Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

High-precision laser spectrum analyzer via digital decoherence

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces digital decoherence, a shift-and-recombine recursion that multiplies a short fiber delay into an exponentially longer one, and demonstrates it on sub-hertz lasers.

desk verdict Clever digital delay doubling with credible TCH validation, but the main text omits the wavelength-ratio scaling that makes the common-mode suppression work. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20986 v1 pith:DRJNW5FL submitted 2025-05-27 physics.optics physics.ins-det

Zhongwang Pang , Chunyi Li , Hongfei Dai , Wenlin Li , Dongqi Song , Fei Meng , Yige Lin , Bo Wang This is my paper
classification physics.opticsphysics.ins-det
keywords digitaldecoherencelaserspectrumanalyzerfrequencynoisepowerspectraldensitybeta-linelinewidthdelayedself-heterodyneinterferometrycommon-modesuppressionultra-stablelaserssub-hertz
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 claims that a laser's frequency-noise spectrum can be recovered without physically delaying the beam long enough to exceed the laser's coherence time. Its digital decoherence method records the phase difference between a laser and its own beam after a short delay $\tau_0$, then repeatedly shifts that recorded phase-difference signal by its own delay and adds it to itself; each iteration doubles the effective delay, giving $2^m\tau_0$ after $m$ steps. With a ~25 km delay fiber and $m=20$, the effective delay reaches roughly 126 seconds, which is long enough to characterize sub-hertz-linewidth lasers. The paper demonstrates the technique with a common-mode fiber-noise rejection scheme and reports a $\beta$-line linewidth of 570 mHz at 10 s for an ultra-stable pair, with a system noise floor of 210 mHz at 25 s. If correct, this makes delayed self-heterodyne interferometry a high-precision tool that still avoids wavelength matching and kilometer-scale fiber.

What carries the argument

The machine is a recursion on recorded phase-noise differences: each step shifts the current record by its own effective delay and adds the shifted and unshifted traces, so the intermediate phase term cancels and the delay doubles. A second element is the common-mode noise-cancellation channel: the test laser and an auxiliary laser of a different wavelength share the same delay fiber and acousto-optic frequency shifter, so the fiber-link phase error appears in both beat signals and can be suppressed by correlation; the paper reports about 95 dB suppression of injected fiber vibrations. The recursion then acts on the cleaned phase record, so the effective delay $2^m\tau_0$ is realized digitally rather than by adding more fiber.

What would settle it

Inject a known, slowly varying optical path-length oscillation into the shared fiber while measuring a quiet laser, and compare the recovered frequency-noise PSD at $m=17$ and $m=20$; if the method is sound, the injected tone remains suppressed at both settings, whereas any wavelength-dependent residual would appear at the injection frequency and grow as the iteration count increases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a short optical delay can be multiplied arithmetically in post-processing. If $\varphi_{01}(t)=\varphi(t)-\varphi(t-\tau_0)$ is the phase-noise difference produced by one pass through the delay, then adding the same record shifted by $\tau_0$ cancels the $\varphi(t-\tau_0)$ term and yields $\varphi_{02}(t)=\varphi(t)-\varphi(t-2\tau_0)$. Iterating this shift-and-add step produces $\varphi_{0,2^m}(t)=\varphi(t)-\varphi(t-2^m\tau_0)$, so the effective decoherence time grows exponentially with the number of iterations while the physical fiber stays short. The paper validates the procedure by comparing 17 iterations against an established three-cornered-hat comparison on lasers with roughly 50-160 Hz linewidths, and then applies 20 iterations to two ultra-stable lasers at different wavelengths, obtaining a frequency-noise PSD whose $\beta$-line linewidth is 570 mHz at 10 s. The measured noise floor of the analyzer corresponds to a 210 mHz $\beta$-line linewidth at 25 s and a minimum observable linewidth of 39 mHz.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fiber-link phase error seen by the auxiliary laser is common-mode with the error seen by the test laser and is fully cancelled in the comparison; if the two lasers' different colors leave a residual error, the residual would sit at the level of the claimed sub-hertz noise floor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method measures sub-hertz lasers with a ~25 km fiber, instead of the hundreds or thousands of kilometers that conventional delayed self-heterodyne interferometry would require.
  • It compares lasers whose center wavelengths differ, so optical frequency combs and wavelength-matched reference lasers are not needed for spectrum analysis.
  • The validated result is a $\beta$-line linewidth of 570 mHz at 10 s for the ultra-stable laser pair, with a system noise floor corresponding to 210 mHz at 25 s.
  • The same analyzer can switch between lasers of different center wavelengths while retaining the demonstrated noise floor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the recursion's robustness would be to recover the noise PSD of the same laser at several iteration counts ($m=17$, $m=19$, $m=21$) and check that the curves overlap where their frequency ranges overlap; residual disagreement would reveal a limit of the doubling identity.
  • The common-mode cancellation assumes both lasers see the same fiber-delay fluctuation; using auxiliary lasers across widely separated wavelengths (for example, visible versus telecom) would test how much wavelength mismatch the cancellation can tolerate before a residual fiber term leaks into the result.
  • The shift-and-add recursion is not intrinsically optical: any measured delay-difference time series, from interferometers at other wavelengths or from radio-frequency systems, could in principle use the same procedure to extend its effective delay.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a "digital decoherence" method for laser frequency-noise characterization, in which a short physical delay τ0 is recursively combined with digitally shifted records to synthesize an effective delay 2^m τ0, avoiding kilometer-scale delay fibers. To handle fiber-link noise, the experimental setup uses two lasers (the laser under test and an auxiliary laser at a different wavelength) that share a common delay fiber, with the stated aim of common-mode suppression of the fiber phase noise. The method is validated against three-cornered-hat measurements on three commercial ~100-Hz-linewidth lasers, and then applied to ultra-stable lasers, yielding a reported β-line linewidth of 570 mHz at 10 s and a system noise floor corresponding to 210 mHz at 25 s. The algebraic core of the recursive digital decoherence is sound, and the independent TCH comparison and zero-delay noise-floor measurement are appropriate experimental checks.

Significance. If the claims survive scrutiny, this is a valuable advance: it extends delayed self-heterodyne interferometry to sub-Hz linewidth lasers without physically long fibers or an optical frequency comb, and it offers wavelength flexibility. The recursive doubling of the delay time is elegant, and the use of a separately measured auxiliary laser channel to reject fiber noise is a sensible design. The manuscript also includes a direct TCH cross-check and an explicit zero-delay noise-floor evaluation, which is good experimental practice. However, the central noise-rejection mechanism is described only partially: the wavelength dependence of the fiber phase error is not handled explicitly, and the relationship between common-mode subtraction and cross-correlation is conflated. These points must be clarified before the sub-Hz results can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (4)] The compensation of the fiber-link phase error requires scaling by the optical-frequency ratio of the two lasers, and this scaling is never stated. In Eq. (4) the fiber error is ω_c δτ0, so for Laser T (1550.12 nm) the error is ω_T δτ0 and for Laser A (1559.71 nm) it is ω_A δτ0. Since the two lasers share the same physical delay fluctuation δτ0, subtracting or correlating the A-channel record without first multiplying by ω_T/ω_A leaves a residual of about (1 − ω_A/ω_T) ω_T δτ0 = 0.006 ω_T δτ0, i.e., only ~44 dB of suppression rather than the ~95 dB quoted in §3 and used for the blue fiber-noise floor in Fig. 5(b). The main text must state the required frequency-ratio scaling and show explicitly how it enters the compensation algorithm.
  2. [§3] The sentence "the noise from the common part and Laser A can be suppressed based on the principle of correlation" conflates two different operations. The fiber-link noise is common-mode and therefore correlated between the two channels; a cross-correlation that rejects mutually uncorrelated components would not remove it. Laser A's own phase noise is uncorrelated with Laser T's phase noise and could be suppressed by correlation, but the common-mode fiber component must instead be removed by subtracting a properly scaled estimate from the Laser T record. Please specify the actual digital processing (e.g., complex subtraction with scaling, cross-spectrum estimator, or a combination) and identify which operation yields the measured ~95 dB rejection.
  3. [§4.2 / Supplementary S1–S3] The sub-Hz result is not self-contained in the submitted material. The calculations behind the "theoretical fiber link noise floor" (blue curve in Fig. 5(b)), the 95 dB suppression evaluation, and the minimum-observable-linewidth formulas are deferred to Secs. S1–S3 of the Supplementary Material, which was not available for review. Because the headline numbers (570 mHz, 210 mHz, 39 mHz) depend on those derivations, please include the supplementary material for review or expand the main text so the central noise-floor argument can be checked.
  4. [§4.2] The text says that after m=20 the "relative frequency noise PSD between these two lasers" is obtained (Fig. 5(a)), but the abstract and later discussion report this as a β-line linewidth of 570 mHz. It is important to clarify whether 570 mHz is the linewidth of a single laser under test after common-mode/correlation processing, or the relative (beat) linewidth of the two ultra-stable lasers. If it is the relative linewidth, the single-laser linewidth and the meaning of the minimum observable linewidth need to be restated; if it is the single-laser linewidth, the phrase "between these two lasers" should be corrected, and the processing that removes the auxiliary laser's noise while retaining the LUT's noise should be described.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / §5] The abstract states a 40–70 dB noise-floor reduction relative to a commercial laser spectrum analyzer, but no comparison data or corresponding figure appear in the main text; please add the supporting measurement or point to the specific section where it is shown.
  2. [§4.1] The TCH validation is performed at observation times around 25 ms with linewidths of ~47–162 Hz, while the headline sub-Hz claims in §4.2 are not cross-checked with an independent method; a sentence acknowledging this and explaining why the noise-floor analysis nevertheless supports the sub-Hz claim would strengthen the presentation.
  3. [§3, Fig. 3(b)–(c)] The suppression is quoted as ~99 dB and ~95 dB; please specify whether this is the peak PSD reduction at the vibration frequency, the integrated power over a defined band, or the broadband residual level, and over what analysis bandwidth.
  4. [§2–§3 equations] In the preprint rendering, Eqs. (2), (3), and (4) have missing parentheses and garbled subscripts (e.g., Δφ12 and the δτ0 terms); please ensure the final typeset version is mathematically clean and unambiguous.
  5. [References] Reference [23] shares two authors with this paper; the self-citation is not used to justify the central claim, but adding an independent reference on comb-based laser characterization would avoid any appearance of over-reliance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the digital decoherence recursion is algebraic, and the reported noise floor is evaluated from independent zero-delay and fiber-noise measurements, not from a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The central step, Eqs. (1)-(3), is a self-contained algebraic identity: the initial record is Delta_phi_01(t) = phi(t) - phi(t - tau0), and adding the tau0-shifted record gives Delta_phi_02(t) = phi(t) - phi(t - 2*tau0), with iteration yielding Delta_phi(t) = phi(t) - phi(t - 2^m * tau0). This is a construction from measured phase records, not a parameter fit renamed as a prediction. The method is validated externally: the paper states that 'the result from the digital decoherence method is consistent with that obtained from the TCH method' (Sec. 4.1), using separate NKT lasers in a three-cornered-hat comparison. The 210 mHz noise floor is not fitted: it combines the measured fiber-link noise ('the noise induced by the delay fiber is measured') with a zero-delay measurement that 'excludes both laser phase noise and fiber-induced noise, leaving only the noise from the detection and acquisition system.' The claimed ~95 dB fiber-noise suppression is demonstrated by injecting calibrated fiber-stretcher vibrations at discrete frequencies, which is an external test of the common-mode rejection. The only self-citation, ref. [23] ('However, this approach is intricate and costly [23]'), shares co-authors F. Meng and Y. Lin with the present paper, but it is used only as a motivational remark about comb-based heterodyne systems and does not justify the digital-decoherence derivation or the noise-floor evaluation. A possible wavelength-ratio scaling issue in the common-mode compensation (1559.71 nm auxiliary versus 1550.12 nm LUT) is a correctness and self-containedness concern, not a circularity: nothing in the paper defines the measured PSD in terms of the claimed noise floor, and no equation makes the predicted linewidth equal to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the stationarity and additivity of the laser phase noise, on the exactness of the digital time shift, and on the implicit assumption that the auxiliary laser's fiber-noise compensation is scaled by the optical frequency ratio. These are not demonstrated in the main text. There are no invented physical entities, and the only chosen numerical settings are the iteration count and observation times.

free parameters (1)
  • number of digital decoherence iterations m = 17 for NKT lasers, 20 for ultra-stable lasers
    Chosen by the experimenter to reach equivalent decoherence times of ~16 s and ~126 s, exceeding the LUT coherence time. This setting determines the lowest measurable Fourier frequency but is not fitted to the output PSD.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The laser phase noise is a stationary, additive random process, so phase differences at successive intervals can be combined algebraically.
    Invoked in Eqs. (2) and (3) to combine shifted phase differences; requires stationarity over the full observation span.
  • domain assumption The digital time shift exactly equals the physical delay tau0 so that the intermediate phase term cancels perfectly.
    Implicit in Step 1 of Section 2; the text states ns-level delay accuracy, but the sampling period is ~8.33 ns and no resampling or interpolation procedure is described.
  • ad hoc to paper The fiber-link phase error term omega_c * delta_tau0 can be cancelled using the auxiliary laser measurement, with the appropriate frequency-ratio scaling.
    Section 3, after Eq. (4); the two lasers have different wavelengths (1550.12 nm vs 1559.71 nm), so the error terms differ by ~0.6%. The main text does not state this scaling.
  • domain assumption The ~95 dB fiber-noise suppression measured at discrete tones extends to broadband noise across the measurement band.
    Section 3, Fig. 3(c) and the FST paragraph; no broadband noise test was performed.
  • domain assumption The beat signals have sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio for reliable phase unwrapping, including for the kHz-linewidth auxiliary laser.
    Required for all digital processing; not discussed in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-precision laser spectrum analyzer via digital decoherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRJNW5FL

@misc{pith2026250520986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-precision laser spectrum analyzer via digital decoherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRJNW5FL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20986}
}
read the original abstract

With the continuous advancement of laser technology, accurately evaluating the noise spectrum of high-performance lasers has become increasingly challenging. In this work, we demonstrate a high-precision laser spectrum analyzer based on the proposed digital decoherence method, which can precisely measure the frequency noise spectrum of sub-Hz linewidth lasers. In addition, it has broad wavelength compatibility, which enables convenient switching between lasers with different center wavelengths. Its performance is validated through measurements of ultra-stable lasers. Based on the measured frequency noise power spectral density, a beta-line linewidth is determined to be 570 mHz at 10-second observation time, and the minimum observable linewidth is calculated to be 133 mHz. The system's noise floor is evaluated to be 210 mHz beta-line linewidth at 25-second observation time, and a minimum observable linewidth of 39 mHz.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ultrafast optical ranging using microresonator soliton frequency combs,

    P. Trocha, M. Karpov, D. Ganin, et al., “Ultrafast optical ranging using microresonator soliton frequency combs,” Science 359(6378), 887–891 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Earth rotation measured by a chip-scale ring laser gyroscope,

    Y. H. Lai, M. G. Suh, Y. K Lu, et al., “Earth rotation measured by a chip-scale ring laser gyroscope,” Nat. Photonics 14, 345–349 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Near-ultraviolet photon-counting dual-comb spectroscopy,

    B. X. Xu, Z. J. Chen, T. W. Hänsch, et al., “Near-ultraviolet photon-counting dual-comb spectroscopy,” Nature 627, 289–294 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Generation of ultrastable microwaves via optical frequency division,

    T. M. Fortier, M. S. Kirchner, F. Quinlan, et al., “Generation of ultrastable microwaves via optical frequency division,” Nat. Photonics 5, 425–429 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Broadband Cavity Ringdown Spectroscopy for Sensitive and Rapid Molecular Detection,

    M. J. Thorpe, K. D. Moll, R. J. Jones, et al., “Broadband Cavity Ringdown Spectroscopy for Sensitive and Rapid Molecular Detection,” Science 311(5767), 1595–1599 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Ultrastable laser interferometry for earthquake detection with terrestrial and submarine cables,

    G. Marra, C. Clivati, R. Luckett, et al., “Ultrastable laser interferometry for earthquake detection with terrestrial and submarine cables,” Science 361(6401), 486–490 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Observation of Motion-Dependent Nonlinear Dispersion with Narrow-Linewidth Atoms in an Optical Cavity,

    P. G. Westergaard, B. T. R. Christensen, D. Tieri, et al., “Observation of Motion-Dependent Nonlinear Dispersion with Narrow-Linewidth Atoms in an Optical Cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114(9), 093002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Ultrastable Silicon Cavity in a Continuously Operating Closed-Cycle Cryostat at 4 K,

    W. Zhang, J. M. Robinson, L. Sonderhouse, et al., “Ultrastable Silicon Cavity in a Continuously Operating Closed-Cycle Cryostat at 4 K,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(24), 243601 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    1.5 μm Lasers with Sub-10 mHz Linewidth,

    D. G. Matei, T. Legero, S. Häfner, et al., “1.5 μm Lasers with Sub-10 mHz Linewidth,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118(26), 263202 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Towards generation of millihertz-linewidth laser light with 10−18 frequency instability via four-wave mixing,

    Li Jin, Chao Hang, Yanyi Jiang, “Towards generation of millihertz-linewidth laser light with 10−18 frequency instability via four-wave mixing,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 114(5), 051104 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Nanophotonic phase noise filter in silicon,

    M. H. Idjadi, and F. Aflatouni, “Nanophotonic phase noise filter in silicon,” Nat. Photonics 14, 234–239 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Hertz-linewidth semiconductor lasers using CMOS-ready ultra-high- Q microresonators,

    W. Jin, Q.-F. Yang, L. Chang, et al., “Hertz-linewidth semiconductor lasers using CMOS-ready ultra-high- Q microresonators,” Nat. Photonics 15, 346–353 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Long-haul self-mixing interference and remote sensing of a distant moving target with a thin-slice solid-state laser,

    K. Otsuka, “Long-haul self-mixing interference and remote sensing of a distant moving target with a thin-slice solid-state laser,” Opt. Lett. 39(4), 1069–1072 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Sub-kHz lasing of a CaF2 whispering gallery mode resonator stabilized fiber ring laser,

    M. C. Collodo, F. Sedlmeir, B. Sprenger, et al., “Sub-kHz lasing of a CaF2 whispering gallery mode resonator stabilized fiber ring laser,” Opt. Express 22(16), 19277–19283 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Ultralow noise miniature external cavity semiconductor laser,

    W. Liang, V. S. Ilchenko, D. Eliyahu, et al., “Ultralow noise miniature external cavity semiconductor laser,” Nat. Commun. 6, 7371 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    A vibration-insensitive optical cavity and absolute determination of its ultrahigh stability,

    Y. N. Zhao, J. Zhang, A. Stejskal, et al., “A vibration-insensitive optical cavity and absolute determination of its ultrahigh stability,” Opt. Express 17(11), 8970–8982 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    CaF2 whispering-gallery-mode-resonator stabilized-narrow- linewidth laser,

    B. Sprenger, H. G. L. Schwefel, Z. H. Lu, et al., “CaF2 whispering-gallery-mode-resonator stabilized-narrow- linewidth laser,” Opt. Lett. 35(17), 2870–2872 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

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

    T. Kessler, C. Hagemann, C. Grebing, et al., “A sub-40-mHz-linewidth laser based on a silicon single-crystal optical cavity,” Nat. Photonics 6, 687–692 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Thermal-noise-limited higher-order mode locking of a reference cavity,

    X. Y. Zeng, Y. X. Ye, X. H. Shi, et al., “Thermal-noise-limited higher-order mode locking of a reference cavity,” Opt. Lett. 43(8), 1690–1693 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Coherent Optical Phase Transfer over a 32-km Fiber with 1 s Instability at 10-17,

    S. M. Foreman, A. D. Ludlow, M. H. G. Miranda, et al., “Coherent Optical Phase Transfer over a 32-km Fiber with 1 s Instability at 10-17,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(15), 153601 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Mid-infrared frequency comb from a ring quantum cascade laser,

    B. Meng, M. Singleton, M. Shahmohammadi, et al., “Mid-infrared frequency comb from a ring quantum cascade laser,” Optica 7(2), 162–167 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Miniature narrow-linewidth 1μm laser,

    X. F. Zhang, F. Zhang, K. P. Jia, et al., “Miniature narrow-linewidth 1μm laser,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 124(13), 131101 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Highly coherent two-color laser and its application for low-noise microwave generation,

    B. B. He, J. C. Yang, F. Meng, et al., “Highly coherent two-color laser and its application for low-noise microwave generation,” Nat. Commun. 16, 4034 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Large linewidth reduction in semiconductor lasers based on atom-like gain material,

    T. Septon, A. Becker, S. Gosh, et al., “Large linewidth reduction in semiconductor lasers based on atom-like gain material,” Optica 6(8), 1071–1077 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Laser linewidth measurement based on long and short delay fiber combination,

    M. Y. Xue, and J. N. Zhao, “Laser linewidth measurement based on long and short delay fiber combination,” Opt. Express 29(17), 27118–27126 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Compound four-cavity single-longitudinal mode fiber laser,

    H. P. Chen, J. Yang, S. X. Song, et al., “Compound four-cavity single-longitudinal mode fiber laser,” Opt. Express 32(5), 7079–7089 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Effective linewidth compression of a single-longitudinal-mode fiber laser with randomly distributed high scattering centers in the fiber induced by femtosecond laser pulses,

    T. Feng, J. Su, D. Wei, et al., “Effective linewidth compression of a single-longitudinal-mode fiber laser with randomly distributed high scattering centers in the fiber induced by femtosecond laser pulses,” Opt. Express 31(3), 4238–4252 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    A 10-kHz intrinsic linewidth coupled extended-cavity DBR laser monolithically integrated on an InP platform,

    R. R. Kumar, A. Hänsel, M. F. Brusatori, et al., “A 10-kHz intrinsic linewidth coupled extended-cavity DBR laser monolithically integrated on an InP platform,” Opt. Lett. 47(9), 2346–2349 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Laser frequency modulation noise measurement by recirculating delayed self-heterodyne method,

    H. Tsuchida, “Laser frequency modulation noise measurement by recirculating delayed self-heterodyne method,” Opt. Lett. 36(5), 681–683 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Limitation and improvement in the performance of recirculating delayed self-heterodyne method for high-resolution laser lineshape measurement,

    H. Tsuchida, “Limitation and improvement in the performance of recirculating delayed self-heterodyne method for high-resolution laser lineshape measurement,” Opt. Express 20(11), 11679–11687 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    1.5μm, mode-hop-free full C-band wavelength tunable laser diode with a linewidth of 8 kHz and a RIN of −130 dB/Hz and its extension to the L-band,

    K. Kasai, M. Nakazawa, Y. Tomomatsu, et al., “1.5μm, mode-hop-free full C-band wavelength tunable laser diode with a linewidth of 8 kHz and a RIN of −130 dB/Hz and its extension to the L-band,” Opt. Express 25(18), 22113–22124 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Broadband phase noise measurement of single-frequency lasers by the short-fiber recirculating delayed self-heterodyne method,

    X. Chen, J. M. Liu, J. J. Jiang, et al., “Broadband phase noise measurement of single-frequency lasers by the short-fiber recirculating delayed self-heterodyne method,” Opt. Lett. 49(3), 622–625 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    https://contentnktphotonics.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Koheras-BASIK/Koheras%20BASIK%20Datashee t.pdf

  26. [34]

    https://www.oewaves.com/_files/ugd/d39cf0_372dfa0d2d9546bf9c7b467986a6ea78.pdf

  27. [35]

    Optoelectronic oscillations for thermo-optic coefficient measurement of optical fibers,

    O. Terra, “Optoelectronic oscillations for thermo-optic coefficient measurement of optical fibers,” Meas. Sci. T echnol. 30, 035205 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Frequency noise measurement and its uncertainty estimation of an optical f requency comb using a delay line interferometer,

    M. Wada, F. L. Hong and H. Inaba, “Frequency noise measurement and its uncertainty estimation of an optical f requency comb using a delay line interferometer,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 31, 125012 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Phase noise characterization of sub-hertz linewidth lasers via digital cross correlation,

    X. P. Xie, R. Bouchand, D. Nicolodi, et al., “Phase noise characterization of sub-hertz linewidth lasers via digital cross correlation,” Opt. Lett. 42(7), 1217–1220 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Phase noise measurement of an optoelectronic oscillator based on the photonic- delay line cross-correlation method,

    Z. Q. Fan, Q. Qiu, J. Su, et al., “Phase noise measurement of an optoelectronic oscillator based on the photonic- delay line cross-correlation method,” Opt. Lett. 44(8), 1992–1995 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Ultrafast and High-Precision Time Delay Measurement Based on Complementary Frequency-Swept Light and Frequency-Shifted Dechirping,

    Y. Zhang, Z. Zeng, L. Zhang, et al., “Ultrafast and High-Precision Time Delay Measurement Based on Complementary Frequency-Swept Light and Frequency-Shifted Dechirping,” J. Lightwave Technol. 42(6), 1927–1933 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Fully stabilized optical frequency comb with sub-radian CEO phase noise from a SESAM-modelocked 1.5-µm solid-state laser,

    S. Schilt, N. Bucalovic, V. Dolgovskiy, et al., “Fully stabilized optical frequency comb with sub-radian CEO phase noise from a SESAM-modelocked 1.5-µm solid-state laser,” Opt. Express 19(24), 24171–24181 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    36 Hz integral linewidth laser based on a photonic integrated 4.0 m coil resonator,

    K. Liu, N. Chauhan, J. Wang, et al., “36 Hz integral linewidth laser based on a photonic integrated 4.0 m coil resonator,” Optica 9(7), 770–775 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Optical spectrum analyzer with quantum-limited noise floor,

    M. Bishof, X. Zhang, M. J. Martin, et al., “Optical spectrum analyzer with quantum-limited noise floor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(9), 093604 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

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