Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Experimental demonstration of the clock asynchrony model in space-borne gravitational wave detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that inter-satellite clock asynchrony in space-borne gravitational wave detection is dominated by a constant time offset and a linear timing factor, and that both can be measured and cancelled in post-processing.

desk verdict Useful ground-testbed paper with a simple model and a mostly convincing experiment; the linear-term verification needs the missing alpha measurement before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02286 v1 pith:QEH2IG5S submitted 2025-07-03 gr-qc astro-ph.IMphysics.app-phphysics.ins-det

Ming-Yang Xua , Yu-Jie Tan , Ning Ma , Ao-Ting Fang , Yi-Jun Xia , Cheng-Gang Shao This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IMphysics.app-phphysics.ins-det MSC 83C3583B05 PACS 04.80.Nn95.55.Ym
keywords phasemeterclockasynchronysynchronizationtime-delayinterferometryrangingspace-bornegravitationalwavedetectionpilottonenoise
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 clock asynchrony between satellites in a space-borne gravitational wave detector is well described by just two parameters: a constant initial time offset $t_0$ and a linear timing factor $\alpha$, with higher-order terms neglected. It shows theoretically how these two terms couple laser frequency noise into the measurement, producing synchronization requirements of about $t_0 < 2.3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $\alpha < 1.8\times 10^{-11}$ for typical mission parameters. Experimentally, a dual-phasemeter bench with four signal sources reproduces both effects: after constant-offset correction via time-delay interferometry ranging (TDIR), the residual noise follows the linear-factor prediction of Eq. (5), and when a clock-comparison link is available the linear factor can also be measured and removed. With both terms compensated, the residual clock noise falls to the experiment's noise floor, $2\pi\times 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{rad}/\mathrm{Hz}^{1/2}$ at $3\,\mathrm{mHz}$. The practical point is that ADC clocks and the pilot tone must be homologous within each satellite for the linear timing factor to be recoverable from clock-comparison data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dual-phasemeter test bench with four independent signal sources, which simulates two satellites whose ADC clocks and pilot tones can be either homologous or independent. The model equation $f(t)-f(t+t_0+\alpha t)$ and its Fourier approximations (3) and (5) carry the theoretical argument: the constant term appears as a phase factor $(1-e^{i\omega t_0})\approx -i\omega t_0$, and the linear term appears as a frequency rescaling $(1/(1+\alpha))F(\omega/(1+\alpha))$, approximated as $\alpha p(\omega)+\alpha\omega p'(\omega)$. The TDIR algorithm supplies the constant offset by minimizing the residual noise over delay $\Lambda$, while a clock-transmission link supplies the linear factor $\alpha$ when the ADC clock and the pilot tone are derived from the same source. The additional phasemeter measuring $\alpha \approx -1.7918\times 10^{-7}$ for the independent-clock configuration is the experimental input that lets the residual after constant-offset correction be compared with the Eq. (5) prediction.

What would settle it

Measure the clock-rate difference between the two ADC clocks independently and traceably over the full 15550 s run, for example with a continuously recorded clock-comparison link rather than a single fitted value, and compare the amplitude spectral density after constant-offset correction with Eq. (5). If the residual deviates from the predicted $\alpha p(\omega)+\alpha\omega p'(\omega)$ spectrum by more than the experimental uncertainties, or if an independently measured $\alpha$ disagreeing with $-1.7918\times 10^{-7}$ still yields the same blue line, the linear-dominance claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inter-satellite clock asynchrony in space-borne gravitational wave detection is dominated by a constant term $t_0$ and a linear term $\alpha t$, and that both can be measured and cancelled in post-processing. The paper derives the coupled noise model by taking the Fourier transform of the difference $f(t) - f(t+t_0+\alpha t)$, obtaining the approximations (3) and (5), and uses these to set synchronization requirements. On a dual-phasemeter test bench, the constant term is recovered by TDIR, which searches the time-delay parameter minimizing the residual noise combination; the linear term is recovered from clock-comparison data when the ADC clock and pilot tone share a source. When the two are not homologous, the linear information is unavailable and the residual is dominated by the uncorrected linear timing factor, matching the theoretical spectrum of Eq. (5). With both terms corrected, the residual reaches the noise floor, demonstrating that the two-term model captures the asynchrony mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The linear-term verification in Fig. 3(f) assumes that a single value $\alpha \approx -1.7918\times 10^{-7}$, measured by an additional phasemeter that is not described in the paper, accurately represents the clock-rate difference over the full 15550-second run, and that after constant-offset correction the residual is dominated by this linear term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a flight-like configuration where each satellite's ADC clock and pilot tone share a source, the linear timing factor can be extracted from clock-comparison data, and combined with TDIR for the constant offset.
  • When the ADC clock and pilot tone are from independent sources, the linear factor cannot be obtained from the clock link, and the residual stays dominated by linear clock asynchrony.
  • The required synchronization accuracy for a typical space-borne gravitational wave detector is roughly $t_0 < 2.3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $\alpha < 1.8\times 10^{-11}$, set by laser frequency noise and the detector noise floor.
  • The optimized constant compensation $t_0 + \tfrac{1}{2}\alpha t_{\mathrm{all}}$ matches the measured optimum ($0.05452\,\mathrm{s}$ to $0.05310\,\mathrm{s}$), confirming the coupled effect of the two terms over a finite run.
  • The achieved residual after both corrections, $2\pi\times 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{rad}/\mathrm{Hz}^{1/2}$ at $3\,\mathrm{mHz}$, sits below typical mission requirements, so the test bench itself is a low-noise clock synchronization test system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-term model holds, error budgets for future missions could treat clock asynchrony as two scalar parameters per satellite pair rather than a full noise process, simplifying acquisition of clock calibration data.
  • A natural testable extension is to run the same dual-phasemeter bench with an on-board clock-transmission link that provides $\alpha$ in real time, rather than a separate phasemeter, and check whether the residual after the TDIR plus link correction still reaches the floor.
  • The same model likely applies to the three-satellite constellation of LISA-like missions, with pairwise $t_0$ and $\alpha$ parameters; the bench could be extended to three phasemeters to verify that the pairwise corrections combine without cross-terms.
  • The apparent precision of the $\alpha$ measurement (about $-1.7918\times 10^{-7}$) suggests that clock-comparison noise, not the phasemeter itself, will set the floor for linear-factor estimation; a long-run Allan-deviation study of the residual would test that.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-term model for inter-satellite clock asynchrony in space-borne gravitational wave detectors: a constant initial time offset t0 and a linear timing factor alpha (Eqs. 1-5). It derives synchronization requirements on t0 and alpha relative to the laser frequency noise and detector noise floor (Eqs. 4-6 and Fig. 2). A dual-phasemeter bench experiment is reported in which, after pilot-tone correction, the residual clock asynchrony noise is said to follow Eq. (3) when only the constant offset is corrected and Eq. (5) when the linear factor remains. The authors report that correcting both terms brings the residual to the test noise floor, about 2*pi*10^-6 rad/Hz^1/2 at 3 mHz, and that the constant offset is obtained by TDIR while the linear factor is measured by an additional phasemeter (alpha approx -1.7918e-7). A supplementary analysis in Fig. 4 compares an optimized constant compensation of 0.05310 s with t0 + (1/2)*alpha*tall.

Significance. If the missing experimental details are supplied, this would be a valuable bench-level confirmation of the two-term clock-asynchrony model for LISA-like missions. The theoretical derivation is straightforward and mostly correct, the noise-floor result is a useful test-bench performance figure, and the paper clearly identifies TDIR and clock comparison as the two required synchronization mechanisms. However, the current manuscript does not provide enough information to independently verify the linear-term leg of the demonstration: the alpha measurement is undescribed and uncalibrated, the input spectrum p(omega) used for the theoretical curves is not specified, and some reported agreements are consistency checks in which the same data are used to estimate parameters and to test the model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 3(f)] The linear timing factor alpha approx -1.7918e-7 is reported as measured by another phasemeter that is not shown in Fig. 3(e), but no description, calibration, time series, or uncertainty is given for this measurement. Since alpha enters linearly in Eq. (5) and is also used in Eq. (17) to predict the optimized constant offset, the entire linear-term verification and the Eq. (17) agreement rest on this uncharacterized number. Please describe the additional phasemeter and its measurement chain, provide the value with an uncertainty budget, and show that alpha is stable over the 15550 s run; clarify whether this phasemeter plays the role of the clock transmission link described in the abstract.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 3(d) and Fig. 3(f)] The theoretical curves labeled as the pink dotted lines are computed from Eq. (3) and Eq. (5), respectively, but the manuscript never specifies the input spectrum p(omega) used for these calculations, nor how the derivative p'(omega) in Eq. (5) was evaluated. Without stating which measured signal provides p(omega), the spectral estimation method, and the numerical procedure for the derivative term, the agreement between the blue residual curves and the pink theoretical curves cannot be reproduced or quantitatively assessed. Please provide this information explicitly.
  3. [Section 3 and Appendix A] The constant offsets t2,0 approx 0.010859 s (Fig. 3(d)) and t2,0 approx 0.05452 s (Fig. 3(f)) are obtained by TDIR, which is described as minimizing the residual noise of the same combination that is later compared with the theoretical curves. The agreement is therefore partly a consistency check of the assumed functional form rather than an independent predictive verification. Please state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, add a validation test in which a known time offset is injected and recovered by the TDIR algorithm.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (17) and Fig. 4(E)] The optimized constant compensation 0.05310 s is introduced without specifying the optimization criterion, the search range, or the resulting uncertainty. If this value is simply the free minimizer of the residual ASD over constant shifts, then its agreement with t0 + (1/2)*alpha*tall only confirms the model if the uncertainties in t0 and alpha are propagated and the observed minimum falls within the predicted interval. Please state the optimization procedure and provide error bars for both the measured and predicted values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] Under the time transformation t2 = t + t0 + alpha*t, the phase factor in the second term should be exp(i*omega*t0/(1+alpha)), not exp(i*omega*t0); the printed expression is the alpha = 0 limit. The numerical difference is small at the experimental parameters, but the exact form should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3] The correspondence between the model's p(omega), called laser frequency noise, and the measured jitter combination q2 - q1 should be made explicit; currently the reader must infer that x(t) = q2(t) - q1(t) is the noise process whose spectrum is p(omega).
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 3(f)] There are two textual errors near Fig. 3(f): 'dolt line' should be 'dotted line', and 'shows the result of synchronization the differences' should read 'shows the result of synchronizing the differences'.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 4] The caption of Fig. 4 refers to time output profiles in panels (A)-(D), but the text does not describe the axes, units, or how these profiles are derived from the measured phase data; please add a brief explanation.
  5. [General] The paper would be easier to check if the measured parameters t0 and alpha for each configuration were summarized in a table with uncertainties and the total measurement time, instead of being mentioned only in the text and captions.
  6. [Section 3, Fig. 3(b)] The green line is said to indicate the requirements for space-borne gravitational wave detection, but no equation, numerical value, or referenced requirement curve is identified in the text; please specify what this curve represents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is a Taylor expansion and the experimental parameters (t0 by TDIR, alpha by an auxiliary phasemeter) are measured independently of the residuals they are used to explain; remaining issues are reproducibility, not circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation, Eqs. (1)-(6), is a mathematical expansion of f(t + t0 + alpha t) and is not fitted to the experimental residuals. In the experiment, the constant offset is obtained by TDIR minimization (Appendix A, Eq. A.2) and the linear factor is stated to be 'measured by another phasemeter, which is not shown in the Fig. 3(e)' (Sec. 3). Therefore the blue-versus-pink comparisons in Figs. 3(d) and 3(f), and the Eq. (17) relation 0.05310 s = t0 + 0.5*alpha*tall, are consistency checks between independently measured parameters and the model, not predictions forced by construction. The self-citation to Ref. [26] for the synchronization processing is backed by Appendix A, so it is not load-bearing. The principal weaknesses are that the auxiliary phasemeter measurement and the input spectrum p(omega) used for the theoretical curves are not documented, and no uncertainties are given for alpha; these are completeness and evidence-quality limitations, not circular derivation. Hence no circularity step meets the quotation-based bar. Score 1 reflects the mild consistency-check character of the Fig. 3(f)/Eq. (17) agreement rather than any reduction of a central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a two-term Taylor model of clock offsets, on the pilot-tone jitter-correction assumption, on stationary jitter statistics, and on the unbiasedness of TDIR delay estimation. The two fitted offsets and the linear factor are the main free parameters supplied by the experiment.

free parameters (3)
  • t2,0 (constant initial time offset, Fig. 3d) = 0.010859 s
    Obtained by TDIR (minimizing residual noise over delay) in the Fig. 3(c) configuration; used to compute the theoretical Eq. (3) curve.
  • t2,0 (constant initial time offset, Fig. 3f) = 0.05452 s (optimum 0.05310 s after joint constant/linear compensation)
    Obtained by TDIR in the Fig. 3(e) configuration; the 0.05310 s optimum is found by optimization and then matched to t0 + 0.5*a*tall.
  • alpha (linear timing factor, Fig. 3f) = -1.7918 x 10^-7
    Measured by an additional phasemeter not shown in Fig. 3(e); used to compute the theoretical Eq. (5) curve and the expected optimum Eq. (17).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Clock asynchrony between satellites is adequately described by a constant offset and a linear rate term, with higher-order terms neglected.
    Eq. (1) defines t2 = t + t2,0 + alpha2 t + delta_t2, and the analysis keeps only t2,0 and alpha2; the experiment is designed around this two-term model.
  • domain assumption After pilot tone correction, the residual phase noise consists of the source jitter terms q1 and q2, and these are stationary and sufficiently uncorrelated for spectral modeling.
    Eqs. (11)-(15) and the theoretical curves in Fig. 3 use transfer functions (1 - e^{i omega t0}) and the alpha expansion of the jitter terms without modeling nonstationarity or correlations.
  • domain assumption Pilot tone correction removes ADC clock jitter and aperture jitter by subtracting one third of the 23.001 MHz pilot tone from the 7.667 MHz measurement tone.
    Eqs. (11)-(12) assume the pilot tone carries the same clock jitter as the measurement tone and that the factor-of-three subtraction cancels q3, q4, and aperture jitter; this follows the established technique in refs. [11,12].
  • domain assumption The TDIR minimum-residual search gives an unbiased estimate of the constant offset.
    Appendix A defines gamma(Lambda) and takes the delay that minimizes its ASD as t2,0, assuming no other noise source biases the minimum.
  • domain assumption The pre-stabilized laser and detector noise PSDs from refs. [23,24] are representative for deriving the 2.3 ns and 1.8e-11 requirements.
    Section 2 uses |p(omega)| and |s_x(omega)| from the literature to produce Fig. 2; this affects the stated synchronization requirements, not the experimental verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental demonstration of the clock asynchrony model in space-borne gravitational wave detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QEH2IG5S

@misc{pith2026250702286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental demonstration of the clock asynchrony model in space-borne gravitational wave detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QEH2IG5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02286}
}
abstract

Space-borne gravitational wave detection will open the observation window in the 0.1 mHz$-$1 Hz bandwidth, playing a crucial role in the development of cosmology and physics. Precise clock synchronization among satellites is essential for the accurate detection of gravitational wave signals. However, the independent clock counting mechanisms of each satellite pose a significant challenge. This work reports the mathematical model of clock asynchrony, which is mainly dominated by the constant term factor and the linear term factor. Moreover, it experimentally verifies the clock asynchronization technique based on a dual-phasemeter system. Through experimentation, the impacts of these two aspects of clock asynchrony were confirmed, and post-processing techniques were employed to reduce these impacts to as low as $\rm 2\pi \times 10^{-6} rad/Hz^{1/2}@ 3mHz$. Specifically, the constant term factor is measured by Time-delay Interferometry Ranging (TDIR), while the linear term factor can be gauged by clock transmission link. This study provides a reference for understanding the clock asynchrony mechanism and processing clock synchronization issues. Additionally, a low additional noise clock synchronization test system is introduced to support such measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The configuration of space-borne gravitational wave detector. TM: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Clock synchronization requirement diagram. (a) The requirement for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of experimental test of inter-satellite clock synchronization. (a) Schematic diagram of the experimental noise floor test, where all clock signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram of verification of the coupling mechanism between the constant term and the linear term. (A) There are both constant term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Ben- der, et al., Laser interferometer space antenna (arXiv:1702.00786, 2017). arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Luo, L.-S

    J. Luo, L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan, Y .-G. Gong, S. Hu, J. Ji, et al., Tianqin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33 (2016) 035010

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Hu, Y .-L

    W.-R. Hu, Y .-L. Wu, The Taiji program in space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity, National Science Review 4 (2017) 685– 686

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Tinto, S

    M. Tinto, S. V . Dhurandhar, Time-delay interferometry, Living Reviews in Relativity 24 (2020) 1. doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00029-6

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00029-6 2020

  5. [5]

    Sutton, K

    A. Sutton, K. McKenzie, B. Ware, D. A. Shaddock, Laser ranging and communications for lisa, Optics Express 18 (2010) 20759–20773. doi:10.1364/OE.18.020759

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.18.020759 2010

  6. [6]

    Tinto, M

    M. Tinto, M. Vallisneri, J. W. Armstrong, Time-delay interferometric ranging for space-borne gravitational-wave detectors, Physical Review D 71 (2005) 041101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.041101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.041101 2005

  7. [7]

    J. J. Esteban, A. F. Garc ´ıa, S. Barke, A. M. Peinado, F. G. Cervantes, I. Bykov, G. Heinzel, K. Danzmann, Experimental demonstration of weak-light laser ranging and data communication for lisa, Optics Express 19 (2011) 15937–15946. doi:10.1364/OE.19.015937

    doi:10.1364/oe.19.015937 2011

  8. [8]

    Xie, H.-Y

    S.-Y . Xie, H.-Y . Zeng, Y .-H. Pan, D.-M. He, S.-C. Jiang, Y .-Z. Li, Y .- B. Du, H. Yan, H.-C. Yeh, Bi-directional prn laser ranging and clock synchronization for tianqin mission, Optics Communications 541 (2023) 129558. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2023.129558

    work page arXiv 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Yamamoto, I

    K. Yamamoto, I. Bykov, J. N. Reinhardt, C. Bode, P. Grafe, M. Staab, N. Messied, M. Clark, G. F. Barranco, T. S. Schwarze, O. Hartwig, J. J. E. Delgado, G. Heinzel, Experimental end-to-end demonstration of intersatellite absolute ranging for the laser interfer- ometer space an...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Du, P.-Z

    M.-H. Du, P.-Z. Wu, Z.-R. Luo, P. Xu, Exploring time de- lay interferometry ranging as a practical ranging approach in the bayesian framework, Results in Physics 62 (2024) 107819. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107819

    2024

  3. [11]

    Liang, Note: A new method for directly reducing the sampling jit- ter noise of the digital phasemeter, Review of Scientific Instruments 89 (2018) 036106

    Y .-R. Liang, Note: A new method for directly reducing the sampling jit- ter noise of the digital phasemeter, Review of Scientific Instruments 89 (2018) 036106. doi:10.1063/1.5011654

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Huang, G.-F

    X.-Q. Huang, G.-F. Wang, M.-L. Yang, Z. Yang, C.-B. Cai, M. Ming, J.-Y . Zhang, S.-Q. Yang, L.-C. Tu, H.-Z. Duan, Z. Li, H.-C. Yeh, Study on picometer-level laser interferometer readout system in tianqin project, Optics and Laser Technology 161 (2023) 109185. doi:https://doi.o...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Barke, M

    S. Barke, M. Tr ¨obs, B. Sheard, G. Heinzel, K. Danzmann, Eom sideband phase characteristics for the spaceborne gravitational wave detector lisa, Applied Physics B 98 (2010) 33–39. doi:10.1007/s00340-009-3682-x. 6

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Xu, Y .-J

    M.-Y . Xu, Y .-J. Tan, H.-Z. Wu, P.-P. Wang, H. Yan, Y .-R. Liang, C.- G. Shao, Influence of eom sideband modulation noise on space-borne gravitational wave detection, Results in Physics 57 (2024) 107366. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107366

    2024

  7. [15]

    Bayle, O

    J.-B. Bayle, O. Hartwig, Unified model for the lisa measurements and instrument simulations, Physical Review D 107 (2023) 083019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083019

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Tinto, O

    M. Tinto, O. Hartwig, Time-delay interferometry and clock- noise calibration, Physical Review D 98 (2018) 042003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.042003

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Tinto, N

    M. Tinto, N. Yu, Time-delay interferometry with optical frequency comb, Physical Review D 92 (2015) 042002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.042002

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Xu, Y .-J

    M.-Y . Xu, Y .-J. Tan, C.-G. Shao, Clock-jitter noise reduction by sideband arm locking for space-borne gravitational wave detectors, Physical Re- view D 110 (2024) 102003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.102003

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Yamamoto, C

    K. Yamamoto, C. V orndamme, O. Hartwig, M. Staab, T. S. Schwarze, G. Heinzel, Experimental verification of intersatellite clock synchroniza- tion at lisa performance levels, Physical Review D 105 (2022) 042009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.042009

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    T. S. Schwarze, G. Fern ´andez Barranco, D. Penkert, M. Kaufer, O. Ger- berding, G. Heinzel, Picometer-stable hexagonal optical bench to verify lisa phase extraction linearity and precision, Physical Review Letters 122 (2019) 081104. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.081104

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    J. N. Reinhardt, M. Staab, K. Yamamoto, J.-B. Bayle, A. Hees, O. Hartwig, K. Wiesner, S. Shah, G. Heinzel, Ranging sensor fusion in lisa data processing: Treatment of ambiguities, noise, and onboard de- lays in lisa ranging observables, Physical Review D 109 (2024) 022004. doi...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Wang, W.-L

    P.-P. Wang, W.-L. Qian, Z.-Q. Wu, H.-K. Chen, W. Huang, H.-Z. Wu, Y .-J. Tan, C.-G. Shao, Sensitivity functions for geometric time-delay interferometry combinations, Physical Review D 108 (2023) 044075. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044075

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Y . Yu, S. Mitryk, G. Mueller, Arm locking for space-based laser inter- ferometry gravitational wave observatories, Physical Review D 90 (2014) 062005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.062005

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Fulda, R

    P. Fulda, R. T. DeRosa, E. DeMarco, M. Aitken, J. Livas, J. I. Thorpe, Multi-axis heterodyne interferometry at mhz frequencies: a short-arm measurement demonstration for lisa with off-the-shelf hardware, Applied Optics 58 (2019) 6346–6356. doi:10.1364/AO.58.006346

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Liang, H.-Z

    Y .-R. Liang, H.-Z. Duan, X.-L. Xiao, B.-B. Wei, H.-C. Yeh, Note: Inter-satellite laser range-rate measurement by using digital phase locked loop, Review of Scientific Instruments 86 (2015) 016106. doi:10.1063/1.4905579

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Xu, Y .-J

    M.-Y . Xu, Y .-J. Tan, Y .-R. Liang, J.-W. Zhi, X.-Y . Guo, D. Luo, P.-P. Wang, H.-Z. Wu, C.-G. Shao, Experimental demonstration of sub-100 picometer level signal extraction with time-delay in- terferometry technique, Results in Physics 56 (2024) 107221. doi:https://doi.org/10...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.