arXiv:1912.12304v2 [physics.atom-ph] 7 Jul 2020 nipoe yai ag of with range [37] dynamic interferometer improved was dual-species an times a interrogation in two demonstrated simulta- using Alternatively, measurements reduced. neous greatly is sequence this 3] oee,tetm-vrgdsniiiyper sensitivity time-averaged the However, [30]. ue inlvre otnosyi ieadsubstantially and time in mea- continuously varies the signal when relevant sured especially 39], [38, larg range with dynamic sensors classical with be hybridization also by may resolved AIs of Ambiguities complexity. experimental ihhg estvt n o yai ag (long range dynamic low and sensitivity high with a ecnrle ycagn h nefrmtrinter- interferometer the time changing values, rogation by absolute in controlled their is be determines may sensitivity which whereas factor, to (SNR), scale ratio range the signal-to-noise dynamic the by of dynamic fixed ratio general ambiguity-free The its and range. sensitivity AI an tween measured the in variations un- signal. temporal large large of conditions and tech- under certainty AI operation advanced robust for of niques development appli- the Such motivate gyroscopes [34–36]. cations navigation and inertial accelerometers for atom developed the are cold in and while [32], [33], sea at air 30], [22, land on surveys for geophysical and demonstrated gravimeters been have atomic [22–31] Mobile gravity-gradiometers de- [21]. being worldwide are veloped field-applications general for physical of AIs of [16–20], tests measurement constants experi- precision as and laboratory-based such [11–15] to physics, relativity fundamental addition inertial in In and ments [2–4] gravitational [5–10]. of forces sensing accurate and inli nucet tnadapoc novsini- dynamic (short high involves and range approach sensitivity low standard with measurements a tial insufficient, is signal ∗ [email protected] work. this to [email protected] equally contributed authors These sapaemauigisrmn,ataeo xssbe- exists trade-off a instrument, phase-measuring a As sensitive highly enables [1] (AI) interferometry Atom 1 opst-rneao nefrmtyfrhg dynamic-ra high for interferometry atom Composite-fringe eateto hsc fCmlxSses ezanInstitu Weizmann Systems, Complex of Physics of Department reso antd agrta h yai ag fatradit a of range dynamic the than larger magnitude composite-fring o of tracking Combining continuous orders e demonstrate parameters. we we of protocol, and estimation range bandwidth, this wide and in a gain range, over performance dynamic this the sensitivity, improves analytically between analyze that We meas scheme of sets times. a from obtained introduce fringes, We moiré-like, composite, range. dynamic ited T T tmitreoeesoe xeln estvt ogravit to sensitivity excellent offer interferometers Atom n rda rgest measurements to progress gradual and ) hnpirkoldeo h measured the of knowledge prior When . .INTRODUCTION I. hnAvinadav, Chen × ,2, 1, 5 ttecs fadded of cost the at ∗ iir Yankelev, Dimitry 2 aalLd af 120,Israel 3102102, Haifa Ltd, Rafael √ zof Hz T e ) ,2, 1, ∗ hl anann ihsensitivity. altogether, high radians maintaining of while hundreds span and measurements aeakt Fg ().Teitreoee hs is phase interferometer atomic The the recombines φ 1(a)]. and pulses [Fig. three redirects, wavepackets of splits, sequence A spatially stimu- which transitions. two-photon beams with late laser interacts counter-propagating ensemble of acceleration cold-atom pulses freely-falling gravitational A measures [40]. which AI Zehnder as hc hneb oethan more sig by particle- rapidly-varying change a which track nals, with successfully together to scheme estimator demon- filter the static a apply to only we addition limited stration, In magnitude, SNR. scale of experimental of the orders span by reach the can with and inversely factors scales range dynamic in iiiy epromasto esrmnswt slightly with measurements sen- of of on values set varying penalty a minor perform with We sitivity. range dynamic its increases pistopoo wavevector, two-photon optics agrta esrmnswt fixed a with range measurements dynamic in- than non-ambiguous measured larger a the providing encodes signal, phase, ertial its as whose well fringe as effect, composite frequency, moiré a a constitute in measurements as these Together, factors. scale terferometer ogdoeaina short pro at necessitating operation [32], of longed func- conditions usefulness harsh the transfer in limit technique sensors, may this misalignment classical and errors the such tion of imperfections However, non-linearity shot. as to shot from changes eeain and celeration, rqec ftecutrpoaaigbasi hre at chirped rate is a beams counter-propagating the of frequency final ocmest h hnigDplrsito h falling the of shift Doppler atoms. changing the compensate to frFirstenberg, Ofer ( = eapytecmoiefig prahi Mach- a in approach fringe composite the apply We nti ok eitouea praht Iwhich AI to approach an introduce we work, this In u paau sdsrbdi eali e.[41]. Ref. in detail in described is apparatus Our rmnswt lgtyvriginterrogation varying slightly with urements π/ k ail ayn inloe pntwo span a over signal varying rapidly a f toa n nrilsgasbthv lim- have but signals inertial and ational α eff 2 φ = g -pulse. prahadtetaeosi entails it trade-offs the and approach esrmnswt particle-filter a with measurements e L oa tminterferometer. atom ional eo cec,Rhvt7101 Israel 7610001, Rehovot Science, of te − prmnal aiaeteanalysis the validate xperimentally k I XEIETLSETUP EXPERIMENTAL II. satnbelsrpaeapiddrn the during applied phase laser tunable a is eff α rd-ffb atro 0using 50 of factor a by trade-off ) g T 0 T where , T 2 stetm ewe uss h relative The pulses. between time the is orsodn osihl ieetin- different slightly to corresponding , + 1 φ n i Davidson Nir and L where , g 0 T sa prxmt au of value approximate an is tteepneo sensitivity. of expense the at g sensing nge g k 2 eff stegaiainlac- gravitational the is π steeetv atom effective the is ewe consecutive between 1 T h increase The . g - - , 2

Œ Œ Œ scaling: φ varies rapidly with g and represents a (a) /2 /2 (b) T comp max high-resolution measurement, similar to standard mea- T T n surements with fixed T , whereas ωcomp varies slowly with

Height g and represents a coarse measurement [Fig. 2(d)]. This T
sç ;g min beat frequency, which is revealed by varying T , provides Time the extended dynamic range and stands in close analogy to moiré interferometry [43, 44], while the phase of the composite fringe is still accessible and provides the high Figure 1. (a) Schematic diagram of an atomic gravimeter, operating in a π/2-π-π/2 Mach-Zehnder geometry. Counter- sensitivity. propagating laser beams interact with the atoms and gen- The composite-fringe frequency can be esti- erate the interferometer sequence. (b) Composite-fringe AI mated unambiguously up to ωcomp = π, result- comprises a set a of measurements with interrogation times ing in the extended dynamic range ∆gcomp = T that vary quadratically within a small range. 2 2 π (N 1) / keff Tmax Tmin . With respect to a fixed-−T measurement,− the dynamic range increases by a 
 factor Briefly, we trap and cool 87Rb atoms and launch them upwards using moving optical molasses. Verti- cal, retroreflected Raman beams, derived from a single ∆gcomp 1 N 1 laser modulated at 6.834 GHz, drive Doppler-sensitive = 2 − 2 . (4) ∆gstandard 2 1 Tmin/Tmax two-photon transitions [42] between F =1,m =0 and − | F i F =2,m =0 for state initialization and interferome- At the same time, the gravity sensitivity per shot of a | F i try sequence. The population fraction in F = 2, deter- composite fringe is approximately (see Appendix A) mined by state-dependent fluorescence, constitutes the interferometer output signal. σφ Tmax σg,comp = σg,standard. (5) ≈ keffTminTmax Tmin ·

III. COMPOSITE FRINGE ANALYSIS AND For Tmin approaching Tmax, the dynamic range enhance- PERFORMANCE ment is significant while the penalty in σg,comp is small. Indeed, Fig. 2(c) presents the gravity residuals δg ob- The standard fringe of an AI is S (φ)= A (C/2)cos φ, tained from fits of the measured composite fringes, ex- where A and C are the fringe offset and− contrast. By hibiting similar sensitivity to measurements at fixed T = measuring this fringe at N points (scanning either α Tmax with no observed systematic bias. 2 or φL) at a fixed T , the gravitational phase keffgT is The potential gain in dynamic range is limited by σφ. determined with uncertainty σφ/√N, with σφ the to- Primarily, when the uncertainty in estimating the com- tal phase uncertainty per shot (see Appendix A). There- posite fringe phase and frequency is comparable to the fore, gravity is determined with uncertainty per shot line separation in Fig. 2(d), a line jump may occur, re- 2 σg,standard = σφ/ keffT , over an ambiguity-free dy- sulting in a large error in estimating g. The criterion for namic range ∆g =2π/ k T 2 . The ratio of dy- avoiding large errors is approximately (see Appendix A) standard
eff namic range to sensitivity-per-shot is (∆g/σg)standard =
√N T 2 T 2 2π/σφ, depending only on the measurement phase uncer- max − min 1. (6) tainty. σφ TminTmax
≫ Here instead, we form a composite fringe from a set of 2 Notably, the potential gain in dynamic range increases if N measurements Sn, varying the scale factor keffT lin- early by choosing variable interrogation times [Fig. 1(b)], σφ decreases, as Tmin can approach Tmax without increas- ing the error probability. Conversely, the error probabil- T 2 T 2 ity may be reduced by increasing N, which also serves T 2 = T 2 + n max − min for n =0,...,N 1, (1) n min N 1 − to increase the dynamic range, at the cost of temporal − bandwidth. We note that in the limit of T = T , with T < T , keeping α and φ fixed. As min max min max L Eq. (6) cannot be satisfied for finite σ , however such Figs. 2(a),(b) show, the series S forms a composite φ { n} measurements can still be analyzed as in traditional AI fringe, Sn = A (C/2)cos(nωcomp + φcomp), with − within the original dynamic range ∆gstandard, recovering 2 the standard measurement scheme at fixed T . φcomp = (keffg α) Tmin + φL, (2) − 2 2 To understand the trade-offs in the composite fringe Tmax Tmin ωcomp = (keffg α) − . (3) approach, we present in Fig. 3(a) the projected dynamic − N 1 − range enhancement compared to fixed-T measurements Unlike standard fringes with fixed T , here both phase and the corresponding error probability. The latter was and frequency depend on g, albeit with very different evaluated for total phase uncertainty σφ = 400mrad, 3

Figure 2. Composite-fringe AI. (a) Experimental data using N = 16 interrogation times between Tmin = 40 ms and Tmax = 55 ms. Different gravity values are simulated by changing the Raman beams chirp rate α = keffg0. The ambiguity-free dynamic range (dashed lines) is extended by the composite-fringe approach to 32π rad at Tmax, representing a 16-fold increase compared to standard measurements. Data is averaged over 5 shots. (b) Composite fringes measured at different gravity values as indicated by colored lines in (a). Proximate gravity values (dark, bright blue) result in fringes with similar frequency but different phase, while a larger difference in gravity (red) renders a substantial change in frequency. Dots are measurements averaged over 5 shots, error bars are ±1σ, solid lines are sinusoidal fits. (c) Residual of the gravity value fitted from each composite fringe, over the span of one extended dynamic range. Resulting sensitivity is 1.7 µm/s2 per fringe, or 6.7 µm/s2 2 per shot, comparable to 7.3 µm/s per shot using standard fringes at fixed T = Tmax in our apparatus. Residuals have mean −0.3 ± 0.4 (2σ) µm/s2, consistent with no added bias. (d) Phase-frequency map of composite fringes: circles represent the phase and frequency extracted from fits to the fringe data in (a), solid lines are the predicted loci of measurements within the extended dynamic range. Gravity increases from bottom left to top right. Ellipses represent the covariance matrix of phase and frequency estimation with the experimentally-characterized σφ = 400 mrad at 95% confidence interval. which was experimentally characterized in our appara- IV. TIME-VARYING SIGNALS tus for T 50ms and is primarily due to vibrations. ∼ Operating at N . 20, corresponding to typical AI tem- The analysis thus far assumes a static or slowly vary- poral bandwidths, and requiring error probabilities be- ing signal with respect to the measurement time of an −2 low 10 , we can operate at Tmin/Tmax 0.85 and gain ≈ N-point composite fringe, as in stationary gravity mea- more than an order of magnitude in dynamic range. For surements. We now turn our focus to dynamic scenarios, larger N, ratios Tmin/Tmax of over 0.9 become possible, such as mobile gravity surveys or inertial measurements enabling gains of over two orders of magnitude. on navigating platforms, where the measured signal may change by more than π from shot to shot and result in phase ambiguities. To± address this challenge and track To verify the model, we measured hundreds of compos- a dynamic signal, we combine the composite-fringe ap- proach with an estimation protocol employing particle- ite fringes between Tmin = 40ms and Tmax = 55ms over N = 49 points at a constant chirp rate, and analyzed the filter methodology. Particle filtering is a Bayesian estimation protocol results in subsets of different N and Tmin values. Mea- surements at fixed T = 55ms were also performed for based on a sequential Monte-Carlo method [45, 46], reference. Figure 3(b) shows that the data are in ex- where a large set of weighted particles is used to estimate cellent agreement with the analytical model with no fit the posterior distribution of unknown state-variables parameters. based on inaccurate observations or measurements. This approach is especially suited for problems with multi- modal likelihood functions, such as ambiguous phase measurements, where the resulting (posterior) state dis- Figure 3(c) summarizes the dynamic range enhance- tribution is very different from Gaussian. Each time ment for different values of phase uncertainty, at a fixed step of the filter consists of two actions: First, parti- error probability threshold of 10−2, a value where large cles propagate in state space according to an underlying errors may be removed with outlier detection with little system model, forming a prediction of the new state. Sec- sacrifice in sensitivity or bandwidth. A large, realistic pa- ond, a new measurement is performed and particles are rameter space exists where the dynamic range increases weighted according to their likelihood given the current by more than 100 at high temporal bandwidth. observed measurement. × 4

particle filter protocol to atom interferometry, both for standard fixed-T measurements and for the composite- fringe approach. By varying the Raman-lasers chirp rate α between subsequent shots, we simulate an arbitrary gravity signal with high frequencies and large ampli- tude, which may arise, for example, in mobile gravimetry. Using the composite-fringe approach, T is varied over N = 12 values between Tmin = 20ms and Tmax = 30ms, for which σφ = 140mrad in our apparatus. To en- hance the information gained at every measurement, T is sampled as T1,TN/2+1,T2,TN/2+2,... rather than se- quentially. As presented in Fig. 4(a), following an ini- tial uncertainty period, the particles quickly converge on the correct solution. New possible solutions occasionally emerge but are quickly dismissed by the filter due to in- compatibility with incoming observations. For comparison, Fig. 4(b) presents the same time- varying signal measured with fixed T . Here, many tra- jectories remain likely as the filter is unable to converge on the correct solution due to phase ambiguity. Finally, Fig. 4(c) shows the filter results with fixed T when the initial conditions of g and g˙ are assumed to be precisely Figure 3. (a) Projected performance of composite fringes known. Even in this ideal and impractical scenario, fixed- compared to standard measurement at fixed T . Top: Dy- T measurements result in ambiguities emerging over time namic range enhancement [Eq. 4]. Bottom: Error probability and the exact solution for g cannot be determined. [Eq. A11 in Appendix A, evaluated with σφ = 400 mrad]. (b) Experimental results: Sensitivity per shot (top) and er- Figure 4(d-f) presents complete analysis of the mea- ror probability (bottom) as a function of Tmin, with Tmax = sured data, using forward- and backward-propagating 55 ms, for different N as indicated in the legend. Measure- particles to avoid edge effects (see Appendix B). The fil- ments (circles) are averaged over 230 composite fringes, error ter tracks with high fidelity and high temporal resolution bars represent 68% confidence interval. The results are in ex- the varying signal, which spans a dynamic range 100- cellent agreement with the analytic predictions (solid lines). times larger than a standard fringe at Tmax and which Dashed line represents a reference measurement with fixed includes changes of more than 3π rad/shot. Additional T = 55 ms. Increase in dynamic range at the measured set- ± tings is indicated by filled circles in (a). (c) Projected gain improvement can be achieved by real-time estimation and −2 in dynamic range as a function of σφ and N, for 10 error prediction of g, which would also allow tuning the inter- probability threshold. ferometer to mid-fringe at every measurement, as well as by incorporating quadrature phase measurement [37, 41].

In our particle filter implementation (see Appendix B), the state variables are chosen as the instantaneous grav- V. CONCLUSION ity value and its time derivative. Each particle m repre- sents an hypothesis for these variables at the i-th time In conclusion, we perform composite-fringe atom in- step, defined as gm,i and g˙m,i. The filter is initialized terferometry, employing measurement sets with variable with equally-weighted, randomly drawn particles charac- interrogation times. This approach provides orders-of- terized by initial uncertainties σg,0 and σg,˙ 0. Prior to magnitude gain in dynamic range by overcoming the each measurement, particles are propagated according to traditional trade-off between phase sensitivity and non- gm,i = gm,i−1 +g ˙m,i−1dt and g˙m,i =g ˙m,i−1 + qm,i, where ambiguity in interferometric sensors. An analytical 2 qm,i 0, σ is a random process noise which allows model for the sensitivity and error probability has been ∼ N g˙ the tracked signal to deviate from purely linear behav- developed and compared to the experimental study with
ior. Following each measurement, we update the weight excellent agreement. of each particle based on the likelihood that the mea- Composite fringes are expected to benefit a range of sured signal, i.e., Si = A (C/2)cos φi, is consistent applications of atom interferometry. When measuring − with the particle’s hypothesized value gm,i, assuming ad- static or slowly varying signals, as in gravity surveys ditive white Gaussian detection noise. An estimate for where each survey point is measured for a short period gi, g˙i is then derived from the weighted distribution of all of time, traditional atom interferometry rely on spend- particles. ing a substantial part of the sampling time measuring at We experimentally demonstrate the application of the low sensitivity due to the large initial uncertainty of the 5

Figure 4. Experimental results of composite fringe and particle filtering with a dynamic signal. (a) Time-dependent, weighted 2 particle distribution for composite-fringe AI (N = 12, Tmin = 20 ms, Tmax = 30 ms, corresponding to ∆gcomp = 4.3mm/s ). Columns represent the weighted histogram of gm,i at each time step. Particles are initialized at gm,0 = g0, g˙m,0 = 0 with 2 2 uncertainties σg,0 = 5mm/s , σg,˙ 0 = 1.5mm/s /shot. (b) Particle filter analysis of standard fixed-T measurements (T = 30 ms), same initial conditions as in (a). (c) Same as (b), with ideal initial conditions and zero initial uncertainty. Insets depict the single solution found by the filter using the composite-fringe approach versus the ambiguity of standard fixed-T measurements. (d) Estimated gravity signal from our offline analysis protocol (blue; see Appendix B) compared to the known input signal (black). Changes in g correspond to ±100π rad at Tmax, a hundred-fold improvement in dynamic range. Dashed lines indicate 2 2 the region shown in (a). (e) Estimated signal residuals, with σg = 17 µm/s per shot, consistent with the expected 15 µm/s per shot at these experimental conditions. (f) g˙ estimated by the filter (blue) compared to the input signal (black). Shot-to-shot changes of up to ±3π rad/shot at Tmax are evident. measured signal. In contrast, composite fringes allow for interferometry-based quantum sensors such as magne- continuous high-sensitivity operation, reducing the time tometers. necessary for reaching the target resolution in each sur- vey sample. For dynamic scenarios, we have demonstrated the in- tegration of a particle-filter estimator for tracking sig- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS nals which are impossible to measure with traditional interferometry schemes without compromising sensitiv- ity. For applications such as gravity surveys on a con- We thank Ran Fischer, Roy Shaham, and Tal David tinuously moving platform, e.g., truck, ship or airplane, for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the as well as for onboard navigation applications, this ap- Pazy Foundation and the Israel Science Foundation. proach will allow tracking signals with larger variation than traditional interferometers, thereby lowering the re- quirements from vibration isolation techniques or from post-processing correlation with auxiliary sensors. APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL MODEL OF In many field applications, the need to measure inertial COMPOSITE FRINGE ATOM signals with large dynamic range may be the limiting fac- INTERFEROMETRY tor as it pushes the atom interferometer to operate with short interrogation times and thus at limited sensitiv- ity. In these cases, the composite-fringe approach signifi- In this Appendix, we derive analytic expressions for the cantly increases the possible sensitivity while maintaining sensitivity and error probability of atomic interferometry the necessary dynamic range. with composite fringes. We begin with a composite fringe Finally, while the discussion and experimental demon- consisting of N variable-T measurements, stration focused on atomic gravimeters, this approach can be applied to other cold atom sensors, including C S = A cos [nω (g)+ φ (g)+ δφ ]+ δS , (A1) gravity gradiometers and gyroscopes, as well as other n − 2 n n 6 with n =0, 1,...N 1. The contrast C and offset A are where we assumed large N and that ω is not near 0 or − assumed to be known, and π (the latter can be relaxed by deliberately varying φL when measuring a composite fringe). For an unbiased 2 φ (g) = (keffg α) Tmin, (A2) estimator of θ, the Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) of − − 2 2 θ θ 1 Tmax Tmin the covariance matrix is given by cov( ) I ( ) , so ω (g) = (keffg α) − , (A3) ≥ − N 1 − σ¯ 2 16 2 (N 1) 3 are the unknown effective phase and frequency, as given cov(θ) − −6 . (A9) in Eqs. (2)-(3) of the main text. The fringe function ex- ≥ C N (N + 1) 3 N−1    −  plicitly includes the random variables δSn and δφn, rep- θ˜ resenting realizations of detection noise and phase noise, Given the best estimated phase and frequency , we 2 2 now search for an estimator g˜ =g ˜(θ˜) for the actual ac- respectively, with variances σdet and σphase. The most dominant contribution is usually phase noise due to me- celeration g. The optimal estimator is the value of g˜ θ θ˜ T θ θ θ˜ chanical vibrations of the mirror retroreflecting the Ra- that minimizes the product [ (˜g) ] I ( )[ (˜g) ], θ T − − man beams, whose position sets the frame of reference in where (˜g) = [φ (˜g) ,ω (˜g)] , with φ (˜g) and ω (˜g) given which the atomic motion is measured. For small phase in Eqs. (A2-A3). Performing the minimization for differ- θ˜ θ˜ noise, it is convenient to approximate the two noise terms ent values of yields the function g˜ =g ˜( ). With this function in hand, the uncertainty in estimating g is found by a single effective detection noise δS¯n, by the transformation

T C θ˜ θ˜ S A cos [nω (g)+ φ (g)] + δS¯ , (A4) 2 ∂g˜( ) θ ∂g˜( ) n ≈ − 2 n σg cov( ) . (A10) ≥ " ∂θ˜ # " ∂θ˜ # whose variance is given by Using Eq. (A9), we find −1 2 1 8 √8¯σ σ¯ = 2 + 2 2 . (A5) σg (A11) σdet C σphase ! ≥ Ckeff TmaxTmin −1/2 2 2 2 The total phase uncertainty per shot, as defined in the 1 2N 1 Tmin Tmax Tmin 1+ − −2 , main text, is given by σ = 2√2¯σ/C. In the limit of · 6 N 1 Tmax Tmin φ " −   # pure phase noise we have, as expected, σφ = σphase. which, to leading order in T 2 T 2 /T 2 and in max − min min terms of the total phase uncertainty σ =2√2¯σ/C, sim- (1) Sensitivity φ
We examine the estimator θ = [φ, ω]T of the unknown plifies to parameters [φ (g) ,ω (g)]T , and we are interested in the uncertainty of θ, as given by its covariance cov(θ). To σφ σg & , (A12) this end, we adopt the framework of maximum likelihood keff TmaxTmin estimation. Given the set of measurements S , the like- n as given in the main text. lihood function of θ is given by (2) Large estimation error θ 1 p (Sn; )= 2 (A6) We now turn to calculate the probability of a large es- (2πσ¯2)N/ timation error, which results from a jump between the N−1 1 2 lines in the phase map [Fig. 2(d)]. First, we derive exp (S S (n, θ)) , −2¯σ2 n − the uncertainty of the estimated phase and frequency " n=0 # X along an axis perpendicular to these lines. The coordi- with S (n, θ) = A (C/2)cos(nω + φ) . The Fisher in- nate along this axis is defined as p = φ sin α + ω cos α, − 2 2 2 − formation matrix is with tan α = Tmax Tmin / Tmin (N 1) . The uncer- tainty in p is then given− by a transformation− similar to 2 θ
  ∂ ln p (Sn; ) that in Eq. (A10) and found to be [I (θ)] = E , (A7) i,j − ∂θ ∂θ  i j  C where E [...] denotes expectation value. Substituting σp =4 (A13) Eq. (A6) into Eq. (A7), we find σ¯ 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 (N 1) TminTmax + (2N 1) (Tmax Tmin) C N (N 1) 3 − 2 − − 2 θ N−1 · v 4 2 2 I ( )= − , (A8) u N (N + 1) [(N 1) Tmin + (Tmax Tmin) ] 2¯σ 12 3 2N 1 u − −    −  t 7

2 2 2 or, to leading order in Tmax Tmin /Tmin, time Ti and fitting their distribution. At each time step − and for each particle, the residual is calculated as

C Tmax 96 Ci 2 rm,i = Si Ai cos keffgm,iTi , (B4) σp 2 . (A14) − − 2 ≈ σ¯ Tmin sN (N 1)   −
from which the likelihood p (x S ) is determined based On the other hand, the distance between the lines is given m,i i on the measurement noise model,| by 2 2 2 1 rm,i 2π Tmax Tmin p (x S )= exp . (B5) ∆p = − . (A15) m,i| i √ 2 − 2¯σ2 2 2 2πσ¯ " # (N 1) T 4 + (T 2
T 2 ) − min max − min q Each particle is weighted according to its likelihood, and From this we find the ratio, again to leading order in all particles are finally resampled at every time step with T 2 T 2 /T 2 and in terms of the total phase un- systematic resampling. Eq. (B5) may be generalized for max − min min certainty σ , non-stationary detection noise, by including time-step φ
dependent σ¯i, as well as for noise with non-Gaussian dis- 2 2 ∆p π 1 Tmax Tmin N +1 tribution by changing the functional form itself. = − N . (A16) We used 5000 particles in the examples presented in the 2σp √12 σφ TminTmax
r N 1 − main text. Traditionally, at the end of each time step, The probability of a large estimation error in g is then the state variables are estimated as a weighted mean of all particles. We achieve more stable results by running ∆p ǫ =2 1 Φ , (A17) the filter both forward and backward in time, calculat- − 2σ   p  ing the time-dependent histogram of particles from both where Φ (x) is the normal cumulative distribution func- directions together, and running a ridge-detection algo- tfridge tion. rithm (MATLAB function) on the combined histogram to find a continuous estimation of g˜i. This analysis is less sensitive to temporary branching of the APPENDIX B: PARTICLE-FILTER particles distribution. IMPLEMENTATION A distribution of residuals of the measurement data can be calculated with respect to the estimated measure- In our implementation of the particle filter, we use the ments, i.e., state variables g and g˙ to describe the dynamic system. Ci 2 The state of the mth particle at the ith time step is thus r˜ = S A cos keffg˜ T . (B6) i i − i − 2 i i defined as  
The parameter σ ˙ is determined by minimizing the vari- g g x = m,i . (B1) ance of the r˜ . m,i g˙ i  m,i  The propagation model is given by x +1 = F x + m,i · m,i wm,i, where the state propagation matrix F is [1] G. M. Tino and M. A. Kasevich, eds., Atom Interferome- 1 dt F = , (B2) try, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics 0 1   "Enrico Fermi," Course CLXXXVIII (Societa Italiana di Fisica and IOS Press, 2014). w and m,i is a random process noise, distributed normally [2] A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, “High- with zero mean and with a covariance given by precision gravity measurements using atom interferom- etry,” Metrologia 38, 25–61 (2001). 2 0 0 [3] M. Snadden, J. McGuirk, P. Bouyer, K. Haritos, and Q = dt 2 , (B3) 0 σg˙ M. Kasevich, “Measurement of the earth’s gravity gradi-   ent with an atom interferometer-based gravity gradiome- where dt is the time increment between two measure- ter,” Physical Review Letters 81, 971–974 (1998). ments. [4] F. Sorrentino, A. Bertoldi, Q. Bodart, L. Cacciapuoti, The input to the filter is the interferometer signal S , M. de Angelis, Y.-H. Lien, M. Prevedelli, G. Rosi, and i G. M. Tino, “Simultaneous measurement of gravity ac- measured at each time step with a different interrogation celeration and gravity gradient with an atom interferom- time Ti. The filter also receives as input the interferome- eter,” Applied Physics Letters 101, 114106 (2012). ter fringe parameters Ai, Ci, which are found separately [5] B. Barrett, R. Geiger, I. Dutta, M. Meunier, B. Canuel, by collecting all measurements of the same interrogation A. Gauguet, P. Bouyer, and A. Landragin, “The sagnac 8

effect: 20 years of development in matter-wave interfer- Kasevich, “Atom interferometer measurement of the new- ometry,” Comptes Rendus Physique 15, 875–883 (2014). tonian constant of gravity,” Science 315, 74–77 (2007). [6] B. Canuel, F. Leduc, D. Holleville, A. Gauguet, J. Fils, [18] R. Bouchendira, P. Cladé, S. Guellati-Khélifa, F. Nez, A. Virdis, A. Clairon, N. Dimarcq, Ch. J. Bordé, A. Lan- and F. Biraben, “New determination of the fine dragin, and P. Bouyer, “Six-axis inertial sensor using structure constant and test of the quantum elec- cold-atom interferometry,” Physical Review Letters 97 trodynamics,” Physical Review Letters 106 (2011), (2006), 10.1103/physrevlett.97.010402. 10.1103/physrevlett.106.080801. [7] J. K. Stockton, K. Takase, and M. A. Kasevich, [19] G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, “Absolute geodetic rotation measurement using atom and G. M. Tino, “Precision measurement of the new- interferometry,” Physical Review Letters 107 (2011), tonian gravitational constant using cold atoms,” Nature 10.1103/physrevlett.107.133001. 510, 518–521 (2014). [8] T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M. A. Kasevich, “Pre- [20] R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. Müller, cision rotation measurements with an atom interferom- “Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of eter gyroscope,” Physical Review Letters 78, 2046–2049 the standard model,” Science 360, 191–195 (2018). (1997). [21] K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. Vovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Con- [9] S. M. Dickerson, J. M. Hogan, A. Sugarbaker, D. M. S. don, E. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich, and Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, “Multiaxis iner- A. Roura, “Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors tial sensing with long-time point source atom in- from the laboratory to real-world applications,” Nature terferometry,” Physical Review Letters 111 (2013), Reviews Physics 1, 731–739 (2019). 10.1103/physrevlett.111.083001. [22] X. Wu, Gravity Gradient Survey with a Mobile Atom In- [10] D. Savoie, M. Altorio, B. Fang, L. A. Sidorenkov, terferometer, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford (2009). R. Geiger, and A. Landragin, “Interleaved atom interfer- [23] Y. Bidel, O. Carraz, R. Charrière, M. Cadoret, N. Za- ometry for high-sensitivity inertial measurements,” Sci- hzam, and A. Bresson, “Compact cold atom gravime- ence Advances 4, eaau7948 (2018). ter for field applications,” Applied Physics Letters 102, [11] S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and 144107 (2013). M. A. Kasevich, “Testing general relativity with atom [24] T. Farah, C. Guerlin, A. Landragin, Ph. Bouyer, interferometry,” Physical Review Letters 98 (2007), S. Gaffet, F. Pereira Dos Santos, and S. Merlet, “Under- 10.1103/physrevlett.98.111102. ground operation at best sensitivity of the mobile LNE- [12] H. Müller, A. Peters, and S. Chu, “A precision measure- SYRTE cold atom gravimeter,” Gyroscopy and Naviga- ment of the gravitational redshift by the interference of tion 5, 266–274 (2014). matter waves,” Nature 463, 926–929 (2010). [25] C. Freier, M. Hauth, V. Schkolnik, B. Leykauf, [13] M. A. Hohensee, S. Chu, A. Peters, and M. Schilling, H. Wziontek, H. G. Scherneck, J. Müller, H. Müller, “Equivalence principle and gravitational and A. Peters, “Mobile quantum gravity sensor with un- redshift,” Physical Review Letters 106 (2011), precedented stability,” Journal of Physics: Conference 10.1103/physrevlett.106.151102. Series 723, 012050 (2016). [14] D. N. Aguilera, H. Ahlers, B. Battelier, A. Bawamia, [26] B. Barrett, L. Antoni-Micollier, L. Chichet, B. Batte- A. Bertoldi, R. Bondarescu, K. Bongs, P. Bouyer, lier, T. Lévèque, A. Landragin, and P. Bouyer, “Dual C. Braxmaier, L. Cacciapuoti, C. Chaloner, M. Chwalla, matter-wave inertial sensors in weightlessness,” Nature W. Ertmer, M. Franz, N. Gaaloul, M. Gehler, D. Ger- Communications 7 (2016), 10.1038/ncomms13786. ardi, L. Gesa, N. Gürlebeck, J. Hartwig, M. Hauth, [27] V. Ménoret, P. Vermeulen, N. Le Moigne, S. Bonvalot, O. Hellmig, W. Herr, S. Herrmann, A. Heske, A. Hinton, P. Bouyer, A. Landragin, and B. Desruelle, “Gravity P. Ireland, P. Jetzer, U. Johann, M. Krutzik, A. Kubelka, measurements below 10-9 g with a transportable absolute C. Lammerzahl, A. Landragin, I. Lloro, D. Massonnet, quantum gravimeter,” Scientific Reports 8, 12300 (2018). I. Mateos, A. Milke, M. Nofrarias, M. Oswald, A. Pe- [28] L. Zhu, A cold atoms gravimeter for use in absolute grav- ters, K. Posso-Trujillo, E. Rasel, E. Rocco, A. Roura, ity comparisons, Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham J. Rudolph, W. Schleich, C. Schubert, T. Schuldt, S. Sei- (2018). del, K. Sengstock, C. F. Sopuerta, F. Sorrentino, D. Sum- [29] D. Becker, M. D. Lachmann, S. T. Seidel, H. Ahlers, mers, G. M. Tino, C. Trenkel, N. Uzunoglu, W. von Klitz- A. N. Dinkelaker, J. Grosse, O. Hellmig, H. Müntinga, ing, R. Walser, T. Wendrich, A. Wenzlawski, P. Wessels, V. Schkolnik, T. Wendrich, A. Wenzlawski, B. Weps, A. Wicht, E. Wille, M. Williams, P. Windpassinger, and R. Corgier, T. Franz, N. Gaaloul, W. Herr, D. Lüdtke, N. Zahzam, “Ste-quest: test of the universality of free fall M. Popp, S. Amri, H. Duncker, M. Erbe, A. Kohfeldt, using cold atom interferometry,” Classical and Quantum A. Kubelka-Lange, C. Braxmaier, E. Charron, W. Ert- Gravity 31, 115010 (2014). mer, M. Krutzik, C. Lämmerzahl, A. Peters, W. P. [15] L. Zhou, S. Long, B. Tang, X. Chen, F. Gao, W. Peng, Schleich, K. Sengstock, R. Walser, A. Wicht, P. Wind- W. Duan, J. Zhong, Z. Xiong, J. Wang, Y. Zhang, passinger, and E. M. Rasel, “Space-borne bose-einstein and M. Zhan, “Test of equivalence principle at10- condensation for precision interferometry,” Nature 562, 8level by a dual-species double-diffraction raman atom 391–395 (2018). interferometer,” Physical Review Letters 115 (2015), [30] X. Wu, Z. Pagel, B. S. Malek, T. H. Nguyen, F. Zi, D. S. 10.1103/physrevlett.115.013004. Scheirer, and H. Müller, “Gravity surveys using a mo- [16] D. S. Weiss, B. C. Young, and S. Chu, “Precision mea- bile atom interferometer,” Science Advances 5, eaax0800 surement of the photon recoil of an atom using atomic (2019). interferometry,” Physical Review Letters 70, 2706–2709 [31] A. Lamb, A. Cold Atom Gravity Gradiometer for Field (1993). Applications, Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham [17] J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. (2019). 9

[32] Y. Bidel, N. Zahzam, C. Blanchard, A. Bonnin, erating an atom interferometer beyond its linear range,” M. Cadoret, A. Bresson, D. Rouxel, and M. F. Metrologia 46, 87–94 (2009). Lequentrec-Lalancette, “Absolute marine gravimetry [39] J. Lautier, L. Volodimer, T. Hardin, S. Merlet, M. Lours, with matter-wave interferometry,” Nature Communica- F. Pereira Dos Santos, and A. Landragin, “Hybridiz- tions 9 (2018), 10.1038/s41467-018-03040-2. ing matter-wave and classical accelerometers,” Applied [33] Y. Bidel, N. Zahzam, A. Bresson, C. Blanchard, Physics Letters 105, 144102 (2014). M. Cadoret, A. V. Olesen, and R. Forsberg, “Ab- [40] M. Kasevich and S. Chu, “Atomic interferometry using solute airborne gravimetry with a cold atom sensor,” stimulated raman transitions,” Physical Review Letters http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.06666v1. 67, 181–184 (1991). [34] A. V. Rakholia, H. J. McGuinness, and G. W. Bie- [41] D. Yankelev, C. Avinadav, N. Davidson, and dermann, “Dual-axis high-data-rate atom interferometer O. Firstenberg, “Multiport atom interferometry for via cold ensemble exchange,” Physical Review Applied 2 inertial sensing,” Physical Review A 100 (2019), (2014), 10.1103/physrevapplied.2.054012. 10.1103/physreva.100.023617. [35] P. Cheiney, L. Fouché, S. Templier, F. Napolitano, [42] M. Kasevich, D. S. Weiss, E. Riis, K. Moler, S. Kas- B. Battelier, P. Bouyer, and B. Barrett, “Navigation- api, and S. Chu, “Atomic velocity selection using stim- compatible hybrid quantum accelerometer using a ulated raman transitions,” Physical Review Letters 66, kalman filter,” Physical Review Applied 10 (2018), 2297–2300 (1991). 10.1103/physrevapplied.10.034030. [43] M. K. Oberthaler, S. Bernet, E. M. Rasel, J. Schmied- [36] Y. Chen, A. Hansen, G. W. Hoth, E. Ivanov, mayer, and A. Zeilinger, “Inertial sensing with classical B. Pelle, J. Kitching, and E. A. Donley, “Single-source atomic beams,” Physical Review A 54, 3165–3176 (1996). multiaxis cold-atom interferometer in a centimeter- [44] A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, scale cell,” Physical Review Applied 12 (2019), “Optics and interferometry with atoms and molecules,” 10.1103/physrevapplied.12.014019. Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1051–1129 (2009). [37] A. Bonnin, C. Diboune, N. Zahzam, Y. Bidel, [45] P. Del Moral, “Non linear filtering: Interacting particle M. Cadoret, and A. Bresson, “New concepts of solution,” Markov Processes and Related Fields 2, 555– inertial measurements with multi-species atom 580 (1996). interferometry,” Applied Physics B 124 (2018), [46] R. Van Der Merwe, A. Doucet, N. De Freitas, and E. A. 10.1007/s00340-018-7051-5. Wan, “The unscented particle filter,” in Advances in neu- [38] S. Merlet, J. Le Gouët, Q. Bodart, A. Clairon, A. Lan- ral information processing systems (2001) pp. 584–590. dragin, F. Pereira Dos Santos, and P. Rouchon, “Op-