pith. sign in

arxiv: 2311.07055 · v4 · submitted 2023-11-13 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph · physics.optics· quant-ph

Optical Nanofiber Testbeds for Benchmarking Membrane-Waveguide Photonic Integrated Circuit Platforms toward On-Chip Quantum Inertial Sensing

Adrian Orozco , William Kindel , Nicholas Karl , Yuan-Yu Jau , Michael Gehl , Grant Biedermann , Jongmin Lee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 05:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph physics.opticsquant-ph
keywords evanescent-field atom guidesoptical nanofibersphotonic integrated circuitsatom interferometryRaman coherencequantum inertial sensingcesium atoms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Nanofiber testbeds benchmark membrane-waveguide PIC platforms by preserving atomic coherence with 150 nW EF-coupled Raman beams.

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

The paper establishes that optical nanofiber testbeds can serve as reliable benchmarks for membrane-waveguide photonic integrated circuit platforms intended for evanescent-field guided atom interferometry. It reports low-power guiding of laser-cooled cesium atoms at the magic wavelengths 793 nm and 937 nm, plus the first observation of coherence fringes from co-propagating EF-coupled Doppler-free Raman beams at only 150 nW total power. A reader would care because these steps support compact, low-power on-chip quantum accelerometers and gyroscopes that could operate in dynamic environments. The work supplies a direct performance comparison between the two hardware approaches to advance fully integrated quantum inertial sensing.

Core claim

The central claim is that preserved atomic coherence can be verified on optical nanofiber testbeds using microwave fields and EF-coupled Doppler-free Raman beams, with coherence fringes driven by co-propagating beams at only 150 nW total optical power. These nanofiber testbeds are presented as performance benchmarks for separately fabricated membrane-waveguide PIC platforms that handle 4-6 times the minimum trap power under vacuum and support dense cold-atom loading. The combination is positioned as groundwork for on-chip EF-guided atom interferometry.

What carries the argument

Evanescent-field (EF) atom guides realized on optical nanofiber testbeds and membrane-waveguide photonic integrated circuit platforms, which carry out low-power two-color traveling-wave optical dipole traps at magic wavelengths and enable Doppler-free Raman beam coupling for coherence verification.

If this is right

  • Membrane-waveguide PIC platforms safely handle 4-6 times the minimum trap power required for the 793/937-nm EF atom guides under vacuum.
  • The platforms enable dense cold-atom generation suitable for efficient loading into the guides.
  • Preserved coherence with 150 nW co-propagating EF-coupled Raman beams demonstrates viability for low-power atom interferometry.
  • Direct comparison between nanofiber testbeds and PIC platforms supplies the basis for realizing EF-guided atom interferometry on chip.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the benchmarking assumption holds, the approach could allow quantum inertial sensors to be integrated with other photonic components on the same chip without separate free-space optics.
  • The demonstrated low total optical power suggests the platform could support arrays of independent sensors while remaining within tight size-weight-and-power budgets.
  • Successful transfer of the coherence results to the PIC platform would open a route to ruggedized quantum accelerometers and gyroscopes for mobile or space applications.

Load-bearing premise

Results obtained on optical nanofiber testbeds accurately predict the behavior of membrane-waveguide PIC platforms, with no extra decoherence or loss introduced by chip fabrication or the vacuum environment.

What would settle it

Observation of decoherence rates or optical losses in the membrane-waveguide PIC platform that exceed those measured on the nanofiber testbed under matched conditions would falsify the benchmarking claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2311.07055 by Adrian Orozco, Grant Biedermann, Jongmin Lee, Michael Gehl, Nicholas Karl, William Kindel, Yuan-Yu Jau.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evanescent field (EF) atom guides on photonic in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The concept of chip-scale quantum inertial sensors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Calculation of the light shift (LS) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Experimental setup for EF-guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Atom number and lifetime measurements of EF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Measurements of atomic coherence for EF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Manufactured nanofibers for linear EF atom guides. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The optical potential ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Measurements of atomic coherence for EF-guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Images of devices with hybrid needle and infinity de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fabrication process of the membrane PIC device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent advances in cold atom interferometry with optical and magnetic atom guides have set the stage for quantum inertial sensors capable of operating in dynamic environments. In this work, we present three key innovations, such as evanescent-field (EF) atom guides, optical nanofiber testbeds, and membrane-waveguide photonic integrated circuit (PIC) platforms, to advance EF-guided atom interferometry. First, we demonstrate EF atom guides on optical nanofiber testbeds, which serve as performance benchmarks for our membrane-waveguide PIC platforms. Second, we achieve low-power (~5 mW) guiding of freely moving, laser-cooled 133Cs atoms in two-color, traveling-wave EF optical dipole traps at the novel, heat-efficient magic wavelengths of 793 nm and 937 nm (i.e. "793/937-nm EF atom guides"). We designed and fabricated membrane-waveguide PIC platforms for these EF atom guides; in our prior work we showed that they safely handle up to 4-6x times the minimum trap power under vacuum and enable dense cold atom generation for efficient loading. Third, we verify preserved atomic coherence via microwave fields and EF-coupled Doppler-free Raman beams; to our knowledge, this is the first report of coherence fringes driven by co-propagating EF-coupled Raman beams with only 150 nW of total optical power. By providing a direct comparison between optical nanofiber testbeds and membrane-waveguide PIC platforms, our results lay critical groundwork for the on-chip realization of EF-guided atom interferometry and the development of for fully integrated, low-SWaP (size, weight, and power) quantum accelerometers and gyroscopes.

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports three innovations for evanescent-field (EF) guided atom interferometry: (1) demonstration of low-power (~5 mW) guiding of laser-cooled 133Cs atoms in two-color traveling-wave EF optical dipole traps at the 793/937-nm magic wavelengths on optical nanofiber testbeds; (2) design and fabrication of membrane-waveguide photonic integrated circuit (PIC) platforms that handle 4-6x the minimum trap power under vacuum and enable dense cold-atom loading; and (3) verification of preserved atomic coherence via microwave fields and co-propagating EF-coupled Doppler-free Raman beams at only 150 nW total optical power, claimed to be the first such report. The nanofiber testbeds are positioned as performance benchmarks for the PIC platforms toward on-chip quantum inertial sensing, with an asserted direct comparison between the two.

Significance. If the central experimental claims hold, the work supplies concrete low-power operation benchmarks and a novel demonstration of coherence fringes in EF-coupled Raman beams, directly supporting progress toward compact, low-SWaP quantum accelerometers and gyroscopes. The purely experimental grounding in direct observations (rather than fitted models) is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The benchmarking purpose and claim of a 'direct comparison between optical nanofiber testbeds and membrane-waveguide PIC platforms' rest on the untested assumption that nanofiber results accurately predict PIC performance without additional decoherence or loss from chip fabrication, surface interactions, or vacuum environment; no quantitative side-by-side metrics (coherence visibility, fringe contrast, loss rates, or power-handling differences) are described to support this translation.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (coherence verification section): The central claim of preserved atomic coherence and the 'first report' of 150 nW co-propagating EF-coupled Raman fringes provides no error bars, statistical details, data exclusion criteria, or full methods, preventing assessment of the quality and reproducibility of the result that underpins the on-chip inertial sensing motivation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the experimental grounding of the work. We address the two major comments on the abstract point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The benchmarking purpose and claim of a 'direct comparison between optical nanofiber testbeds and membrane-waveguide PIC platforms' rest on the untested assumption that nanofiber results accurately predict PIC performance without additional decoherence or loss from chip fabrication, surface interactions, or vacuum environment; no quantitative side-by-side metrics (coherence visibility, fringe contrast, loss rates, or power-handling differences) are described to support this translation.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract phrasing of a 'direct comparison' risks overstating the present results. The nanofiber testbeds demonstrate the target low-power EF guiding at the 793/937-nm magic wavelengths, while the membrane-waveguide PIC platforms were previously shown to handle 4-6x the required power under vacuum and support dense atom loading. No side-by-side coherence or loss metrics on the PIC itself are reported here, as the coherence verification was performed on the nanofiber testbeds. We will revise the abstract to state that the nanofiber results supply performance benchmarks for the PIC design parameters, with on-chip coherence verification identified as future work. This removes the implication of a completed translation while preserving the intended role of the testbeds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (coherence verification section): The central claim of preserved atomic coherence and the 'first report' of 150 nW co-propagating EF-coupled Raman fringes provides no error bars, statistical details, data exclusion criteria, or full methods, preventing assessment of the quality and reproducibility of the result that underpins the on-chip inertial sensing motivation.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise and therefore omits detailed statistics and methods. The main text supplies the full experimental protocol, raw fringe data, visibility values, and analysis procedures for the 150 nW EF-coupled Raman coherence measurement. We will revise the abstract to include a short quantitative statement on observed fringe visibility together with its uncertainty, subject to length limits. Data exclusion criteria and complete methods remain in the Methods section. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain present; purely experimental reporting with no circularity

full rationale

The paper consists of experimental demonstrations of EF atom guides, low-power trapping at magic wavelengths, PIC fabrication, and coherence verification via microwave and Raman beams. No equations, models, or derivations are described that could reduce to self-definitions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains. The single self-reference to prior work on power handling is a supporting experimental fact and is not load-bearing for the coherence claim. The benchmarking assumption is an empirical hypothesis about translation to PICs, not a circular reduction. This matches the default expectation for non-circular experimental papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Work rests on established domain knowledge of optical dipole traps, magic wavelengths for cesium, and atom interferometry techniques; no new free parameters, axioms beyond standard physics, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Existence and utility of magic wavelengths (793 nm and 937 nm) for cesium in evanescent-field traps that minimize state-dependent shifts.
    Invoked directly in the choice of wavelengths for low-power guiding without internal state disturbance.
  • domain assumption Evanescent fields around nanofibers and membrane waveguides can be engineered to produce stable optical dipole traps for cold atoms.
    Fundamental to the EF atom guide concept and benchmarking between testbeds and PICs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5864 in / 1447 out tokens · 28528 ms · 2026-05-24T05:54:48.557338+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    This waveguide sup- ported optical powers in the range of 20–30 mW before fracturing, making it well-suited for EF atom guiding

    anchored on silicon substrates. This waveguide sup- ported optical powers in the range of 20–30 mW before fracturing, making it well-suited for EF atom guiding. By a membrane magneto-optical trap (MOT),104–105 sub-Doppler-cooled atoms (∼10 µK) are generated at the open hole [19]. Despite these advancements, direct EF atom trapping on membrane waveguides o...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The π pulse time of the microwave is80 µs

    The coherence time of EF-guided atoms isτ ∗ 2 = 3.2±1.1 ms. The π pulse time of the microwave is80 µs. (Bottom) Frequency- scan Ramsey coherence measurement of EF-guided atoms. The Ramsey sequence is π 2 (δω) → T → π 2 (δω). The in- terrogation time is T =150 µs, and the frequency separation in the Ramsey fringes is2 kHz. Each data point in the plots is a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We also performed frequency-scan Ramsey interferom- etry Ramsey interferometry (Fig

    The first π 2 pulse creates a superpo- sition state, and the second pulse induces interference. We also performed frequency-scan Ramsey interferom- etry Ramsey interferometry (Fig. 9b, Bottom), sweep- ing the microwave detuning (ω0 + δω) to measure the fringe. Theseexperimentsutilizedathree-pulsedetection scheme (Fig. 4b), where atom detection was conduct...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The π pulse time of the microwave is 55 µs

    The coherence time of EF-guided atoms is τ ∗ 2 = 470±60 µs. The π pulse time of the microwave is 55 µs. (Bottom) Frequency-scan Ramsey coherence measurement of EF-guided atoms. The Ramsey sequence is π 2 (δω) → T → π 2 (δω). The interrogation time is T = 150 µs, and the frequency separation in the Ramsey fringes is 2 kHz. Each data point in the plots is a...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Deposit ALD alumina onto silicon wafer

    work page

  6. [6]

    Etch alumina membrane layer, removing alumina

    work page

  7. [7]

    Deposit additional alumina layer forming rib waveguides

    work page

  8. [8]

    Etch holes in membrane layer for XeF2 substrate etch

    work page

  9. [9]

    Si Bosch backside etch to nearly open the loading hole

    work page

  10. [10]

    XeF2 etch to fully release the membrane & waveguide trench Silicon Wafer Alumina FIG. 12. Fabrication process of the membrane PIC device for EF atom guiding. First, ALD alumina is deposited on a silicon wafer. Second, selective etching creates thin or no membrane regions. Third, a second layer of alumina is de- posited, forming waveguides. Fourth, holes a...

    work page

  11. [11]

    High-accuracy inertial measure- ments with cold-atom sensors,

    R. Geiger et al., “High-accuracy inertial measure- ments with cold-atom sensors,” AVS Quantum Science 2, 024702 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    High data-rate atom interferometer for measur- ing acceleration,

    H. J. McGuinness, A. V. Rakholia, and G. W. Bieder- mann, “High data-rate atom interferometer for measur- ing acceleration,” Appl. Phys. Lett.100(1): p. 011106 (2012)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Dual-Axis High-Data-Rate Atom Interferometer via Cold Ensemble Exchange,

    A.V. Rakholia, H.J. McGuinness, and G.W. Bieder- mann, “Dual-Axis High-Data-Rate Atom Interferometer via Cold Ensemble Exchange,” Phys. Rev. Appl.2(5): p. 054012 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Navigation-Compatible Hybrid Quantum Accelerometer Using a Kalman Filter,

    P. Cheiney, “Navigation-Compatible Hybrid Quantum Accelerometer Using a Kalman Filter," Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 10, 034030 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    A Compact Cold-Atom Interferometer with a High Data-Rate Grating Magneto-Optical Trap and a Photonic-Integrated-Circuit-Compatible Laser System,

    J. Lee et.al., “A Compact Cold-Atom Interferometer with a High Data-Rate Grating Magneto-Optical Trap and a Photonic-Integrated-Circuit-Compatible Laser System,” Nat. Commun13, 5131 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Tracking the vector acceleration with a hy- bridquantumaccelerometertriad,

    S. Templier, “Tracking the vector acceleration with a hy- bridquantumaccelerometertriad,” Sci.Adv 8, 45(2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world applications,

    K. Bong et al., “Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world applications," Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 731 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Advances toward fieldable atom interferometers,

    F. A. Narducci et al., “Advances toward fieldable atom interferometers," Advances in Physics: X7, 1, 1946426 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Atomic gravimeter robust to envi- ronmental effects,

    C. D. Panda et al., “Atomic gravimeter robust to envi- ronmental effects," Appl. Phys. Lett. 123, 064001 (2023). 12

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Modeling of atom interferometer accelerometer,

    D. B. S. Soh, G. Biedermann, J. Lee, and P. Schwindt, “Modeling of atom interferometer accelerometer,” SAND Rep. 2020, 10087 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Optically guided linear Mach- Zehnder atom interferometer,

    G.D. McDonald, H. Keal, P.A. Altin, J.E. Debs, S. Ben- netts, C.C.N. Kuhn, K.S. Hardman, M.T. Johnsson, J.D. Close, and N.P. Robins, “Optically guided linear Mach- Zehnder atom interferometer,” Phys. Rev. A87, 013632 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    Optically guided atom interferometer tuned to magic wavelength,

    T. Akatsuka, T. Takahashi, and H. Katori, “Optically guided atom interferometer tuned to magic wavelength,” Appl. Phys. Express10 112501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    An atom interferometer inside a hollow-core photonic crystal fiber,

    M. Xin, W. S. Leong, Z. Chen, and S.-Y. Lan, “An atom interferometer inside a hollow-core photonic crystal fiber,” Science Advances4: e1701723 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Effect of an echo sequence to a trapped single-atom interferometer with photon momen- tum kicks

    L. Wang, M. Liu, S. Yu, P. Xu, X. He, K. Wang, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, “Effect of an echo sequence to a trapped single-atom interferometer with photon momen- tum kicks” Opt. Express28, 10, 15038 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Demonstration of an Area-Enclosing Guided-Atom Interferometer for Rota- tion Sensing,

    S. Wu, E. Su, and M. Prentiss, “Demonstration of an Area-Enclosing Guided-Atom Interferometer for Rota- tion Sensing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 173201 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    Magnetically guided Cesium interferometer for inertial sensing,

    L. Qi, Z. Hu, T. Valenzuela, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhai, W. Quan, N. Waltham, and J. Fang, “Magnetically guided Cesium interferometer for inertial sensing,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 153502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Quantum Ro- tation Sensing with Dual Sagnac Interferometers in an Atom-Optical Waveguide,

    E.R. Moan, R.A. Horne, T. Arpornthip, Z. Luo, A. J. Fallon, S. J. Berl, and C. A. Sackett, “Quantum Ro- tation Sensing with Dual Sagnac Interferometers in an Atom-Optical Waveguide,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120403 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Characterization of Suspended Mem- brane Waveguides towards a Photonic Atom Trap Inte- grated Platform,

    M. Gehl et. al., “Characterization of Suspended Mem- brane Waveguides towards a Photonic Atom Trap Inte- grated Platform,” Opt. Express29, 9, 13129 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Demonstration of a in a Sub-Millimeter Membrane Hole,

    J. Lee et.al., “Demonstration of a in a Sub-Millimeter Membrane Hole,” Sci. Rep.11, 8807 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Towards all- optical atom chips based on optical waveguides,

    Y.B. Ovchinnikov and F.E. Ayi-Yovo, “Towards all- optical atom chips based on optical waveguides,” New J. Physics,22, 053003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Trapped Atoms and Superradiance on an Integrated Nanophotonic Microring Circuit,

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, “Trapped Atoms and Superradiance on an Integrated Nanophotonic Microring Circuit,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 031004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Optical interface created by laser- cooled atoms trapped in the evanescent field surround- ing an optical nanofiber,

    E. Vetsch et al., “Optical interface created by laser- cooled atoms trapped in the evanescent field surround- ing an optical nanofiber,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 203603 (2010)

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Demonstration of a State-Insensitive, Compensated Nanofiber Trap,

    A. Goban et al., “Demonstration of a State-Insensitive, Compensated Nanofiber Trap,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 033603 (2012)

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Coherence Properties of Nanofiber- Trapped Cesium Atoms,

    D. Reitz et al., “Coherence Properties of Nanofiber- Trapped Cesium Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 243603 (2013)

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    Inhomogeneous broadening of optical tran- sitions of 87Rb atoms in an optical nanofiber trap,

    J. Lee, J. A. Grover, J. E. Hoffman, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, “Inhomogeneous broadening of optical tran- sitions of 87Rb atoms in an optical nanofiber trap,” J. Phys. B - At. Mol. Opt.48, 16, 165004 (2015)

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Dipole force free optical control and cooling of nanofiber trapped atoms,

    C. Østfeldt et al., “Dipole force free optical control and cooling of nanofiber trapped atoms,” Opt. Lett.42, 21, 4315 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Near-Ground-State Cooling of Atoms Optically Trapped 300 nm Away from a Hot Surface,

    Y. Meng et al., “Near-Ground-State Cooling of Atoms Optically Trapped 300 nm Away from a Hot Surface,” Phys. Rev. X.8, 031054 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Observation of dressed states of distant atoms with delocalized photons in coupled-cavities quan- tum electrodynamics,

    S. Kato et al., “Observation of dressed states of distant atoms with delocalized photons in coupled-cavities quan- tum electrodynamics,” Nat. Commun10, 1160 (2019)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Waveguide-coupled single collective excitation of atomic arrays,

    N. V. Corzo et al., “Waveguide-coupled single collective excitation of atomic arrays,” Nature566, 359 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Machine learner optimization of optical nanofiber-based dipole traps,

    R. K. Gupta, J. L. Everett, A. D. Tranter, R. Henke, V. Gokhroo, P. K. Lam, S. N. Chormaic, “Machine learner optimization of optical nanofiber-based dipole traps,” AVS Quantum Sci.4, 026801 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    State-Insensitive Trapping of Alkaline- Earth Atoms in a Nanofiber-Based Optical Dipole Trap,

    G. Kestler et al., “State-Insensitive Trapping of Alkaline- Earth Atoms in a Nanofiber-Based Optical Dipole Trap,” PRX Quantum4, 040308 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Nanoscale light-matter interactions in atomic cladding waveguides,

    L. Stern, B. Desiatov, I. Goykhman, U. Levy, “Nanoscale light-matter interactions in atomic cladding waveguides,” Nat. Commun.4, 1548 (2013)

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Integrated optical dipole trap for cold neu- tral atoms with an optical waveguide coupler,

    J. Lee, D.H. Park, S. Mittal, M. Dagenais and S.L. Rolston, “Integrated optical dipole trap for cold neu- tral atoms with an optical waveguide coupler,” New J. Physics 15 043010 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom,

    T.G. Tiecke et al., “Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom,” Nature508, 241-244 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Superradiance for atoms trapped along a photonic crystal waveguide

    A. Goban et al., “Superradiance for atoms trapped along a photonic crystal waveguide”, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 063601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    A nanowaveguide platform for collective atom-light inter- action,

    Y. Meng, J. Lee, M. Dagenais, and S. L. Rolston, “A nanowaveguide platform for collective atom-light inter- action,” Appl. Phys. Lett.107, 091110 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Modal characterization of nanophotonic waveguides for atom trapping,

    T.H. Stievater et al., “Modal characterization of nanophotonic waveguides for atom trapping,” Opt. Mater. Express6, 3826-3837 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Coupling Thermal Atomic Vapor to Slot Waveguides,

    R. Ritter et al., “Coupling Thermal Atomic Vapor to Slot Waveguides,” Phys. Rev. X8, 021032 (2018)

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Trapping single atoms on a nanophotonic circuitwithconfigurabletweezerlattices,

    M.E. Kim, T.-H. Chang, B. M. Fields, C.-A. Chen, and C.-L. Hung, “Trapping single atoms on a nanophotonic circuitwithconfigurabletweezerlattices,” Nat.Commun. 10, 1647 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Cold atoms in micromachined waveguides: A new plat- form for atom-photon interactions,

    E. Da Ros, N. Cooper, J. Nute, and L. Hackermueller, “Cold atoms in micromachined waveguides: A new plat- form for atom-photon interactions,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033098 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Advanced apparatus for the integra- tion of nanophotonics and cold atoms,

    J.-B. Béguin et al., “Advanced apparatus for the integra- tion of nanophotonics and cold atoms,” Optica7, Issue 1, pp. 1-2 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    An atomic trap based on evanescent light waves,

    Y. B. Ovchinnikov, et al., “An atomic trap based on evanescent light waves,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 24, 3173 (1991)

    work page 1991

  53. [53]

    Far-Off- Resonance Optical Trapping of Atoms,

    J. D. Miller, R. A. Cline, and D. J. Heinzen, “Far-Off- Resonance Optical Trapping of Atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 47, R4567(R) (1993)

    work page 1993

  54. [54]

    Optical Dipole Traps for Neutral Atoms

    R. Grimm, M. Weidemüller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, “Optical Dipole Traps for Neutral Atoms" Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 42, 95 (2000)

    work page 2000

  55. [55]

    Colloquium: Atomtronic circuits: From many-body physics to quan- tum technologies,

    L. Amico, D. Anderson, M. Boshier, J.-P. Brantut, L.- C. Kwek, A. Minguzzi, and W. Klitzing, "Colloquium: Atomtronic circuits: From many-body physics to quan- tum technologies," Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Suspended waveguides on membrane and nee- dle structures towards photonic atom trap integrated platforms,

    J. Lee, M. Gehl, G. Biedermann, Y. Y. Jau, C. T. DeRose, “Suspended waveguides on membrane and nee- dle structures towards photonic atom trap integrated platforms,” US Patent 11,914,188 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Guided Cold Atom Inertial Sensors with Membrane In- tegrated Photonics on Atom Trap Integrated Platforms,

    J. Lee, G. Biedermann, Y. Y. Jau, M. Gehl, C. T. DeRose “Guided Cold Atom Inertial Sensors with Membrane In- tegrated Photonics on Atom Trap Integrated Platforms,” US Patent 11,971,256 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Directional nanophotonic atom--waveguide interface based on spin--orbit interaction of light

    R. Mitsch et al., ”Directional nanophotonic atom–waveguide interface based on spin–orbit in- 13 teraction of light,” arXiv:1406.0896 (2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Atom interferometry using σ+ − σ− Raman transitions between |F = 1, mF = ∓1⟩ and |F = 2, mF ± 1⟩,

    J. Bernard, et al., “Atom interferometry using σ+ − σ− Raman transitions between |F = 1, mF = ∓1⟩ and |F = 2, mF ± 1⟩," Phys. Rev. A105, 033318 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Laser Cooling Below the Doppler Limit in a Magnetooptical Trap,

    A.M. Steane and C.J. Foot, “Laser Cooling Below the Doppler Limit in a Magnetooptical Trap,” Europhysics Letters 14(3): p. 231-236 (1991)

    work page 1991

  61. [61]

    Ultrahigh transmission optical nanofibers,

    J.E. Hoffman et al., “Ultrahigh transmission optical nanofibers,” AIP Adv.4, 067124 (2014)

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Contributed Review: Optical micro- and nanofiber pulling rig,

    J.M. Ward et al., “Contributed Review: Optical micro- and nanofiber pulling rig,” Rev. Sci. Instrum.85, 111501 (2014)

    work page 2014