Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Symbol-Oriented Quantum Communication via Temporal-Mode Multiplexing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tensor product of LM05 gates encodes symbols into temporal slots, and the entropic uncertainty relation on the whole block bounds Eve's information about the symbol set.

desk verdict An honest, clearly scoped LM05 extension whose headline security bound has an undisclosed gap in the data-processing step, while the loss-side observation is correct. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05038 v1 pith:T2KZPZXK submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Ali Vahedi , Parsa Mahdavifar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P9481P45 PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Dd
keywords temporal-modemultiplexingLM05protocolquantumsecuredirectcommunicationentropicuncertaintyrelationcollectiveattacksphotonlosssymbol-orientedQKD-hybrid
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 introduces a quantum-assisted classical communication protocol that encodes each symbol of a finite alphabet into one of $N$ temporal slots: Bob applies the LM05 gate $iY$ to the slots belonging to his message and identity to the rest, so the total operation is a tensor product of $N$ independent two-way operations. Because of that tensor-product structure, an eavesdropper can mount collective attacks across all $N$ slots, which the original LM05 security proof does not cover; the authors therefore analyze the security of the full $N$-photon block. Their main result is an asymptotic bound on Eve's information about the unordered symbol set, $I(P_M;E) \leq \min\{H(P_M), N h(q)\}$, obtained from the entropic uncertainty relation with quantum memory plus the data-processing inequality. The paper also derives a complete-recovery success probability under loss, $P_{\mathrm{success}} = (1/2 + \eta T^2/2)^N$, that credits the receiver with a 50% guessing chance on lost slots, and it stresses repeatedly that this is an upper bound requiring perfect loss identification. The value of the paper is in mapping the tensor-product threat model, the guessing correction, and the explicit statement that the protocol is a QKD-hybrid rather than a standalone QSDC scheme.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tensor product of LM05 operations, $U_{\mathrm{total}} = \bigotimes_{i=1}^N U_i$ with $U_i \in \{I, iY\}$, applied slot-by-slot to $N$ temporal qubits; LM05 is the two-way quantum protocol in which Bob encodes a bit by applying either identity or the $iY$ gate to a returned qubit. The argument that carries the security bound is the entropic uncertainty relation with quantum memory applied to the full $N$-photon block, together with the data-processing inequality applied to the map from measurement outcomes $X^N$ to the symbol set $P_M$. The loss analysis is carried by the per-slot survival probability $p = (1/2 + \eta T^2/2)$, with the factor one-half representing Alice's optimal guess on a lost slot under uniformly random messages.

What would settle it

Run a calibrated loss experiment with $N=53$ temporal slots and threshold detectors: attenuate the return signal to a known transmittance $T$, give Alice a known symbol set to recover, and measure her per-slot success on events where no click occurred. If per-slot success on no-click events is statistically indistinguishable from 50%, the $(1/2 + \eta T^2/2)^N$ bound is not an achievable rate; if it is below 50%, the perfect-loss-identification premise itself fails. The equivalent test for the security bound is to compare the measured mutual information between Eve's joint measurement and $P_M$ against $\min\{H(P_M), N h(q)\}$ in an entanglement-based implementation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the symbol-set transmission mode of a tensor-product LM05 protocol has a computable asymptotic security bound: applying the entropic uncertainty relation to the entire $N$-photon block gives $H(X^N|E)+H(Z^N|B) \geq N$, and since the symbol set $P_M$ is a function of $X^N$, the data-processing inequality converts this into $I(P_M;E) \leq \min\{H(P_M), N h(q)\}$. For collective attacks, Eve's information about the unordered set of symbols is therefore bounded by the block QBER entropy; with $q \approx 0.01$ and $N=53$ that is roughly four bits. The authors also claim that under loss, complete recovery cannot exceed $(1/2 + \eta T^2/2)^N$, because a uniformly random encoding makes each lost slot guessable with probability one-half, and they compute the resulting 1% success distances as about 0.83 km at zero QBER and about 0.6 km at QBER 0.01 for $\alpha=0.2$ dB/km and $\eta=0.9$. The paper is explicit that these are theoretical bounds, not achievable rates, and that the protocol is not a standalone quantum secure direct communication scheme because the classical ordering must be encrypted.

Load-bearing premise

The whole loss and range analysis depends on Alice being able to tell perfectly whether a missing click was a lost photon, a dead detector, or Bob's identity gate; with ordinary threshold detectors this distinction is impossible, and without it the 50% guessing correction and the reported sub-kilometer distances are not valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under collective attacks, Eve's leakage about the unordered symbol set scales as $N h(q)$, independent of the message length $L$ and of the classical ordering information.
  • If the classical ordering is encrypted, compromising only the quantum channel or only the classical channel reveals either the symbol set or the ordering but not the full message.
  • Complete recovery of all $N$ symbols decays exponentially with block size, so for $N=53$ the 1% success distance is below one kilometer under optimistic assumptions.
  • The protocol's QKD mode inherits the LM05 key rate, while the symbol-set mode does not yet have a composable security proof; the reduction from coherent to collective attacks and the finite-key analysis remain open.
  • Adding redundancy improves recovery but enables state-tomography or unambiguous-state-discrimination attacks, so it cannot be used naively in symbol-set mode.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader could extend the analysis by checking whether photon-number-resolving detectors plus time-of-arrival information recover part of the 50% guessing advantage; the paper lists these as mitigations but does not quantify their security.
  • The same full-block entropic-uncertainty argument would carry over to any two-way encoding whose total operation factorizes as a tensor product, making the collective-attack bound a general tool for multi-mode two-way communication.
  • Because the derived bound uses only the data-processing inequality, it is likely loose for the specific set-identification function; a direct analysis of the symbol-set map could give a tighter leakage expression and change the practical parameter range.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum-assisted classical communication protocol that encodes the symbols of a message onto distinct temporal modes by applying either the identity or the iY gate in each time slot, following the LM05 two-way scheme. Alice sends N photons, Bob applies iY in the slots corresponding to his message symbols, Alice measures in her preparation bases, and a classical permutation supplies the ordering information. The paper derives two main results: an asymptotic collective-attack bound on Eve's information about the unordered symbol set, I(P_M;E) ≤ min{H(P_M), N h(q)}, and a success-probability bound for complete symbol recovery under photon loss, P_success = (1/2 + ηT^2/2)^N, with a QBER extension. It also performs resource comparisons, analyzes practical limitations such as timing jitter, dead time, and synchronization, and repeatedly stresses that the protocol is not a standalone QSDC scheme and that the loss bound assumes perfect loss identification. The authors frame their security result as asymptotic and collective-attack only, with finite-key, coherent-attack, and practical loss-identification issues explicitly left open.

Significance. If the central security bound were established, the paper would contribute a useful analysis of a tensor-product extension of LM05, showing that collective attacks on the full N-photon block can be bounded via the block-wise entropic uncertainty relation, and that the achievable recovery distance is severely limited. The paper is commendably candid about its assumptions: it explicitly warns that the loss-analysis upper bound requires perfect loss identification, that the symbol-set mode is not standalone QSDC, and that composable security is not claimed. The numerical verification tables and the repeated acknowledgment of open problems are strengths. However, the main new security claim is not currently derived for the only nontrivial regime (nonzero QBER), and the operational meaning of the parameter q in the bound is not specified. The quantitative loss result, while clearly caveated, contains an algebraic inconsistency that affects the reported ranges. These issues place the central contributions in need of substantial repair before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (14)-(18) and 'Security Proof Details'] The derivation of the central bound I(P_M;E) ≤ N h(q) applies the data processing inequality as I(P_M;E) ≤ I(X^N;E), justified by the statement that 'the symbol set P_M is a function of X^N'. This is only true when Alice's raw outcomes X^N coincide with Bob's encoding string b^N. At nonzero QBER, X^N is a noisy observation of b^N, and P_M = support(b^N) is not a deterministic function of X^N. The Markov chain P_M → X^N → E therefore need not hold, and the inequality I(P_M;E) ≤ I(X^N;E) is unjustified; for example, with b uniform, X = b ⊕ noise, and E = b, one has I(b;E) = 1 > I(X;E) = 1 - h(noise). Since at q=0 the bound reduces to the trivial statement that Eve learns nothing, the claimed security result is not established in precisely the regime where it is non-vacuous. A valid proof would need to run the collective-attack argument on the encoding string b^N of the N-slot tensor product and then data-process P_M = φ(b^N), or otherwise prove that the noisy outcomes still permit the desired inequality.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (17) and 'Parameter Estimation for LM05'] The parameter q entering H(Z^N|B) ≤ N h(q) is not operationally defined for the symbol-set mode. In the symbol-set protocol, Bob does not randomize between bases; he applies I or iY deterministically, and Alice measures in her preparation basis. The complementary-basis error rates q_{G_0} and q_{G_1} that appear in the LM05 key-rate formula (Eq. (11)) are never measured in this mode. The text says that 'Bob's basis information B allows Alice to estimate the error rate q in the complementary basis', but no such basis information exists in the symbol-set protocol. The paper needs to specify which empirical quantity is identified with q, how it is estimated from the actual protocol, and why the EUR bound can be evaluated with that quantity. Without this, Eq. (17) cannot be applied and the numerical statement that 'Eve learns at most about 4 bits' for N=53, q=0.01 is not supported.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (27) and Range Calculation] The algebra in Eq. (27) is inconsistent with Eq. (26). Eq. (26) gives p = ηT^2(1-q) + (1-ηT^2)/2 = 1/2 + ηT^2(1/2 - q). With η=0.9 and q=0.01, this is p = 0.5 + 0.441 T^2. Eq. (27), however, computes p = 1/2 + (1/2)ηT^2(1-q) - (1/2)ηT^2 = 1/2 - (η q /2) T^2, and then states p = 0.5 + 0.4455 T^2, which corresponds to neither expression. The reported 0.6 km distance for the q=0.01 case should be recalculated from a correct expression; the discrepancy may be numerically small, but the current presentation contains a genuine algebraic error in a central quantitative claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Protocol Description, Step 6 and Key Consumption] There are two empty cross-references reading 'see Sec. ' in the protocol step list and in the key-consumption discussion; these need to point to the intended section.
  2. [Throughout] There are frequent typographical artifacts such as 'F or', 'V ulnerabilities', 'P M ', and inconsistent italicization; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Eq. (11)] The symbol q is used both as the protocol efficiency factor (q=1/2) and, elsewhere, as the QBER. This dual use is confusing and should be resolved, for instance by denoting the efficiency factor as q_eff or μ.
  4. [Table IX] The 'Maximum alphabet size' entries such as 6.7×10^20 for τ_s=500 ps are mathematical upper bounds that are not physically meaningful; the text notes this, but the table would be clearer if the practical limits from dead time and synchronization were quoted alongside.
  5. [Section IV, 'What This Bound Establishes'] The statement 'Eve learns at most about 4 bits' should be prefaced by 'under the assumptions that the bound is valid', given that the bound itself is the subject of the major comments above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivations are applications of external results and explicit loss-model calculations.

full rationale

The paper's security bound for the symbol-set mode is derived by applying the entropic uncertainty relation with quantum memory (Berta et al.) and the data processing inequality to the full N-photon block; these are external, established results, not inputs defined in terms of the claimed output. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction: the loss analysis is an explicit formula built from the stated per-slot survival probability p = ηT^2 and the 50% guessing probability for lost slots, and the reported distances are numerical evaluations of that formula under illustrative channel parameters, not fitted outputs. The paper is also candid about what the bound does not establish (coherent attacks, finite-key security, tightness), which further separates the derived claim from its assumptions. A possible concern is the step 'the symbol set P_M is a function of X^N' in the data-processing argument: at nonzero QBER Alice's outcomes are noisy observations of Bob's encoding, so the Markov-chain justification is not automatic. That is a validity or correctness gap in the derivation, not a circularity: the bound is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and it does not reduce to a self-citation or to a fitted parameter. There are no load-bearing author self-citations; references to LM05 and related external works provide independent support. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivations rest on standard external results (EUR, DPI, LM05) and on ideal detector assumptions that the authors acknowledge are not achievable. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Detector efficiency eta = 0.9
    Chosen as a typical SNSPD efficiency for numerical illustrations; the reported distances depend on it but it is not fitted to data.
  • Fiber attenuation alpha = 0.2 dB/km
    Standard single-mode fiber attenuation used for range calculations; not fitted.
  • QBER q = 0.01
    Assumed error rate for the QBER-adjusted bound; not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Entropic uncertainty relation with quantum memory (Berta et al.)
    Used in Section IV to bound H(X^N|E)+H(Z^N|B) >= N.
  • standard math Data processing inequality
    Used to pass from Eve's information about X^N to information about the function P_M.
  • domain assumption LM05 parameter estimation bounds H(Z^N|B) <= N h(q)
    Assumed to carry over to the symbol-set mode; the paper notes this is an asymptotic statement and not a full protocol-specific proof.
  • domain assumption Perfect loss identification
    Assumed in the loss analysis; the authors explicitly flag this as unrealistic with threshold detectors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symbol-Oriented Quantum Communication via Temporal-Mode Multiplexing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2KZPZXK

@misc{pith2026260805038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symbol-Oriented Quantum Communication via Temporal-Mode Multiplexing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2KZPZXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05038}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce and analyze a quantum-assisted classical communication protocol that encodes symbols from a finite alphabet onto temporal modes using the LM05 operation as a building block. The protocol applies a bit-flip gate independently to temporal slots corresponding to message symbols, yielding a tensor product of LM05 operations on parallel channels. This tensor product structure enables collective attacks not covered by standard LM05 security proofs. We derive a theoretical upper bound on the success probability for complete recovery under random guessing, accounting for the receiver's 50\% guessing ability on lost photons, and emphasize that this bound assumes perfect loss identification. We characterize the intended transmission, derive an asymptotic collective-attack bound for the symbol-set mode, and identify open challenges for composable security. The protocol is not a standalone Quantum Secure Direct Communication scheme, as the classical ordering information requires encryption. For a 53-symbol alphabet, the optimistic 1\% success bound occurs at about 0.8 kilometers under zero QBER and reduces to about 0.6 kilometers for QBER equals 0.01; practical constraints severely limit performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Theoretical upper bound on full photon recovery probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comparison of theoretical upper bound, naive model, HD-QKD, and Deng-Long-Liu QSDC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Effective raw slot rate vs. alphabet size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , N, each in a random state from{|0⟩,|1⟩,|+⟩,|−⟩}, recording bases

    Alice preparesNphotons in temporal slots 1, . . . , N, each in a random state from{|0⟩,|1⟩,|+⟩,|−⟩}, recording bases

    work page

  2. [2]

    Alice→Bob: Send sequence with temporal slots of durationτ s separated by guard timeτ g

    work page

  3. [3]

    The total quantum operation is: Utotal = NO i=1 Ui = O i∈PM (iY)⊗ O i /∈PM I(4) This is atensor product of LM05 operations onNparallel channels, not a single LM05 operation

    Bob encodes: For each sloti, apply: Ui = ( iYifi∈ P M Iotherwise (3) whereiY= 0 1 −1 0 satisfiesiY|ψ⟩ ⊥ |ψ⟩for all basis states. The total quantum operation is: Utotal = NO i=1 Ui = O i∈PM (iY)⊗ O i /∈PM I(4) This is atensor product of LM05 operations onNparallel channels, not a single LM05 operation. The tensor product structure enables Eve to perform co...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Bob→Alice: Return sequence. 3

    work page

  5. [5]

    Alice measures in preparation bases, identifies modified slotsP M (subject to errors from QBER, dark counts, and loss)

    work page

  6. [6]

    The classical cost depends on what information Alice already knows about the multiplicities (see Sec

    Bob→Alice (classical): Send mappingπfor ordering. The classical cost depends on what information Alice already knows about the multiplicities (see Sec. ). Classical Ordering Cost The number of classical bits required to transmit the orderingπdepends on what Alice knows about the multiplicities of the distinct symbols. There are three cases: 1.Case 1: Alic...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Photon lost in the channel

    work page

  8. [8]

    Photon arrived but detector failed to click (efficiencyη <1)

    work page

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    The dramatic numerical ratios versus the naive model are therefore of limited practical interest

    Bob applied the identity gate and the detector failed to click With threshold detectors (standard SNSPDs or APDs), Alice cannot reliably apply the 50% guessing strategy without introducing massive errors. The dramatic numerical ratios versus the naive model are therefore of li...

  2. [10]

    Forσ t = 30 ps: Timing jitter is not the primary limitation forN≲100

  3. [11]

    For high data rates: Use largerNto overcome dead time limitations

  4. [12]

    For long-distance communication: Use largerNwith largerτ s at the cost of data rate

  5. [13]

    For research demonstrations: Use free-space links with better timing control

  6. [14]

    For commercial applications: Consider alternative encoding schemes. DISCUSSION Design Principles for Quantum Communication Protocols From this analysis, we distill the following general design principles: Theoretical F oundations: 1.Correct loss modeling:In protocols where Bob...

    2025

  7. [15]

    Lucamarini and S

    M. Lucamarini and S. Mancini, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 140501 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Bostrom and T

    K. Bostrom and T. Felbinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 187902 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Computers, Systems & Signal Processing, Bangalore, pp. 175-179 (1984)

    1984

  10. [18]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  11. [19]

    Brecht, D

    B. Brecht, D. V. Reddy, C. Silberhorn, and M. G. Raymer, Phys. Rev. X5, 041017 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, Nat. Phys.6, 659 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proc. R. Soc. A461, 207 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Tomamichel and R

    M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 110506 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Renner, Int

    R. Renner, Int. J. Quantum Inf.5, 699 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dusek, N. Lutkenhaus, and M. Peev, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301 (2009). 21 TABLE XII: Summary of key symbols used throughout this work. Symbol Description N Alphabet size / number of temporal slots L Message length K Number of dis...

    2009

  17. [25]

    H. K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    W. Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 057901 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    F. G. Deng, G. L. Long, and X. S. Liu, Phys. Rev. A68, 042317 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    G. L. Long, F. G. Deng, C. Wang, X. H. Li, K. Wen, and W. Y. Wang, Front. Phys. China2, 251 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    F. G. Deng and G. L. Long, Phys. Rev. A69, 052319 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    C. Wang, F. G. Deng, Y. S. Li, X. S. Liu, and G. L. Long, Phys. Rev. A71, 034305 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    J.-Y. Hu, B. Yu, M.-Y. Jing, L.-T. Xiao, S.-T. Jia, G.-Q. Qin, and G.-L. Long, Light Sci. Appl.5, e16144 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Zhou, Y.-B

    Z.-R. Zhou, Y.-B. Sheng, P.-H. Niu, L.-G. Yin, G.-L. Long, and L. Hanzo, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.63, 230362 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    C. Liu, C. Zhang, S.-P. Gu, X.-F. Wang, L. Zhou, and Y.-B. Sheng, arXiv:2411.11299 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Adv. Opt. Photon.12, 1012 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Horodecki, M

    K. Horodecki, M. Plesch, and M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. A104, 022601 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    N. J. Beaudry, M. Lucamarini, S. Mancini, and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. A88, 062302 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Gisin, S

    N. Gisin, S. Fasel, B. Kraus, H. Zbinden, and G. Ribordy, Phys. Rev. A73, 022320 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Cozzolino, B

    D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxenlowe, Adv. Quantum Technol.2, 1900038 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Erhard, R

    M. Erhard, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, and A. Zeilinger, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 365 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015002 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    G. P. Agrawal,Fiber-Optic Communication Systems, 4th ed. (Wiley, 2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    R. H. Hadfield, Nat. Photon.3, 696 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Akatsuka, H

    T. Akatsuka, H. Ono, K. Hayashida, K. Arai, and H. Katori, Nat. Phys.15, 652 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    T. Udem, R. Holzwarth, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Nature416, 233 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Song et al., IEEE Internet of Things J.12, 17244 (2025)

    W. Song et al., IEEE Internet of Things J.12, 17244 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Menlo Systems, ”Optical frequency comb systems,” Product datasheet (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Spectratime, ”High-performance GPS-disciplined clocks,” Product datasheet (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Fang, Y.-H

    W.-T. Fang, Y.-H. Li, Z.-Y. Zhou, L.-X. Xu, G.-C. Guo, and B.-S. Shi, arXiv:1803.02003 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Xing, A. Feizpour, A. Hayat, and A. M. Steinberg, arXiv:1308.5452 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

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