Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Magic Cancellation Point for Vibration Resilient Ultrastable Microwave Signal

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tunable 'magic' frequency baseline cancels vibration noise in photonic microwave oscillators.

desk verdict A real experimental result with a suggestive but under-derived mechanism; the 22.6 dB vibration null is plausible, but the paper owes the reader a measurable condition for the magic point. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08780 v1 pith:C2USVNE6 submitted 2025-02-12 physics.optics

William Loh , Dodd Gray , Ryan Maxson , Dave Kharas , Jason Plant , Paul W. Juodawlkis , Cheryl Sorace-Agaskar , Siva Yegnanarayanan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords opticalfrequencydivisionvibrationcancellationmagicpointphasenoisemicrowavephotonicsBrillouinlaseraccelerationsensitivityelectro-opticcomb
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 a photonic microwave source can be made largely immune to vibration by choosing a precise frequency separation between two optical carriers that form the division baseline. The authors demonstrate that at this 'magic cancellation point,' vibration-induced phase noise on a 10 GHz output is suppressed by 22.6 dB, reaching an acceleration sensitivity of 1.5e-10 $g^{-1}$, while preserving the low phase noise expected from optical frequency division. If correct, this removes a key obstacle to replacing RF oscillators with photonic ones outside the laboratory.

What carries the argument

The magic cancellation point is the specific frequency separation between two optical carriers, set by the mode numbers $a$ and $b$ of two orthogonally polarized mode families, at which the vibration-induced FSR perturbations cancel in the difference frequency: $\Delta f_1 - \Delta f_2 = a\Delta f_{\mathrm{FSR},1} - b\Delta f_{\mathrm{FSR},2} = 0$. The system uses two stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) lasers from a common fiber resonator, heterodyned against an electro-optic frequency comb; the resulting beat notes are mixed, and the difference locks a 10 GHz dielectric resonator oscillator. The cancellation is preserved through optical frequency division because the fractional perturbation of the microwave, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{rep}}/f_{\mathrm{rep}}$, is directly the fractional refractive-index change $\Delta n/n$ when the two modes share one family, but can be zeroed when they belong to different families at the magic point.

What would settle it

Measure the vibration-induced frequency shift of each polarization mode family separately, for example by locking to slow-axis and fast-axis resonances and monitoring the Pound-Drever-Hall error signals under a 20 Hz sinusoidal acceleration, and check whether their weighted difference truly vanishes at the magic baseline. If the correlation is imperfect, the acceleration-sensitivity minimum will saturate above zero and the achieved 22.6 dB null depth will vary with vibration frequency and amplitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that when the two lasers anchoring an optical frequency division link are stabilized to orthogonal polarization mode families of the same resonator, their free-spectral-range perturbations under vibration no longer add; for one specific baseline span, the weighted difference $a\Delta f_{\mathrm{FSR},1} - b\Delta f_{\mathrm{FSR},2}$ vanishes identically, canceling vibration in the divided microwave signal. The paper shows this cancellation transfers to the 10 GHz output, yielding an acceleration sensitivity of $1.5 \times 10^{-10}\,g^{-1}$ at 15 Hz and improving on the base SBS laser by a factor of 13.5 (22.6 dB in phase noise), with phase noise of $-139\,\mathrm{dBc/Hz}$ at 10 kHz offset.

Load-bearing premise

The cancellation is perfect only if the two orthogonally polarized mode families' free-spectral-range shifts remain correlated under vibration and if a pair of modes exists for which the weighted difference is exactly zero; the paper does not independently measure this correlation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 10 GHz ODFD output reaches phase noise of $-42$, $-72$, $-102$, and $-139\,\mathrm{dBc/Hz}$ at 1, 10, 100, and 10 kHz offsets, respectively, while the acceleration sensitivity is suppressed by 22.6 dB relative to the base SBS laser.
  • The magic cancellation point can be found by scanning the shorter-wavelength laser, with minima near 1547.9 nm across all three vibration axes, and the suppression holds across a 6\,Hz to 100\,Hz vibration-frequency range.
  • The technique applies to optical carriers of any center wavelength and arbitrary resonator geometry, and is expected to benefit from chip integration, which limits mechanical degrees of freedom.
  • Common-mode noise cancellation and division ratio no longer trade off; the divided microwave can outperform the original optical carrier in acceleration sensitivity by more than an order of magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same cancellation principle should apply to other common-mode perturbations that shift the FSR, such as temperature or acoustic transients, provided the two orthogonally polarized mode families remain correlated.
  • In an integrated platform, one could engineer the waveguide cross-section to place the magic cancellation point at an arbitrary baseline wavelength, decoupling it from the resonator's natural mode structure.
  • A control loop that dithers the baseline wavelength could actively track the magic point as environmental conditions drift, maintaining the null.
  • The correlation assumption could be tested directly by measuring the vibration response of each polarization mode family separately; a positive test would extend the method to other resonator geometries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and demonstrates a 'magic cancellation point' for vibration-resilient optical frequency division. Two SBS lasers generated in orthogonally polarized mode families of a common 10-m fiber resonator are heterodyned against an electro-optic comb and their beat notes are mixed to produce a 10 GHz output. The authors derive that for same-mode-family division the fractional frequency noise of the microwave output equals the fractional refractive-index perturbation of the resonator (Eq. (10)), and that for modes of different mode families a specific baseline can make the vibration-induced contributions cancel (Eq. (13)). Experimentally, they report a 22.6 dB suppression of vibration-induced phase noise at a scanned wavelength near 1547.9 nm, an acceleration sensitivity down to 1.5e-10 g^-1, and phase noise of -139 dBc/Hz at 10 kHz offset.

Significance. If correct, the result would be significant: it would show that optical frequency division can simultaneously retain low phase noise and improve vibration resilience relative to the base optical carrier, addressing a key obstacle to deploying photonic microwave oscillators outside the laboratory. The same-family derivation (Eqs. 5-10) is clean, and the measured 40.4 dB phase-noise reduction for a division factor of 105 is internally consistent with ideal division. The paper also gives a falsifiable prediction that a cancellation point exists for orthogonally polarized mode families. However, the central mechanism—the ratio of the two polarization-dependent FSR perturbations—is neither derived nor independently measured, and the headline cancellation depth is based on single measurements, so the quantitative claims need verification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods A, Eqs. (11)–(13)] The cancellation condition is asserted but not established. Writing r_i = Δf_FSR,i / f_FSR,i and using f_i = a_i f_FSR,i, the condition aΔf_FSR,1 − bΔf_FSR,2 = 0 becomes f_1 r_1 = f_2 r_2, i.e., r_1/r_2 = f_2/f_1. Since f_1 and f_2 differ by only ~0.5%, correlation alone is insufficient; if r_1 = r_2 the residual is Δf_rep/f_rep = r_1 and no cancellation occurs. Moreover, a and b are integers fixed by the mode numbers, so the condition can only be satisfied approximately, and the achievable null depth is limited by the integer mismatch. The paper neither derives r_1/r_2 from the birefringent geometry, nor reports an independent measurement of these fractional FSR responses, nor quantifies the residual from the integer mismatch. The measured minimum near 1547.9 nm is indirect evidence and does not by itself demonstrate the mechanism or its robustness.
  2. [Fig. 3c–3d and Fig. 4a] The headline 22.6 dB cancellation and the quoted acceleration-sensitivity values rest on single measurements without error bars or repetitions. No uncertainty is given for the wavelength scans or for the reported minima, and no check of repeatability across lock states, vibration amplitudes, or time is presented. Because the null depth can be sensitive to these conditions, the quantitative claim needs either repeated measurements with statistical uncertainty or a clear statement that the reported values are single realizations.
  3. [Abstract and Discussion] The statement that the technique 'applies widely to optical carriers of any center wavelength and derived from an arbitrary resonator geometry' is not supported. The only demonstrated system is a 10-m fiber SBS resonator with two orthogonal polarization axes, and the cancellation condition in Eq. (13) depends on a ratio of fractional FSR perturbations that has not been measured or modeled for other geometries. Please either restrict the generality claim or add a model, backed by measurements, that predicts the required ratio from resonator geometry.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods B] The heading 'ODFD Sytem Configuration' contains a typo; it should read 'ODFD System Configuration'.
  2. [Methods D, Eq. (14)] The expression '2f 2L(f ) = Sν(f )' is ambiguous; please rewrite it as S_ν(f) = 2 f^2 L(f) or state the intended relation between the phase-noise sideband and the frequency-fluctuation power spectral density.
  3. [Sections IV and V] Data and code are described only as 'available on reasonable request' with no repository or data files. Please consider depositing the measured phase-noise and acceleration-sensitivity datasets to make the quantitative claims independently verifiable.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions] The captions do not state the vibration frequency and amplitude used for the scans shown in Fig. 3c and 3d, nor the drive conditions for Fig. 4a; these details appear only in the main text and should be included in the captions for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magic cancellation point and 22.6 dB suppression are measured against an accelerometer, not derived from fitted inputs; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental. The acceleration sensitivity of the 10 GHz output is obtained by measuring phase-noise sidebands and normalizing with an independent accelerometer (Methods D, Eq. 14), not by substituting the cancellation condition into itself. The theory in Methods A derives only the same-family result Δfrep/frep = Δn/n (Eq. 10) and then states the possibility of an exact null for cross-family modes (Eqs. 11-13). That statement is an existence assertion relying on an unproved correlation assumption, but it is not circular: the paper does not use Eq. (13) to predict the null wavelength; the magic point is located empirically by scanning the 1548 nm laser (Fig. 3c,d). Self-citations such as [10] for ODFD and [22] for SBS lasers are prior technical foundations, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that two-point ODFD is independently named in [24]; these citations are not used to forbid alternatives or to define the result as its input. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its inputs. The main weakness is a derivation gap and unmeasured correlation between polarization-axis FSR perturbations, which is a correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical location of the magic point (a fitted or scanned parameter), on the assumption of full correlation between the two polarization axes' FSR perturbations, and on the assumption that all other components are vibration-free. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Magic cancellation point wavelength (1548 nm laser) = 1547.9 nm (Z-axis minimum); broad scan minimum 1547.5 nm
    The exact baseline separation m*frep at which vibration cancels is not predicted from material or geometry parameters; it is found by scanning the 1548 nm pump wavelength and selecting the acceleration sensitivity minimum (Fig. 3c-d). The 22.6 dB suppression is the value at this empirically selected optimum.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two lasers are generated from modes of the same physical resonator, so their frequency noise can be written as a mode number times an FSR perturbation (Eqs. 6-7).
    This is the basis of Eqs. (5)-(10) that show same-family modes do not improve acceleration sensitivity. It is standard for SBS lasers locked to cavity modes.
  • domain assumption For the two orthogonally polarized mode families, the FSR perturbations Δf_FSR,1 and Δf_FSR,2 are fully correlated (Methods A).
    Exact cancellation at the magic point requires aΔf_FSR,1 = bΔf_FSR,2; complete correlation is asserted, not derived or measured. Partial correlation would limit the null depth.
  • domain assumption Acceleration sensitivity of all other system elements (pump lasers, DRO, comb, photodetector, cables) is negligible compared to the SBS resonator (Methods B).
    The experiment is designed so that the measured acceleration response is attributed to the SBS resonator and the magic cancellation. If other elements contribute, the 22.6 dB cancellation claim would be inaccurate.
  • standard math Mode numbers a, b are integers and m = (a-b) f_FSR / f_rep, standard comb arithmetic (Eqs. 2-4).
    Defines the ODFD baseline and division factor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magic Cancellation Point for Vibration Resilient Ultrastable Microwave Signal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C2USVNE6

@misc{pith2026250208780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magic Cancellation Point for Vibration Resilient Ultrastable Microwave Signal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C2USVNE6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08780}
}
abstract

Photonically-synthesized microwave signals have demonstrated the ability to surpass the phase-noise performance achievable by traditional means of RF signal generation. However, in order for microwave-photonic oscillators to truly replace their RF counterparts, this phase noise advantage must also be realizable when operating outside of a laboratory. Oscillators in general are known to be notoriously vibration sensitive, with both traditional RF and optical oscillators degrading sharply in phase noise in all but the most stationary of environments. We demonstrate here a powerful technique that makes use of a precise frequency difference between two optical signals, termed the "magic cancellation point", to enable the cancellation of vibration-induced noise upon optical frequency division to the RF. Beyond simply mitigating the effects of vibration, this technique also preserves the excellent phase noise that would ordinarily be characteristic of signals obtained from a frequency division process. At a center frequency of 10 GHz, our divided down oscillator achieves -42 dBc/Hz, -72 dBc/Hz, -102 dBc/Hz, and -139 dBc/Hz at 1 Hz, 10 Hz, 100 Hz, and 10 kHz offset frequencies, respectively. In addition, from optical to RF, we showcase the cancellation of vibration-induced phase noise by 22.6 dB, reaching an acceleration sensitivity of $1.5 \times 10^{-10}$ g$^{-1}$. This technique applies widely to optical carriers of any center wavelength and derived from an arbitrary resonator geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08780 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Generation of ultrastable microwaves via optical frequency division,

    T. M. Fortier, M. S. Kirchner, F. Quinlan, J. Taylor, J. C. Bergquist, T. Rosenband, N. Lemke, A. Ludlow, Y. Jiang, C. W. Oates, and S. A. Diddams, “Generation of ultrastable microwaves via optical frequency division,” Nat. Photonics 5, 425–429 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    State-of-the-art rf signal generation from optical frequency division,

    A. Hati, C. W. Nelson, C. Barnes, D. Lirette, T. Fortier, F. Quinlan, J. A. Desalvo, A. Ludlow, S. A. Diddams, and D. A. Howe, “State-of-the-art rf signal generation from optical frequency division,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 60, 1796– 1803 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Electro-optical frequency division and stable microwave synthesis,

    J. Li, X. Yi, H. Lee, S. A. Diddams, and K. J. Vahala, “Electro-optical frequency division and stable microwave synthesis,” Science 345, 309–313 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1252909

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1252909 2014

  4. [4]

    Optical frequency divider with division uncertainty at the 10 −21 level,

    Yuan Yao, Yanyi Jiang, Hongfu Yu, Zhiyi Bi, and Longsheng Ma, “Optical frequency divider with division uncertainty at the 10 −21 level,” National Science Review 3, 463–469 (2016), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article-pdf/3/4/463/31566444/nww063.pdf

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Small-sized, ultra-low phase noise photonic microwave oscillators at X-Ka bands,

    J. Li and K. Vahala, “Small-sized, ultra-low phase noise photonic microwave oscillators at X-Ka bands,” Optica 10, 33–34 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Photonic chip-based low-noise microwave oscillator,

    I. Kudelin, W. Groman, Q. Ji, J. Guo, M. Kelleher, D. Lee, T. Nakamura, C. A. McLemore, P. Shirmohammadi, S. Hanifi, H. Cheng, N. Jin, L. Wu, S. Halladay, Y. Luo, Z. Dai, W. Jin, J. Bai, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, C. Xiang, L. Chang, V. Iltchenko, O. Miller, A. Matsko, S. M. Bowers, P. T. Rakich, J. C. Campbell, J. E. Bowers, K. J. Vahala, F. Quinlan, and S. A. Di...

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Integrated optical frequency division for microwave and mmwave generation,

    S. Sun, B. Wang, K. Liu, M. W. Harrington, F. Tabatabaei, R. Liu, J. Wang, S. Hanifi, J. S. Morgan, M. Jahanbozorgi, Z. Yang, S. M. Bowers, P. A. Morton, K. D. Nelson, A. Beling, D. J. Blumenthal, and X. Yi, “Integrated optical frequency division for microwave and mmwave generation,” Nature 627, 540–545 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    All-optical frequency division on-chip using a single laser,

    Y. Zhao, J. K. Jang, G. J. Beals, K. J. McNulty, X. Ji, Y. Okawachi, M. Lipson, and A. L. Gaeta, “All-optical frequency division on-chip using a single laser,” Nature 627, 546–552 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Chip-scale high-performance photonic microwave oscillator,

    Y. He, L. Cheng, H. Wang, Y. Zhang, R. Meade, K. Vahala, M. Zhang, and J. Li, “Chip-scale high-performance photonic microwave oscillator,” Science Advances 10, eado9570 (2024). 20

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ultralow noise microwave synthesis via difference frequency division of a brillouin resonator,

    W. Loh, D. Gray, R. Irion, O. May, C. Belanger, J. Plant, P. W. Juodawlkis, and S. Yegna- narayanan, “Ultralow noise microwave synthesis via difference frequency division of a brillouin resonator,” Optica 11, 492–497 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Contribution of thermal noise to frequency stability of rigid optical cavity via hertz-linewidth lasers,

    M. Notcutt, L. Ma, A. D. Ludlow, S. M. Foreman, J. Ye, and J. L. Hall, “Contribution of thermal noise to frequency stability of rigid optical cavity via hertz-linewidth lasers,” Phys. Rev. A 73, 031804 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    A sub-40-mHz-linewidth laser based on a silicon single-crystal optical cavity,

    T. Kessler, C. Hagemann, C. Grebing, T. Legero, U. Sterr, F. Riehle, M. J. Martin, L. Chen, and J. Ye, “A sub-40-mHz-linewidth laser based on a silicon single-crystal optical cavity,” Nat. Photon. 6, 687–692 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Operation of an optical atomic clock with a brillouin laser subsystem,

    W. Loh, J. Stuart, D. Reens, C. D. Bruzewicz, D. Braje, J. Chiaverini, P. W. Juodawlkis, J. M. Sage, and R. McConnell, “Operation of an optical atomic clock with a brillouin laser subsystem,” Nature 588, 244–249 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Micro-fabricated mirrors with finesse exceeding one million,

    N. Jin, C. A. McLemore, D. Mason, J. P. Hendrie, Y. Luo, M. L. Kelleher, P. Kharel, F. Quin- lan, S. A. Diddams, and P. T. Rakich, “Micro-fabricated mirrors with finesse exceeding one million,” Optica 9, 965–970 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Optical atomic clock interrogation using an integrated spiral cavity laser,

    W. Loh, D. Reens, D. Kharas, A. Sumant, C. Belanger, R. T. Maxson, A. Medeiros, W. Setzer, D. Gray, K. BeBry, C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Plant, J. Liddell, G. N. West, S. Doshi, M. Roychowd- hury, M. E. Kim, D. Braje, P. W. Juodawlkis, J. Chiaverini, and R. McConnell, “Optical atomic...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Photonic millimeter-wave generation beyond the cavity thermal limit,

    W. Groman, I. Kudelin, A. Lind, D. Lee, T. Nakamura, Y. Liu, M. L. Kelleher, C. A. McLemore, J. Guo, L. Wu, W. Jin, K. J. Vahala, J. E. Bowers, F. Quinlan, and S. A. Diddams, “Photonic millimeter-wave generation beyond the cavity thermal limit,” Optica 11, 1583–1587 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Ultrastable optical clock with neutral atoms in an engineered light shift trap,

    H. Katori, M. Takamoto, V. G. Pal’chikov, and V. D. Ovsiannikov, “Ultrastable optical clock with neutral atoms in an engineered light shift trap,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 173005 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Quantum state engineering and precision metrology using state-insensitive light traps,

    J. Ye, H. J. Kimble, and H. Katori, “Quantum state engineering and precision metrology using state-insensitive light traps,” Science 320, 1734–1738 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Highly stable low-noise Brillouin fiber laser with ultranarrow spectral linewidth,

    J. Geng, S. Staines, Z. Wang, J. Zong, M. Blake, and S. Jiang, “Highly stable low-noise Brillouin fiber laser with ultranarrow spectral linewidth,” IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 18, 1813–1815 (2006). 21

    2006

  12. [20]

    Brillouin lasing with a CaF 2 whispering gallery mode resonator,

    I. S. Grudinin, A. B. Matsko, and L. Maleki, “Brillouin lasing with a CaF 2 whispering gallery mode resonator,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 043902 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Chemically etched ultrahigh-Q wedge-resonator on a silicon chip,

    H. Lee, T. Chen, J. Li, K. Y. Yang, S. Jeon, O. Painter, and K. J. Vahala, “Chemically etched ultrahigh-Q wedge-resonator on a silicon chip,” Nat. Photon. 6, 369–373 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Ultra-narrow linewidth brillouin laser with nanokelvin temperature self-referencing,

    W. Loh, S. Yegnanarayanan, F. O’Donnell, and P. W. Juodawlkis, “Ultra-narrow linewidth brillouin laser with nanokelvin temperature self-referencing,” Optica 6, 152–159 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Brillouin laser- driven terahertz oscillator up to 3 thz with femtosecond-level timing jitter,

    B. M. Heffernan, J. Greenberg, T. Hori, T. Tanigawa, and A. Rolland, “Brillouin laser- driven terahertz oscillator up to 3 thz with femtosecond-level timing jitter,” Nat. Photon. 18, 1263–1268 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Coherent optical-to-microwave link using an integrated microcomb,

    Q. Ji, W. Zhang, L. Wu, W. Jin, J. Guo, A. Feshali, M. Paniccia, J. Bowers, A. Matsko, and K. Vahala, “Coherent optical-to-microwave link using an integrated microcomb,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 30, 1–7 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Ultrafast electro-optic light with subcycle control,

    David R. Carlson, Daniel D. Hickstein, Wei Zhang, Andrew J. Metcalf, Franklyn Quinlan, Scott A. Diddams, and Scott B. Papp, “Ultrafast electro-optic light with subcycle control,” Science 361, 1358–1363 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aat6451

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Laser phase and frequency stabilization using an optical resonator,

    R. W. P. Drever, J. L. Hall, F. V. Kowalski, J. Hough, G. M. Ford, A. J. Munley, and H. Ward, “Laser phase and frequency stabilization using an optical resonator,” Appl. Phys. B 31, 97–105 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    Semiconductor laser stabilization by external optical feedback,

    D. R. Hjelme, A. R. Mickelson, and R. G. Beausoleil, “Semiconductor laser stabilization by external optical feedback,” IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 27, 352–372 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Vibration-induced pm noise in oscillators and its suppression,

    A. Hati, C. W. Nelson, and D. A. Howe, “Vibration-induced pm noise in oscillators and its suppression,” I-Tech Education and Publishing, Vienna, AT (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Phase noise performance of sapphire microwave oscillators in airborne radar systems,

    T. Wallin, L. Josefsson, and B. Lofter, “Phase noise performance of sapphire microwave oscillators in airborne radar systems,” GigaHertz, Proceedings from the Seventh Symposium (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Vibration sensitivity of microwave components,

    A. Hati, C. W. Nelson, D. A Howe, N. Ashby, J. A. Taylor, K. M. Hudek, C. Hay, D. Seidef, and D. Eliyahu, “Vibration sensitivity of microwave components,” 2007 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium Joint with the 21st European Frequency and Time Forum , 541–546 (2007). 22

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.