothing in the argument is specific to 40 GHz.
  • The entry-port distortion the authors observe is a built-in feature: it preserves the sign of the in-plane angle, so a machine-learning approach might use the full image, not just the integrated profiles, to push accuracy below the reported degree level.
  • For multiple simultaneous emitters the field would be a sum of cosine grids with different spacings; a natural extension is to fit a multi-component model, though the paper does not address that case.
  • A fiber-coupled readout, which the authors mention as future work, would remove scattering from nearby optics and could make the practical angular uncertainty limited by the geometric reference (about one degree) rather than by the physics of the cell.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a method for angle-of-arrival (AoA) detection of ~40 GHz RF radiation using a passive glass vapor cell. A light-sheet fluorescence imaging technique maps the RF field distribution inside the cell by measuring Rydberg EIT spectra pixel-by-pixel. The field forms standing-wave patterns due to partial reflection from the cell walls, and the node spacings depend on the wavevector direction. For in-plane incidence (φ=0), the authors fit the measured profiles to a cosine-product model, recovering θ with a claimed uncertainty of about one degree in an 11 s measurement, validated against a geometric swing-arm reference. For arbitrary 3D incidence, they use a likelihood estimator with an empirically chosen exponent N=12 and claim uncertainties of several degrees in θ and φ, while noting that the sign of the wavevector is ambiguous. The paper includes finite-element simulations and publishes all data under a DOI.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the method is a notable advance: a compact, low-complexity, passive sensor that images RF standing waves in a glass cell and infers AoA without a local oscillator or phased array. The in-plane demonstration over a wide angle range with agreement to a geometric reference is a solid proof of concept, and the decision to publish all data under a DOI is commendable. The extension to 3D, if properly calibrated, would be an important step toward a true 4π-steradian direction finder. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on a model the authors themselves describe as only 'qualitatively' predictive, and the 3D uncertainty is not calibrated against known angles, so the significance is conditional on additional validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Planar Measurements (Eq. 5, Fig. 3)] The central claim of approximately one-degree uncertainty is not established as a total uncertainty because the fit model of Eq. (2) is acknowledged in the text to only 'qualitatively' predict the observed standing waves, and the finite-element simulation gives only 'qualitative agreement.' The fit-error definition in Eq. (5) measures deviation from the idealized cosine-product profile, so the quoted width at 5% of the dip height captures statistical misfit but not systematic errors from multiple reflections, refraction, finite wall thickness, or the E0 term. Since the geometric reference angle itself is stated to have about one degree of uncertainty, the agreement in Fig. 3(d) cannot rule out a systematic bias of similar size. I request a synthetic-data test in which fields generated by a more realistic propagation model (or by the finite-element simulation) at known angles are processed through the same cropping, integration, and fitting pipeline, with the recovered-vs-true angle bias reported as a function of angle.
  2. [3D Extension (Eq. 8, Fig. 4)] The out-of-plane uncertainty claim of 'on the order of several degrees' is not calibrated. Unlike the planar case, no comparison of fitted angles to geometric angles is presented, and the likelihood estimator of Eq. (8) uses an empirically chosen exponent N=12 with no justification. The authors should apply the 3D estimator to a set of known incidence angles (e.g., the configurations in Fig. 4), report residuals in θ and φ, and either derive N from a noise model or test the sensitivity of the inferred uncertainty to the choice of N. As written, the 'several degrees' statement is an unverified qualitative claim.
  3. [Abstract and 3D Extension] There is an inconsistency in the sign-of-arrival claim. The abstract states that the standing-wave structure allows inference of 'the angle and sign of the wavevector,' but the 3D section states 'it is not clear that we can discern the sign of the angle-of-arrival, so all quadrants are shaded.' The authors should either qualify the abstract to the signed case (φ=0) or provide a method that resolves the sign in 3D; as written, the advertised capability exceeds the demonstrated one.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (5) and (7)] The second minimization variable is written φ0,y but should be φ0,z, matching the phase appearing in the z-profile term.
  2. [Fig. 3(d)] Adding error bars or a residual plot would allow the reader to assess whether the scatter between fitted and geometric angles is consistent with the stated one-degree uncertainty; currently the points are shown without uncertainties.
  3. [3D Extension / Methods] The light sheets have a Gaussian profile in y with 1.00 mm FWHM (Methods), but the possible y-averaging of out-of-plane standing waves (node spacing λ/(2 sinθ sinφ)) is not discussed; a sentence noting this effect and why it does not bias the fits would strengthen the 3D analysis.
  4. [Methods] The camera is described as a 'complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CCD) camera'; CMOS is the common acronym for complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor, while CCD refers to a different technology. Please correct the phrasing.
  5. [Finite-element simulation] The permittivity of PYREX at 1 MHz is used in the finite-element model near 40 GHz with the caveat stated; a brief sensitivity check (e.g., varying εr by ±20%) would be useful because the simulation is used to support the qualitative model.
  6. [References] References [16] and [17] are arXiv preprints; if journal versions exist, they should be cited to improve traceability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the angle-of-arrival is extracted by fitting an independently measured standing-wave image to a physical interference model, with the geometric swing-arm angle used only as external validation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and empirically anchored, not circular. Equations (2)-(4) define a physical model for the standing-wave node spacing in terms of an unknown angle θ; the angle is a free parameter to be estimated, not an input that is later called a prediction. The measured fluorescence images, converted to field magnitudes through Eq. (1), provide independent data: they are integrated along x and z and fit to the cosine profiles of Eq. (5), with the pixel scale calibrated from the known vapor-cell width and the wavelength independently known. The geometrically measured swing-arm angle is used only after the fit as ground truth for validation, and is not fed into the fit or into the model. The self-citations to Refs. [16] and [17] supply the prior fluorescence-imaging and standing-wave techniques, but the central claim does not reduce to those citations: the field images are acquired in this experiment, and the fit and validation are performed against these present data. The paper's own caveat that the simple model 'still qualitatively predicts' the standing waves is a statement about model fidelity and systematic error, not a circularity; likewise, the empirically chosen N = 12 in Eq. (8) is a contrast-shaping display parameter, not a fitted input masquerading as a prediction. The uncertainty claims are compared against an external geometric reference, so they are not forced by construction. No step in the derivation chain equates its output to its input by definition or by self-citation, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard Rydberg electrometry readout (Eq. 1) and an approximate interference model (Eqs. 2-4). The only user-chosen numbers are the fit nuisance phases, the likelihood exponent N, and the 5% uncertainty threshold. No new physical entities are introduced. The dominant unverified input is the simplified standing-wave model and the assumed 40 GHz dielectric constant of PYREX.

free parameters (4)
  • Incident angles theta and phi = reported fitted values
    These are the output parameters of the fit in Eqs. 5 and 7, not ad hoc inputs. Listed for completeness.
  • Initial phases phi0,x and phi0,z = fit per measurement
    Nuisance phases in the cosine fits; they do not change the extracted angles.
  • Likelihood exponent N = 12
    Chosen empirically in Eq. 8 to provide contrast in the 3D likelihood display; not a physical parameter.
  • Fit uncertainty threshold = 5% of dip height
    Used in Fig. 3c to define angle uncertainty; arbitrary but documented.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incident RF field is a plane wave at the cell.
    Stated in Methods: horn aperture 10x7 mm at 80 cm justifies plane-wave treatment.
  • domain assumption The cell's internal field is E_RMS = E0 + E1 |cos(kx x) cos(kz z)|.
    Eqs. 2-3: this neglects multi-reflections, wall thickness, and finite cell size; the text says the model 'qualitatively predicts' the observed fields.
  • standard math The Autler-Townes splitting is proportional to local RF field amplitude via hbar Omega_RF = mu_RF |E|.
    Eq. 1, standard Rydberg electrometry.
  • domain assumption PYREX dielectric constant at 40 GHz equals 4.6.
    Methods: value from 1 MHz datasheet, assumed for lack of data; used in finite-element model only.
  • domain assumption 2D finite-element simulation with infinite length in y approximates the cell.
    Methods; used only for qualitative comparison.
  • domain assumption The D5/2 to F7/2 transition has no RF-insensitive mF population.
    Used in 3D Extension to justify sensitivity to arbitrary polarization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Angle-of-arrival detection of radio-frequency waves via Rydberg atom fluorescence imaging of standing waves in a glass vapor cell." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7PREP6S

@misc{pith2026250418028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Angle-of-arrival detection of radio-frequency waves via Rydberg atom fluorescence imaging of standing waves in a glass vapor cell},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7PREP6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18028}
}
abstract

We present a method for measuring the angle-of-arrival of 40 GHz radio-frequency (RF) radiation by mapping the standing waves generated in a rectangular glass vapor cell. These standing waves have regular and well-defined structure from which we can infer the angle and sign of the wavevector of the RF field. We map the field using spatially resolved light sheet spectroscopy of Rydberg states of rubidium atoms in the cell. Unlike traditional phased arrays, this detection scheme is compact and low-complexity, has an active area of nearly 4$\pi$ steradians, and is sensitive to all RF polarizations. For in-plane measurements ($\phi = 0$), we demonstrate quantitative angle-of-arrival measurements with an uncertainty on the order of one degree in an 11~s measurement, and for out-of-plane measurements (arbitrary $\theta$,$\phi$), we demonstrate angle-of-arrival detection with uncertainty on the order of several degrees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18028 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scheme for measuring the electric field in a plane using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Principle of the angle of arrival scheme. (a) Definition of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Standing waves of 36.8951 GHz radiation measured via the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Standing waves of 37.0727 GHz radiation measured via the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. All-optical radio-frequency phase detection for Rydberg atom sensors using oscillatory dynamics

    physics.atom-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under a finite laser detuning, a closed-loop Rydberg excitation makes probe transmission oscillate at the detuning frequency, encoding the radio-frequency phase, amplitude and detuning for all-optical readout.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [17]

    Two- dimensional imaging of electromagnetic fields via light sheet fluorescence imaging with Rydberg atoms,

    N. Schlossberger, T. McDonald, K. Su, R. Talashila, R. Be- hary, C. L. Patrick, D. Hammerland, E. E. Mikhailov, S. Aubin, I. Novikova, C. L. Holloway, and N. Prajapati, “Two- dimensional imaging of electromagnetic fields via light sheet fluorescence imaging with Rydberg atoms,” (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [16]

    Determining angle of arrival of radio fre- quency fields using subwavelength, amplitude-only measure- ments of standing waves in a Rydberg atom sensor,

    R. Talashila, W. J. Watterson, B. L. Moser, J. A. Gordon, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, N. Prajapati, N. Schlossberger, M. T. Simons, and C. L. Holloway, “Determining angle of arrival of radio fre- quency fields using subwavelength, amplitude-only measure- ments of standing waves in a Rydberg atom sensor,” (2025). 6

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    An overview of direction- of-arrival estimation methods using adaptive directional time- frequency distributions,

    P. K. Eranti and B. D. Barkana, “An overview of direction- of-arrival estimation methods using adaptive directional time- frequency distributions,” Electronics 11 (2022), 10.3390/elec- tronics11091321

    doi:10.3390/elec- 2022

  4. [2]

    Dual-band passive beam steering antenna tech- nologies for satellite communication and modern wireless sys- tems: A review,

    M. I. Nabeel, K. Singh, M. U. Afzal, D. N. Thalakotuna, and K. P. Esselle, “Dual-band passive beam steering antenna tech- nologies for satellite communication and modern wireless sys- tems: A review,” Sensors24 (2024), 10.3390/s24186144

    work page doi:10.3390/s24186144 2024

  5. [3]

    M. I. Skolnik, Radar Handbook, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008) comprehensive reference on radar systems and technologies

    work page 2008

  6. [4]

    Electronic warfare systems,

    A. Spezio, “Electronic warfare systems,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques50, 633 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [5]

    J. E. Evans, D. F. Sun, and J. R. Johnson, Of Advanced Sig- nal Processing Techniques to Angle of Arrival Estimation in ATC Navigation and Surveillance Systems, Tech. Rep. TR-582, FAA-RD-82-42 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, De- partment of Civil Engineering, Cambridge, MA, United States,

    work page

  8. [6]

    Z. Chen, G. Gokeda, and Y . Yu, Introduction to Direction-of- arrival Estimation (Artech House, 2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 23 references
  1. [7]

    Rydberg states of alkali atoms in atomic vapour as SI-traceable field probes and com- munications receivers,

    N. Schlossberger, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, A. P. Rotunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, M. T. Simons, A. A. Sheikh, E. B. Nor- rgard, S. P. Eckel, and C. L. Holloway, “Rydberg states of alkali atoms in atomic vapour as SI-traceable field probes and com- munications receivers,” Natu...

    2024

  2. [8]

    Microwave electrometry with Rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances,

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. Kübler, R. Löw, T. Pfau, and J. P. Shaffer, “Microwave electrometry with Rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances,” Nature Physics 8, 819 (2012)

    2012

  3. [9]

    A Rydberg atom-based mixer: Measuring the phase of a radio frequency wave,

    M. T. Simons, A. H. Haddab, J. A. Gordon, and C. L. Holloway, “A Rydberg atom-based mixer: Measuring the phase of a radio frequency wave,” Applied Physics Letters114, 114101 (2019)

    2019

  4. [10]

    Determining the angle-of-arrival of a radio- frequency source with a Rydberg atom-based sensor,

    A. K. Robinson, N. Prajapati, D. Senic, M. T. Simons, and C. L. Holloway, “Determining the angle-of-arrival of a radio- frequency source with a Rydberg atom-based sensor,” Applied Physics Letters 118, 114001 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Microwave phase mapping and angle-of-arrival detection using Rydberg atom-based electrometry,

    A. Gill, A. Buikema, S. Sirisky, and H. Clevenson, “Microwave phase mapping and angle-of-arrival detection using Rydberg atom-based electrometry,” (2025)

    2025

  6. [12]

    Digital beam- forming and receiving array research based on rydberg field probes,

    R. Mao, Y . Lin, Y . Fu, Y . Ma, and K. Yang, “Digital beam- forming and receiving array research based on rydberg field probes,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 72, 2025 (2024)

    2024

  7. [13]

    Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for multi-target doa esti- mation,

    T. Gong, C. Yuen, C. M. S. See, M. Debbah, and L. Hanzo, “Rydberg atomic quantum receivers for multi-target doa esti- mation,” (2025)

    2025

  8. [14]

    Scorrano, S

    L. Scorrano, S. Maddio, G. Pelosi, and S. Selleri, in 2021 XXXIVth General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the In- ternational Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS) (2021) pp. 1–4

    2021

  9. [15]

    Three- dimensional location system based on an l-shaped array of ryd- berg atomic receivers,

    Y . Yan, J. Yuan, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, S. Jia, and L. Wang, “Three- dimensional location system based on an l-shaped array of ryd- berg atomic receivers,” Opt. Lett.48, 3945 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Imaging of induced surface charge distribution effects in glass vapor cells used for rydberg atom-based sensors,

    L. Patrick, N. Schlossberger, D. F. Hammerland, N. Prajap- ati, T. McDonald, S. Berweger, R. Talashila, A. B. Artusio- Glimpse, and C. L. Holloway, “Imaging of induced surface charge distribution effects in glass vapor cells used for rydberg atom-based sensors,” (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Effect of vapor-cell geometry on rydberg-atom- based measurements of radio-frequency electric fields,

    H. Fan, S. Kumar, J. Sheng, J. P. Shaffer, C. L. Holloway, and J. A. Gordon, “Effect of vapor-cell geometry on rydberg-atom- based measurements of radio-frequency electric fields,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 4, 044015 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Sub- wavelength imaging and field mapping via electromagnetically induced transparency and autler-townes splitting in rydberg atoms,

    C. L. Holloway, J. A. Gordon, A. Schwarzkopf, D. A. An- derson, S. A. Miller, N. Thaicharoen, and G. Raithel, “Sub- wavelength imaging and field mapping via electromagnetically induced transparency and autler-townes splitting in rydberg atoms,” Applied Physics Letters 104, 244...

    2014

  13. [21]

    Study of angle of arrival esti- mation with linear arrays of simulated Rydberg atom receivers,

    D. Richardson, J. Dee, B. N. Kayim, B. C. Sawyer, R. Wyllie, R. T. Lee, and R. S. Westafer, “Study of angle of arrival esti- mation with linear arrays of simulated Rydberg atom receivers,” APL Quantum 2, 016123 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Certain equipment, instruments, software, or materials are iden- tified in this paper in order to specify the experimental proce- dure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement of any product or service by NIST, nor is it intended t...

  15. [23]

    Corning Inc., Corning® PYREX® Glass (SG3.3) Datasheet , Corning Incorporated, United States (2023), accessed: 2025- 04-04

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.