pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03461 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Analytical two-pulse control of universal single-qubit gates in rotational ultracold NaCs molecules

Qi Chen , Hao-Xuan Luo , Jin-Kang Guo , Qian-Qian Hong , Li-Bao Fan , Chuan-Cun Shu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 17:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords single-qubit gatesrotational statesultracold moleculesNaCsMagnus expansiontwo-pulse controlquantum controlmolecular qubits
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-pulse laser sequence with derived amplitude and phase conditions performs arbitrary single-qubit rotations on the rotational states of NaCs molecules.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives closed-form conditions for universal single-qubit gates by encoding the qubit in the lowest two rotational levels of an ultracold NaCs molecule and applying a first-order Magnus expansion to a two-pulse control sequence. This yields exact relations between pulse amplitudes, phases, and the target rotation angle or axis. A sympathetic reader would care because the method replaces numerical search or longer pulse trains with analytical expressions that simulations show reach fidelities above 0.9999 while keeping leakage to other rotational states small. The same orientation dynamics that produce the gate also allow the gate truth table to be read out through time-resolved polarization measurements.

Core claim

Encoding a qubit in the J=0 and J=1 rotational states of NaCs, the authors optimize a two-pulse sequence so that the first-order Magnus expansion of the time-evolution operator directly supplies the precise pulse amplitudes and relative phases required for any desired single-qubit unitary; numerical integration of the full Schrödinger equation under these parameters confirms gate fidelities above 0.9999 with negligible population transfer to auxiliary levels.

What carries the argument

The first-order Magnus expansion applied to the integrated Hamiltonian of an optimized two-pulse laser sequence, which directly produces the amplitude and phase conditions for arbitrary rotations.

If this is right

  • Any single-qubit gate is realized with only two pulses once the amplitude and phase relations are set.
  • Sequences of multiple gates can be concatenated while keeping total leakage low.
  • Time-dependent molecular orientation directly encodes both the gate operation and coherence decay.
  • The same analytical procedure applies to other polar molecules with similar rotational structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Fewer pulses per gate could lower the total control overhead in larger molecular quantum circuits.
  • Polarization detection of orientation might serve as a non-destructive readout method for gate verification.
  • The two-pulse analytical form may simplify control design when extending the approach to multi-qubit entangling operations.

Load-bearing premise

Higher-order terms in the Magnus expansion and leakage into higher rotational states remain negligible throughout the pulse duration.

What would settle it

Numerical propagation or laboratory measurement of the actual unitary produced by the analytically predicted pulse parameters that yields fidelity below 0.999 or observable population in states outside the computational subspace.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03461 by Chuan-Cun Shu, Hao-Xuan Luo, Jin-Kang Guo, Li-Bao Fan, Qian-Qian Hong, Qi Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) The schematic describing an ultracold linear pol view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Average gate fidelity view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Average gate fidelity view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Demonstration of a sequential quantum circuit and st view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Rotational dynamics and wave packet evolution under view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Complex control protocols and sensitivity to experimental imperfections have limited the practical implementation of quantum gate operations. Here, we present an analytical framework for universal single-qubit gates using rotational states of ultracold NaCs molecules. By encoding qubits in the lowest rotational energy levels, we employ a first-order Magnus expansion to derive closed-form unitary evolution from an optimized two-pulse sequence. This approach establishes precise amplitude and phase conditions for arbitrary single-qubit rotations, achieving gate fidelities above 0.9999 in numerical simulations. We further demonstrate that complex multi-gate sequences, including phase-locked operations, can be executed with minimal population leakage into auxiliary states. The time-dependent molecular orientation is shown to faithfully encode both the gate truth table and coherence dynamics, enabling practical gate tomography via weak-field polarization detection. Our analytical method is also applicable to other molecules and physical platforms, offering a potential path to high-fidelity, scalable molecular quantum processors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an analytical framework for universal single-qubit gates on the rotational states of ultracold NaCs molecules. It encodes the qubit in the lowest rotational levels and uses a first-order Magnus expansion on an optimized two-pulse microwave sequence to derive closed-form amplitude and phase conditions for arbitrary rotations. Numerical simulations of the resulting unitaries report gate fidelities above 0.9999, with extensions to phase-locked multi-gate sequences, minimal leakage to auxiliary states, and a proposal for tomography via time-dependent molecular orientation. The method is stated to be applicable to other molecules.

Significance. If the first-order truncation is accurate to the reported precision, the work supplies an analytical, potentially parameter-free route to high-fidelity single-qubit control in molecular rotational qubits. This is a useful addition to the quantum-control literature because it replaces numerical optimization with explicit pulse conditions while retaining numerical fidelity checks. The orientation-based tomography idea and the claim of extensibility to other platforms are additional strengths that could aid experimental implementation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Magnus-expansion derivation] The derivation of the closed-form pulse conditions (main text, first-order Magnus section) truncates the expansion at first order, yielding U ≈ exp(−i ∫ H(t) dt). The second-order term ½ ∫∫ [H(t), H(s)] ds dt is nonzero for non-commuting microwave pulses, yet no operator-norm bound is supplied for the reported Rabi frequencies, pulse durations, and NaCs rotational constants. Without such a bound demonstrating that the truncation error lies below ∼10^{-4}, the analytical conditions cannot be guaranteed to produce the claimed >0.9999 fidelity; the post-hoc numerical simulations do not retroactively validate the truncation itself.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that the method is 'parameter-free,' but the main text should explicitly list which molecular constants (e.g., permanent dipole, rotational constant) enter the final amplitude/phase expressions and which are treated as fixed inputs.
  2. Figure captions for the fidelity and orientation plots should state the exact pulse durations, Rabi frequencies, and detunings used, together with the Hilbert-space truncation (number of rotational states retained).
  3. A short paragraph comparing the two-pulse Magnus approach with existing numerical optimal-control or composite-pulse methods for molecular qubits would help readers assess novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive feedback on the Magnus expansion. We address the major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The derivation of the closed-form pulse conditions (main text, first-order Magnus section) truncates the expansion at first order, yielding U ≈ exp(−i ∫ H(t) dt). The second-order term ½ ∫∫ [H(t), H(s)] ds dt is nonzero for non-commuting microwave pulses, yet no operator-norm bound is supplied for the reported Rabi frequencies, pulse durations, and NaCs rotational constants. Without such a bound demonstrating that the truncation error lies below ∼10^{-4}, the analytical conditions cannot be guaranteed to produce the claimed >0.9999 fidelity; the post-hoc numerical simulations do not retroactively validate the truncation itself.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit operator-norm bound on the second-order term would provide stronger a priori justification for the first-order truncation and would complement the existing numerical validation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (or appendix) that evaluates the norm of the double-commutator integral for the specific NaCs parameters used (Rabi frequencies, pulse durations, and rotational constant B). This estimate will be compared directly against the 10^{-4} threshold implied by the target fidelity. While the post-hoc simulations already demonstrate that the analytically derived amplitudes and phases produce >0.9999 fidelity when inserted into the exact time-dependent Schrödinger equation, we acknowledge that the bound will make the truncation error transparent rather than relying solely on numerical verification after the fact. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper applies the standard first-order Magnus expansion to a two-pulse Hamiltonian to derive explicit closed-form amplitude and phase conditions for single-qubit rotations. This is a conventional perturbative technique that produces new analytic expressions for the effective unitary, independent of the input Hamiltonian by construction. No self-definitional relations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text or abstract. Numerical simulations are performed after the analytic derivation and serve only as post-hoc validation, not as the source of the claimed conditions. The derivation remains self-contained against external mathematical benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the first-order Magnus expansion to the two-pulse sequence and the assumption that the rotational qubit subspace remains isolated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption First-order Magnus expansion suffices to derive the exact unitary for the optimized two-pulse sequence.
    Invoked in the abstract to obtain closed-form amplitude and phase conditions.
  • domain assumption Population leakage into auxiliary states remains negligible during gate operation.
    Stated as a demonstration result but required for the fidelity claim.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 1169 out tokens · 67056 ms · 2026-05-07T17:30:04.597776+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references

  1. [1]

    (4) As shown in Fig

    can be expressed as ˆH0 = Jmax∑ J=0 J∑ M=−J EJ|J M⟩⟨J M|, (3) and the dipole moment matrix element between the rotational states |J M⟩ and |(J + 1)M⟩ is given by µJ, J+1 =µ0⟨(J + 1)M|cosϑ|J M⟩ =µ0 √ (J + 1)2 −M2 (2J + 3)(2J + 1). (4) As shown in Fig. 1(a), the computational qubit states |0⟩ and |1⟩ are encoded in the rotational states |0, 0⟩ and |1, 0⟩, r...

  2. [2]

    (12) This simplification enhances robustness by suppressing com - mon phase noise through relative phase dependence

    to ˆU (1) 2 =        cos ( θ2 + π 2 ) e−i(φ2−φ1) −sin ( θ2 + π 2 ) e−i(φ1+π 2 ) sin ( θ2 + π 2 ) ei(φ1+π 2 ) cos ( θ2 + π 2 ) ei(φ2−φ1)       . (12) This simplification enhances robustness by suppressing com - mon phase noise through relative phase dependence. Com- paring Eqs. (

  3. [3]

    Table I summarizes the parameters required to implement key single-qubit gates within the present two-pulse protoc ol, including the Pauli-Z, Hadamard (H), S, and T gates

    and ( 5) reveals that, by properly tuning the parameters θ2, φ1, and φ2, the two-pulse protocol allows for the universal implementation of arbitrary single-qubit un itary operations, up to a global phase. Table I summarizes the parameters required to implement key single-qubit gates within the present two-pulse protoc ol, including the Pauli-Z, Hadamard (...

  4. [4]

    Figure 4 dis- plays the circuit schematic and corresponding real-time st ate evolution. In Fig. 4(a), the system is initialized in the ground state |0⟩. Since phase gates are diagonal and do not alter com- putational basis populations, a Hadamard gate is first appli ed to prepare the molecule in a maximally coherent superposi- tion, ( |0⟩ + |1⟩)/ √

  5. [5]

    The upp er panel shows the time-domain pulse sequence, with color cod- ing and vertical alignment corresponding to the logic gates in the circuit schematic

    The T, S, and Z gates are then applied sequentially to verify precise phase accumulation. The upp er panel shows the time-domain pulse sequence, with color cod- ing and vertical alignment corresponding to the logic gates in the circuit schematic. Timestamps tH, tT, tS, and tZ mark the completion of each operation. Figure 4(b) shows the evolution of the sy...

  6. [6]

    Steane, Quantum computing, Rep

    A. Steane, Quantum computing, Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 117 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proc

    J. Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 454, 385 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y . Nakamura, C. Monroe , and J. L. O’Brien, Quantum computers, Nature 464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature 549, 172 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Y . Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What limits the simulation of quantum computers?, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Wendin, Quantum information processing with superco n- ducting circuits: a review, Rep

    G. Wendin, Quantum information processing with superco n- ducting circuits: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 106001 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y .-X. Liu, and F. Nori, Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuit s, Phys. Rep. 718, 1 (2017)

    2017

  13. [13]

    Krantz, M

    P . Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P . Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconduct - ing qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    Siddiqi, Engineering high-coherence superconducti ng qubits, Nat

    I. Siddiqi, Engineering high-coherence superconducti ng qubits, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 875 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Gyenis, P

    A. Gyenis, P . S. Mundada, A. Di Paolo, T. M. Hazard, X. Y ou , D. I. Schuster, J. Koch, A. Blais, and A. A. Houck, Experimen- tal realization of a protected superconducting circuit der ived from the 0– πqubit, PRX Quantum 2, 010339 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Ganjam, Y

    S. Ganjam, Y . Wang, Y . Lu, A. Banerjee, C. U. Lei, L. Krayz - man, K. Kisslinger, C. Zhou, R. Li, Y . Jia, et al. , Surpass- ing millisecond coherence in on chip superconducting quan- tum memories by optimizing materials and circuit design, Nat. Commun. 15, 3687 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Maurand, X

    R. Maurand, X. Jehl, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, H. Bohuslavskyi, R. Lavi´ eville, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, M. Sanquer, et al. , A CMOS silicon spin qubit, Nat. Commun. 7, 13575 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    V eldhorst, H

    M. V eldhorst, H. G. Eenink, C.-H. Yang, and A. S. Dzurak, Silicon CMOS architecture for a spin-based quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 8, 1766 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Gonzalez-Zalba, S

    M. Gonzalez-Zalba, S. De Franceschi, E. Charbon, T. Meu nier, M. Vinet, and A. Dzurak, Scaling silicon-based quantum com- puting using CMOS technology, Nat. Electron. 4, 872 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Y oneda, K

    J. Y oneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y . Hoshi, et al. , A quantum-dot spin qubit with coher- ence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 102 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    Huang, N

    P . Huang, N. M. Zimmerman, and G. W. Bryant, Spin decoher - ence in a two-qubit CPHASE gate: the critical role of tunneli ng noise, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 62 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    M. M. E. K. Shehata, G. Simion, R. Li, F. A. Mohiyaddin, D. Wan, M. Mongillo, B. Govoreanu, I. Radu, K. De Greve, and P . V an Dorpe, Modeling semiconductor spin qubits and their charge noise environment for quantum gate fidelity estimati on, Phys. Rev. B 108, 045305 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Harty, D

    T. Harty, D. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. Jana cek, N. Linke, D. Stacey, and D. Lucas, High-fidelity preparation , gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220501 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    Y . Wang, M. Um, J. Zhang, S. An, M. Lyu, J.-N. Zhang, L.-M. Duan, D. Y um, and K. Kim, Single-qubit quantum memory exceeding ten-minute coherence time, Nat. Photon. 11, 646 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Wang, C.-Y

    P . Wang, C.-Y . Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. Zhang, Y . Wang, X. Y uan, M. Gu, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceeding one hour, Nat. Commun. 12, 233 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Monroe and J

    C. Monroe and J. Kim, Scaling the ion trap quantum proces sor, Science 339, 1164 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Friis, O

    N. Friis, O. Marty, C. Maier, C. Hempel, M. Holz¨ apfel, P . Ju- rcevic, M. B. Plenio, M. Huber, C. Roos, R. Blatt, et al., Obser- vation of entangled states of a fully controlled 20-qubit sy stem, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021012 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    J. Kwon, W. J. Setzer, M. Gehl, N. Karl, J. V an Der Wall, R. Law, M. G. Blain, D. Stick, and H. J. McGuin- ness, Multi-site integrated optical addressing of trapped ions, Nat. Commun. 15, 3709 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    J.-L. Wu, Y . Wang, J.-X. Han, Y . Jiang, J. Song, Y . Xia, S. -L. Su, and W. Li, Systematic-error-tolerant multiqubit holon omic entangling gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 064031 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung , and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature 647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Wu, J.-L

    J. Wu, J.-L. Wu, F.-Q. Guo, B.-B. Liu, S.-L. Su, X.-K. Son g, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Quantum computation via Floquet tailored Rydberg interactions, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 118 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wan g, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler,et al., Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, et al. , High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    A. M. Farouk, I. I. Beterov, P . Xu, S. Bergamini, and I. I. Ryabt- sev, Parallel implementation of CNOT N and C 2NOT2 gates via homonuclear and heteronuclear F¨ orster interactions of Rydberg atoms, Photonics 10, 1280 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Graham, M

    T. Graham, M. Kwon, B. Grinkemeyer, Z. Marra, X. Jiang, M. Lichtman, Y . Sun, M. Ebert, and M. Sa ffman, Rydberg- mediated entanglement in a two-dimensional neutral atom qubit array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 230501 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.- O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter , et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    DeMille, Quantum computation with trapped polar molecules, Phys

    D. DeMille, Quantum computation with trapped polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 067901 (2002)

    2002

  39. [39]

    Y . Bao, S. S. Y u, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.- K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Dipolar spin-exchange and en- 9 tanglement between molecules in an optical tweezer array, Science 382, 1138 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Langen, G

    T. Langen, G. V altolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Quan- tum state manipulation and cooling of ultracold molecules, Nat. Phys. 20, 702 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    L. R. Picard, A. J. Park, G. E. Patenotte, S. Gebretsadka n, D. Wellnitz, A. M. Rey, and K.-K. Ni, Entanglement and iSW AP gate between molecular qubits, Nature 637, 821 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    D. K. Ruttley, T. R. Hepworth, A. Guttridge, and S. L. Cor nish, Long-lived entanglement of molecules in magic-wavelength optical tweezers, Nature 637, 827 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Z.-H. Wang, W. Zhang, A. M. Tyryshkin, S. A. Lyon, J. Ager , E. Haller, and V . V . Dobrovitski, Effect of pulse error accumu- lation on dynamical decoupling of the electron spins of phos - phorus donors in silicon, Phys. Rev. B 85, 085206 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    A. M. Souza, G. A. Alvarez, and D. Suter, Robust dynami- cal decoupling for quantum computing and quantum memory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 240501 (2011)

    2011

  45. [45]

    Ezzell, B

    N. Ezzell, B. Pokharel, L. Tewala, G. Quiroz, and D. A. Li dar, Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A perfor - mance survey, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 064027 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. Hazzard, Quantum computation and quantum simulation with ultracold molecul es, Nat. Phys. 20, 730 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Aymar and O

    M. Aymar and O. Dulieu, Calculation of accurate per- manent dipole moments of the lowest 1, 3Σ+ states of heteronuclear alkali dimers using extended basis sets, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 204302 (2005)

    2005

  48. [48]

    P . J. Dagdigian and L. Wharton, Molecular beam electric de- flection and resonance spectroscopy of the heteronuclear al - kali dimers: 39K7Li, Rb 7Li, 39K23Na, Rb 23Na, and 133Cs23Na, J. Chem. Phys. 57, 1487 (1972)

    1972

  49. [49]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010)

    2010

  50. [50]

    H.-G. Lee, Y . Song, and J. Ahn, Single-laser-pulse impl e- mentation of arbitrary ZYZ rotations of an atomic qubit, Phys. Rev. A 96, 012326 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    Hong, L.-B

    Q.-Q. Hong, L.-B. Fan, C.-C. Shu, and N. E. Henriksen, Ge n- eration of maximal three-state field-free molecular orient ation with terahertz pulses, Phys. Rev. A 104, 013108 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Fan, C.-C

    L.-B. Fan, C.-C. Shu, D. Dong, J. He, N. E. Henriksen, and F. Nori, Quantum coherent control of a single molecular- polariton rotation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 043604 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Q.-Q. Hong, D. Dong, N. E. Henriksen, F. Nori, J. He, and C .- C. Shu, Precise quantum control of molecular rotation towar d a desired orientation, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L012049 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Fan, H.-J

    L.-B. Fan, H.-J. Li, Q. Chen, H. Zhou, H. Liu, and C.-C. Shu, Maximizing orientation of a three-state molecule in a cavity with analytically designed pulses, Phys. Rev. A 111, 033119 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Hong, Z.-J

    Q.-Q. Hong, Z.-J. Zhang, C.-C. Shu, J. He, D. Dong, and D. Ding, Precise quantum control of unidirectional field-fr ee molecular orientation, Phys. Rev. A 113, 013118 (2026)

    2026

  56. [56]

    Yang, Q.-Q

    J. Yang, Q.-Q. Hong, S. Ma, S.-S. Ma, and C.-C. Shu, Multi - level pulse-area theorem for precise quantum control of mol ec- ular vibration and rotation, Phys. Rev. A 113, 033106 (2026)

    2026

  57. [57]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Fidelity of q uan- tum operations, Phys. Lett. A 367, 47 (2007)

    2007

  58. [58]

    A. J. Park, L. R. Picard, G. E. Patenotte, J. T. Zhang, T. Rosenband, and K.-K. Ni, Extended rotational coher- ence of polar molecules in an elliptically polarized trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 183401 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    C. P . Koch, M. Lemeshko, and D. Sugny, Quantum control of molecular rotation, Rev. Mod. Phy. 91, 035005 (2019)

    2019

  60. [60]

    J. H. Mun, S. Minemoto, D. E. Kim, and H. Sakai, All-optic al control of pendular qubit states with nonresonant two-colo r laser pulses, Commun. Phys. 5, 226 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    Hong, Z.-Z

    Q.-Q. Hong, Z.-Z. Lian, C.-C. Shu, and N. E. Henrik- sen, Quantum control of field-free molecular orientation, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 25, 32763 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    Tutunnikov, J

    I. Tutunnikov, J. Floß, E. Gershnabel, P . Brumer, I. S. A ver- bukh, A. A. Milner, and V . Milner, Observation of persistent orientation of chiral molecules by a laser field with twisted po- larization, Phys. Rev. A 101, 021403 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    J. Yang, M. Guehr, T. V ecchione, M. S. Robinson, R. Li, N. Hartmann, X. Shen, R. Co ffee, J. Corbett, A. Fry, et al. , Diffractive imaging of a rotational wavepacket in nitrogen molecules with femtosecond megaelectronvolt electron pul ses, Nat. Commun. 7, 11232 (2016)

    2016

  64. [64]

    Trippel, T

    S. Trippel, T. Mullins, N. L. M¨ uller, J. S. Kienitz, R. Gonz´ alez-F´ erez, and J. K¨ upper, Two-state wave packet for strong field-free molecular orientation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 103003 (2015)

    2015

  65. [65]

    Renard, M

    V . Renard, M. Renard, S. Gu´ erin, Y . Pashayan, B. La- vorel, O. Faucher, and H.-R. Jauslin, Postpulse molecular alignment measured by a weak field polarization technique, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 153601 (2003)

    2003

  66. [66]

    P . Peng, Y . Bai, N. Li, and P . Liu, Measurement of field-fr ee molecular alignment by balanced weak field polarization tec h- nique, AIP Adv. 5, 127205 (2015)

    2015

  67. [67]

    Z. Lian, Z. Chen, J. Li, C.-C. Shu, and Z. Hu, Visualizing molecular unidirectional rotation by a rotated weak-field p olar- ization technique, Phys. Rev. A 108, 063108 (2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    W. B. Cairncross, J. T. Zhang, L. R. Picard, Y . Y u, K. Wang, and K.-K. Ni, Assembly of a rovibrational ground state molecule in an optical tweezer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 123402 (2021)

    2021

  69. [69]

    Y oshihara, Y

    F. Y oshihara, Y . Nakamura, F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. By- lander, W. D. Oliver, and J.-S. Tsai, Flux qubit noise spec- troscopy using Rabi oscillations under strong driving cond i- tions, Phys. Rev. B 89, 020503(R) (2014)

    2014

  70. [70]

    J. C. Bardin, D. H. Slichter, and D. J. Reilly, Microwave s in quantum computing, IEEE J. Microwaves 1, 403 (2021)

    2021

  71. [71]

    A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, Optics and interferometry with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1051 (2009)

    2009

  72. [72]

    Borkowski, Optical lattice clocks with weakly bound molecules, Phys

    M. Borkowski, Optical lattice clocks with weakly bound molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 083202 (2018)

    2018

  73. [73]

    J. T. Zhang, L. R. Picard, W. B. Cairncross, K. Wang, Y . Y u , F. Fang, and K.-K. Ni, An optical tweezer array of ground-sta te polar molecules, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 035006 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Neyenhuis, B

    B. Neyenhuis, B. Yan, S. Moses, J. Covey, A. Chotia, A. Petrov, S. Kotochigova, J. Ye, and D. Jin, Anisotropic polarizability of ultracold polar 40K87Rb molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 230403 (2012)

    2012

  75. [75]

    Zhang, W

    S. Zhang, W. Y uan, N. Bigagli, C. Warner, I. Steven- son, and S. Will, Dressed-state spectroscopy and magic trapping of microwave-shielded NaCs molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 263401 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    Seeßelberg, X.-Y

    F. Seeßelberg, X.-Y . Luo, M. Li, R. Bause, S. Kotochigov a, I. Bloch, and C. Gohle, Extending rotational coherence of interacting polar molecules in a spin-decoupled magic trap , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253401 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    Burchesky, L

    S. Burchesky, L. Anderegg, Y . Bao, S. S. Y u, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Rotational co- herence times of polar molecules in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 123202 (2021)

    2021