Tunable two-species spin models with Rydberg atoms in circular and elliptical states

Jacek Dobrzyniecki; Micha{\l} Tomza; Paula Heim

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Tunable two-species spin models with Rydberg atoms in circular and elliptical states

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Rydberg-atom array can host two effective spin species with opposite interaction characters.

desk verdict A solid, honest proposal for a two-species Rydberg spin simulator that uses elliptical states for one species; the main weakness is the undemonstrated experimental control of those elliptical states, which the paper itself acknowledges. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14854 v3 pith:R5F2NJIM submitted 2024-11-22 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

Jacek Dobrzyniecki , Paula Heim , Micha{l} Tomza This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

keywords Rydbergatomscircularstatesellipticalquantumsimulationtwo-speciesspinmodelsHeisenberginteractionIsingtunableinteractions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a way to build a quantum simulator that treats identical Rydberg atoms as two distinct effective spin species at the same time. The key idea is to encode one species in a pair of circular states (CC) and the other in one circular plus one elliptical state (CE). Because the two encodings have very different dipole couplings, the CC-CC and CC-CE interactions come out Heisenberg-like, with large spin-exchange compared to longitudinal coupling, while CE-CE interactions come out Ising-like, with longitudinal coupling dominating. The interaction strengths and their angular dependence can be tuned over a wide range through static electric and magnetic fields and lattice geometry. If it works, a single array of identical atoms could simulate two-species spin models or two-sublattice lattice models without needing to mix atomic species.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pairing of effective-spin subspaces with the Rydberg level structure: the CC species uses two circular states |nC±> and |(n+1)C±>, while the CE species uses a circular state |n'C±> with an elliptical state |(n'+2)E±> (or |(n'+1)E±>). All interaction coefficients are obtained by projecting the dipole-dipole Hamiltonian onto the four-state pair subspaces via a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, a controlled perturbative block-diagonalization that integrates out far-off-resonant non-spin pair states. The mechanism that creates the contrast is the scaling of transition dipoles (circular-circular transitions are strong and first-order, circular-elliptical transitions are weaker) combined with the strong first-order Stark shift of elliptical states, which gives CE-involving couplings a strong electric-field dependence that CC-CC couplings lack.

What would settle it

Try the proposed CE encoding in a cryogenic tweezer array: if the measured longitudinal-to-transverse interaction ratio for two CE atoms stays near unity rather than showing C_zz much greater than C_+- as the electric field is swept through 6-13 V/cm, the central claim fails. An even earlier falsifier would be the first successful demonstration of trapping and detecting a single elliptical Rydberg state; without that, no CE species exists to test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors show that by assigning the spin-up/down states of one species to two neighboring circular Rydberg levels (for example |55C−> and |56C−>) and the other species to a circular level paired with an elliptical level (for example |71C+> and |73E+>), the effective spin Hamiltonians take qualitatively different forms. For this representative choice, numerical Schrieffer-Wolff calculations at an inter-atomic distance of 7 microns find that CC-CC pairs have spin-exchange strength on the order of 10 MHz with longitudinal coupling much weaker, CE-CE pairs have spin-exchange on the order of 10 kHz with longitudinal coupling reaching several MHz, and CC-CE pairs have spin-exchange on the order of 1 MHz with longitudinal coupling near 10 kHz. Consequently CC-CC and CC-CE interactions are Heisenberg-like, CE-CE interactions are Ising-like, and the electric field provides a control knob that moves the spin-exchange magic angle for CE-involving pairs.

Load-bearing premise

The proposal works only if elliptical Rydberg states can be prepared and held in optical traps at the single-atom level, something the paper concedes has not yet been experimentally demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

One array of identical atoms can serve as two effective spin species, with each atom assigned to a species by which Rydberg subspace it is prepared in.
The same interaction-type contrast holds across the studied electric-field range: Heisenberg-like CC-CC and CC-CE interactions, Ising-like CE-CE interactions.
The electric field shifts the angular position of the spin-exchange magic angle for CE-involving pairs, allowing geometry-dependent Hamiltonian engineering.
For a representative geometry (7 micron spacing, fields around 6-13 V/cm, magnetic field tuned to the Forster resonance), spin-exchange rates reach about 10 MHz for CC-CC, 1 MHz for CC-CE, and 10 kHz for CE-CE, while spin-subspace leakage is kept below about 1%.
Concrete simulators follow: a double square lattice with sublattice-anisotropic couplings, and two coupled Ising chains that map onto SSH-type alternating-hopping chains.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension beyond the paper: the same 'orbital-shape-as-species' idea could be pushed to three or more species by including further elliptical states (for example states with |m_ℓ| = n - 3), as long as their transition frequencies can still be matched with small fields; the paper does not explore this.
Because the elliptical-state energy responds strongly to the electric field, a slow ramp of the field could quench the CE-CE coupling from Ising-like toward Heisenberg-like mid-experiment, giving a dynamical tunability the paper only treats as static.
If single-site addressing matures, the two encodings allow a direct realization of two-sublattice Hubbard models with sublattice-dependent hopping; the paper indicates the mapping to hardcore bosons but leaves the many-body consequences for future work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Candidly: the genuinely new element here is encoding a second spin species in a circular plus an elliptical Rydberg state, while keeping the first species in two circular states, all in the same array of identical atoms. That yields a clean qualitative split: CC-CC and CC-CE interactions come out Heisenberg-like, CE-CE comes out Ising-like. The Schrieffer-Wolff extraction is standard, and they check subspace closure with kappa. They also scan a physical parameter (Edc, with B tuned to the Förster resonance) rather than fitting to a target Hamiltonian, so there is no circularity. The paper is honest about its own limitations, which I appreciate.

Soft spots, in proportion. The biggest is the one the authors flag themselves in Sec. V.A: elliptical Rydberg states have never been trapped in few-atom arrays, and the high-fidelity preparation route in Sec. V.C leans on a private communication (Ref. [82]). Everything else—the CE spin, the CC-CE exchange, the two-species picture—depends on that external feasibility gap. It is not an internal inconsistency, but it makes the central claim a proposal rather than a demonstrated capability. Second, only one specific state choice (55C/56C, 71C/73E) is analyzed in detail; the paper asserts universality across n,n' without scanning them. That is probably fine, but it is an unverified assumption. Third, the Q subspace in the Schrieffer-Wolff calculation is truncated to ~10^4 states, and there is no convergence check; the kappa >= 0.988 bound is a useful proxy, not a proof. Finally, the dismissal of non-spin-conserving terms rests on example dynamics that are not shown—likely harmless, but it would be good to see.

For a theoretical proposal, the derivation hangs together. The experimental catch is real and not hidden. This paper deserves a serious referee; a referee should probe the elliptical-state premise, ask for a convergence check on the truncation, and perhaps a second state choice to back the universality claim. The paper will be useful to anyone designing Rydberg spin simulators, and it gives an honest map of what is needed to test the idea.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a scheme for two-species quantum simulation using a single array of identical alkali-metal Rydberg atoms. One effective spin-1/2 species (CC) is encoded in two circular states |55C−> and |56C−>, while the second species (CE) is encoded in a circular state |71C+> and an elliptical state |73E+>. Using a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation with a truncated pair-state basis from the pairinteraction package, the authors extract effective spin-spin couplings for CC-CC, CE-CE, and CC-CE pairs at an interatomic distance of 7 μm, with the magnetic field tuned to minimize the Förster defect. They report that CC-CC and CC-CE interactions are Heisenberg-like (C+− ≫ Czz), while CE-CE interactions are Ising-like (Czz ≫ C+−), and they illustrate tunability with the dc electric field. The paper also proposes two example geometries: a double-square-lattice model and a pair of coupled Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chains, and it discusses trapping, state preparation, detection, lifetimes, and field stability.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the proposal provides a route to simulating two-species spin models and two-sublattice lattice models in a single-species Rydberg array, which is a genuine experimental simplification. The paper is careful in several respects: the interaction coefficients are computed from first-principles atomic parameters rather than fitted to target models, the electric-field scan is a physical parameter scan, and the κ checks provide at least a static indicator of spin-subspace closure. The scaling arguments (e.g., n^4 vs (n')^3 for the exchange couplings) are physically plausible and give the reader a qualitative understanding beyond the single example. The concrete example geometries and the discussion of experimental requirements make the proposal actionable. However, the quantitative and qualitative reach of the paper is limited by the lack of a convergence check for the truncated Q subspace, by the unverified 'universality' across quantum numbers, and by an internal inconsistency between the reported κ values and the paper's own leakage heuristic.

major comments (4)

[Section III.A, Eq. (5)] The Q(j,k)2 subspace is truncated to 'approximately 10^4 states with energies and quantum numbers close to those in P', but no convergence check is reported. The second-order Schrieffer-Wolff coefficients in Eq. (5), the U coefficients in Fig. 2, the Czz values in Fig. 4, and the κ leakage indicator all depend on the completeness of this truncated basis. A missing off-resonant intermediate state could change the extracted coefficients or the classification C+− vs Czz. The authors should add a systematic convergence test (e.g., varying the number of included states and the energy window) and show that the reported coefficients and κ are stable, or otherwise identify the truncation error.
[Section III.B, Figs. 1–4] Only one state configuration is analyzed: |55C−>,|56C−> for the CC species and |71C+>,|73E+> for the CE species. The sentence 'We believe that the results below are universal across different choices of quantum numbers n,n′' is an unsupported assertion, not a demonstrated result. The scaling arguments in the text are useful, but the classification also relies on specific Stark resonances (e.g., the |(n′+1)C,(n′+1)C> intermediate state becoming resonant near Edc ≈ 11 V/cm) and on the specific principal quantum numbers. A second example with different n and n′, or a rigorous regime-of-validity derivation, is needed before the qualitative Heisenberg/Ising separation can be claimed as a general property of the CC/CE encoding rather than a property of the chosen levels.
[Section III.A and III.B] The leakage heuristic in Section III.A states that for N ∼ 10 atoms, maintaining all κ(j,k) ≳ 0.99 is necessary to keep the probability of one or more errors per period below 10%, with better values required for larger systems. However, Section III.B reports κ ≥ 0.988 across all cases considered, which is below the stated 0.99 threshold. The text then concludes that 'leakage effects remain limited, allowing for a substantial number of evolution cycles'. This is internally inconsistent: for a many-pair system, 1−κ = 0.012 per pair per period can easily give an error probability exceeding 10%. The authors should either compute a dynamical leakage/fidelity estimate for the actual parameters, or present parameter sets that meet their own κ threshold, and adjust the viability claim accordingly.
[Section V.A and V.C] The central two-species scheme requires single-atom-level preparation, trapping, and coherent manipulation of the elliptical state |73E+>, because the CE spin is encoded as a superposition of |71C+> and |73E+>. Section V.A explicitly states that 'for elliptical states, to our knowledge, no explicit experimental realizations of trapping few-atom systems have been reported', and the high-fidelity preparation route in Section V.C relies on a private communication (Ref. [82]). The techniques for circular states are not automatically transferable because elliptical states have a first-order Stark shift and different polarizability, which affects trap depth, lifetime, and sensitivity to field noise. The conclusion that the setup is 'experimentally feasible in current ultracold physics laboratories' therefore overreaches the evidence presented. The authors should either rephrase the feasibility discussion as a set of requirements and open challenges, or provide a quantitative analysis (trap stiffness, lifetime, expected preparation fidelity) showing that the elliptical-state requirements can be met with existing or near-term technology.

minor comments (5)

[Section III.A] Please specify the exact number of states included in Q(j,k)2 and the selection criterion (e.g., energy window, maximum principal quantum number difference) so that the numerical results are reproducible.
[Section III.A] The statement that non-spin-conserving coefficients C+, C+z, and C++ can be set to zero because 'example dynamics calculations' show no visible effect would be more convincing if at least one such calculation were shown in a figure or appendix.
[Section III.B.2] There is a typo in the sentence 'U⇑⇓ = U⇓⇑ is significantly smaller that U⇑⇑, U⇓⇓': 'that' should be 'than'.
[Section V.C] Ref. [82] is a private communication; if a published account of the optimally shaped pulse preparation of |nE> states exists, it should be cited instead, or the authors should state more explicitly that this step is currently unpublished.
[General] The figures are dense and the line styles for different electric-field values may be hard to distinguish in grayscale; the authors could consider using distinct markers or a short table of representative values in addition to the plotted curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective spin coefficients are computed from atomic dipole matrix elements via a Schrieffer-Wolff expansion, with no fitted target spin model and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent and self-contained: the physical Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) is restricted to chosen spin subspaces, and the effective spin coefficients C_+-, C_zz, and C_z are obtained from the Schrieffer-Wolff expansion (Eq. 5) and its matrix-element formulas (Eqs. 7-12). These coefficients are evaluated numerically from atomic dipole moments and level energies via the pairinteraction package; no coefficient is fit to a target spin model, and the Heisenberg-like versus Ising-like classification is an output of the computed comparison C_+- versus C_zz (Figs. 1 and 4), not an input assumption. The tuning of the magnetic field to Bres, where the Förster defect vanishes, is a physical resonance condition required for spin exchange, and the exchange coefficients are then computed at that field rather than assumed. The electric-field scan over E_dc is a parameter study, not an inverse fit. Prior work on circular-state encoding is cited for context (Refs. 44, 58), and the Schrieffer-Wolff method is cited to an independent mathematical reference (Ref. 62); none of these citations carry the central claim. The only private communication cited (Ref. 82) concerns preparation of elliptical states, which the paper itself flags in Sections V.A and V.C as an experimentally undemonstrated step; this is an external feasibility gap, not a circular derivation. The paper also explicitly states that trapping of elliptical states has not been reported and that preparation would require adapting existing techniques. These caveats weaken experimental readiness but do not make the spin-model derivation circular. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no prediction is a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the paper pulls no new physical entities from a hat. The main assumptions are standard physical approximations (dipole-only interactions, fixed atoms, perturbative expansion) plus one ad hoc universality claim that goes beyond the tested examples. The free parameters are experimental knobs and demonstration choices, not fitted constants.

free parameters (5)

State choice for CC species: |55C->, |56C-> = n=55,56
Chosen so CC and CE transition frequencies are similar at zero field and can be tuned into resonance with small fields; the paper asserts the interaction character is universal but only demonstrates this one choice.
State choice for CE species: |71C+>, |73E+> = n'=71,73
Chosen together with the CC states to minimize the Förster defect with fields; higher n' increases CE interaction magnitudes.
Interatomic distance R = 7 um
Selected to make dipolar interactions on the order of MHz while keeping the spin subspace sufficiently isolated (kappa >= 0.988).
Magnetic field B_res = 617.97 to 784.07 G depending on E_dc
Tuned to zero the Förster defect for each electric field value; this is a resonance condition, not a fit to a target spin model.
Electric field E_dc = 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 V/cm
Scanned to show tunability of CE and CC-CE interactions; circular states are largely insensitive to it.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Electric dipole-dipole interaction is the only relevant two-body interaction.
Stated in Section II.C; higher multipoles are neglected as one or more orders weaker, but this is not verified for all geometries and state pairs.
domain assumption Atoms are point-like and fixed at positions.
Used throughout the derivation; motional effects and trap-induced dephasing are only discussed qualitatively in Section V.B.
domain assumption Schrieffer-Wolff expansion to second order in the dipole coupling is valid.
Standard perturbative method (Ref. [62]); the paper checks subspace isolation via kappa, but does not quantify convergence of the expansion order.
domain assumption The truncated Q subspace of about 10^4 pair states is sufficient.
The basis is limited to states close in energy; no convergence study versus basis size is shown.
ad hoc to paper The qualitative interaction types are universal across different principal quantum numbers n,n'.
Asserted in Section III.B without testing multiple configurations; scaling arguments are given but the claim is broader than the evidence.
domain assumption pairinteraction library accurately computes eigenstates and dipole matrix elements.
External code from Ref. [60] is used without independent verification or version pinning.
domain assumption Fine structure can be ignored for circular and elliptical states.
Stated in Section II.B; reasonable for high-ell states but not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable two-species spin models with Rydberg atoms in circular and elliptical states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R5F2NJIM

@misc{pith2026241114854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable two-species spin models with Rydberg atoms in circular and elliptical states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R5F2NJIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14854}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a scheme for constructing versatile quantum simulators using ultracold Rydberg atoms in long-lived circular and elliptical states. By exciting different subspaces of internal atomic states, the atoms can be used to simulate two effective spin species with different spin-spin interactions. The strengths of transverse and longitudinal spin-spin interactions, both intra- and inter-species, can be controlled within a wide range of values. This setup can be used to simulate two-species spin models or lattice models with two sublattices. We show examples of specific models which can be realized.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14854 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The interaction shift of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Effective interaction-induced energy shifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effective longitudinal spin interaction coefficien [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Example geometry realizable with the two-species ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Example geometries realizable with the two-species [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

A Rb-Cs dual-species magneto-optical trap
physics.atom-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A dual-species rubidium-cesium magneto-optical trap with 45-degree beam geometry reaches optical depths of 3.71 (Rb) and 3.45 (Cs) while keeping full horizontal optical access.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[82]

J¨ unemann, A

J. J¨ unemann, A. Piga, S.-J. Ran, M. Lewenstein, M. Rizz i, and A. Bermudez, Exploring interacting topological insula tors with ultracold atoms: The synthetic Creutz-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031057 (2017)

work page 2017
[1]

magic angle

Transverse (spin-exchange) interactions We start by examining the spin-exchange coefﬁcient C+−, which is shown in Fig. 1 as a function of θ andEdc, for dif- ferent combinations of spin species. For a pair of CC spins [Fig. 1(a)], the coefﬁcient C+− is simply given by the ﬁrst-order dipolar interaction, i.e., the matrix element ⟨⇑⇓ | ˆV (j,k)|⇓⇑⟩. Since th...
[2]

can be ex- pressed as ˆHeﬀ = N∑ j=1 ˆh(j) + ∑ j<k ˆV (j,k) eﬀ . (6) All the effective spin interaction coefﬁcients can be there - fore calculated from the appropriate interaction matrix el e- 5 ments: Cj z = ⟨ ↑j ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ˆh(j) ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ↑j ⟩ − ⟨ ↓j ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ˆh(j) ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ↓j ⟩ + N∑ k⁄=j U jk ↑↑ +U jk ↑↓ −U jk ↓↑ −U jk ↓↓ 2 , (7) Cj + = N∑ k⁄=j ⟨ ↑j↑k ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ˆV (j,k) eﬀ ⏐...
[3]

Cj z has been given earlier in Eq

Local Zeeman ﬁeld acting on individual spins We now analyze the local effective Zeeman ﬁeld Cj z acting on individual spins. Cj z has been given earlier in Eq. (
[4]

The procedure for each (j,k ) is as follows

are obtained by evaluating the two-body interaction Hamiltonian ˆH (j,k) 2 = ˆh(j) + ˆh(k) + ˆV (j,k) for each pair of atoms (j,k ), restricting it to the subspace of effective spin states, and extracting the effective intera ction coefﬁcients from its matrix elements. The procedure for each (j,k ) is as follows. We build an extensive basis of pair states...
[5]

U coefﬁcients

Effective energy-shift terms U Next, we consider the diagonal termsUσσ′ , which represent the interaction-induced energy shifts of speciﬁc effectiv e spin states |σ,σ ′⟩. These “U coefﬁcients” are crucial, as they make up the longitudinal interaction Czz and affect the local effec- tive Zeeman ﬁelds Cj z . Figure 2 shows the Uσσ′ coefﬁcients for different...
[6]

J. T. Zhang, L. R. B. 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
[7]

(13b) The ﬁrst term (Eq

as Cj z = ( ⟨↑j|ˆh(j)|↑j⟩ − ⟨↓j|ˆh(j)|↓j⟩ ) (13a) + ∑ k⁄=j U jk ↑↑ +U jk ↑↓ −U jk ↓↑ −U jk ↓↓ 2 . (13b) The ﬁrst term (Eq. ( 13a)) corresponds to the energy differ- ence between the two n manifolds corresponding to pseudo- spin states (n,n + 1 or n′,n ′ + 2). For Rydberg states this difference is on the order of 10 GHz. It is usually the largest energy sc...

Show all 104 references

[8]

4 for various spin species combinations

The longitudinal interaction coefﬁcients The longitudinal interaction coefﬁcients Czz , deﬁned by Cjk zz =U jk ↑↑ −U jk ↑↓ −U jk ↓↑ +U jk ↓↓, (14) are depicted in Fig. 4 for various spin species combinations. For CC-CC interactions [Fig. 4(a)] and CE-CE interac- tions [Fig. 4(...
[9]

Gross and I

C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultracol d atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017)

2017
[10]

pseudospin levels

Summary of the results Let us summarize the characteristic properties of the inter - actions between CC and CE spins. The three combinations of interacting species correspond to different interaction types. CC-CC interactions feature s trong transverse interaction (S+S−) and w...
[11]

A ”), with an addition al spin at the center of each unit cell, forming a secondary lat- tice “B

This model consists of spins arranged in a periodic 2D square lattice (lattice “A ”), with an addition al spin at the center of each unit cell, forming a secondary lat- tice “B”. Such “double lattice” conﬁgurations ﬁnd applica- tion in multiple branches of physics, such as res...

2020
[12]

Barredo, V

D. Barredo, V . Lienhard, S. De L´ es´ eleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Synthetic three-dimensional atomic structures as- sembled atom by atom, Nature 561, 79 (2018)

2018
[13]

Anderegg, L

L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterl e, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, An optical tweezer array of ultracold molecules, Science 365, 1156 (2019)

2019
[14]

Therefore, two CE spins exhibit Ising-like interactions (Czz ≫C+−)

to add constructively. Therefore, two CE spins exhibit Ising-like interactions (Czz ≫C+−). For interactions between CC and CE spins [Fig. 4(c)],Czz is very small. This is because the contributions from U coef- ﬁcients nearly cancel out, given their similar magnitudes a nd sign...
[15]

Altman, K

E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Demler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriksson, K.- M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Hazzard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Koll´ ar, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C....

2021
[16]

Jenkins, J

A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Ytterbium nuclear-spin qubits in an optical tweez er array, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021027 (2022)

2022
[17]

Bluvstein, H

D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pich- ler, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum pro- cessor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays , Nature 604, 451 (2022)

2022
[18]

Gyger, M

F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Snigirev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Continuous op- eration of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033104 (2024)

2024
[19]

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

2024
[20]

de L´ es´ eleuc, S

S. de L´ es´ eleuc, S. Weber, V . Lienhard, D. Barredo, H. P . B¨ uchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Accurate mapping of multilevel Rydberg atoms on interacting spin- 1/ 2 particles for the quantum simulation of Ising models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 113602 (2018)

2018
[21]

Dobrzyniecki and M

J. Dobrzyniecki and M. Tomza, Quantum simulation of the cen- tral spin model with a Rydberg atom and polar molecules in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052618 (2023)

2023
[22]

Saffman, T

M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum informa - tion with Rydberg atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010)

2010
[23]

C. S. Adams, J. D. Pritchard, and J. P . Shaf- fer, Rydberg atom quantum technologies, 14 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 012002 (2020)

2020
[24]

Jaksch, J

D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P . Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000)

2000
[25]

M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. M. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P . Zoller, Dipole blockade and qua n- tum information processing in mesoscopic atomic ensembles , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 037901 (2001)

2001
[26]

Isenhower, E

L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, T. Henage , T. A. Johnson, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Demon- stration of a neutral atom controlled-NOT quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010503 (2010)

2010
[27]

Weimer, M

H. Weimer, M. M¨ uller, I. Lesanovsky, P . Zoller, and H. P . B¨ uchler, A Rydberg quantum simulator, Nat. Phys. 6, 382 (2010)

2010
[28]

G¨ unter, H

G. G¨ unter, H. Schempp, M. Robert-de Saint-Vincent, V . Gavryusev, S. Helmrich, C. Hofmann, S. Whitlock, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Observing the dynamics of dipole- mediated energy transport by interaction-enhanced imagin g, Science 342, 954 (2013)

2013
[29]

Barredo, H

D. Barredo, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys , and C. S. Adams, Coherent excitation transfer in a spin chain of three Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 113002 (2015)

2015
[30]

Schauss, Quantum simulation of transverse Ising models with Rydberg atoms, Quantum Sci

P . Schauss, Quantum simulation of transverse Ising models with Rydberg atoms, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 023001 (2018)

2018
[31]

Kornjaˇ ca, R

M. Kornjaˇ ca, R. Samajdar, T. Macr` ı, N. Gemelke, S.-T. Wang, and F. Liu, Trimer quantum spin liquid in a honeycomb array of Rydberg atoms, Commun. Phys. 6, 358 (2023)

2023
[32]

Browaeys and T

A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with indiv id- ually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys. 16, 132 (2020)

2020
[33]

A. Celi, B. V ermersch, O. Viyuela, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and P . Zoller, Emerging two-dimensional gauge theories in Rydberg conﬁgurable arrays, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021057 (2020)

2020
[34]

X. Wu, X. Liang, Y . Tian, F. Yang, C. Chen, Y .-C. Liu, M. K. Tey, and L. Y ou, A concise review of Rydberg atom based quantum computation and quantum simulation, Chinese Phys. B 30, 020305 (2021)

2021
[35]

Juli` a-Farr´ e, J

S. Juli` a-Farr´ e, J. Arg¨ uello-Luengo, L. Henriet, an d A. Dauphin, Quantized Thouless pumps protected by interactions in dimerized Rydberg tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. A 110, 023328 (2024)

2024
[36]

Mukherjee, G

K. Mukherjee, G. W. Biedermann, and R. J. Lewis-Swan, In - ﬂuence of disordered and anisotropic interactions on relax ation dynamics and propagation of correlations in tweezer arrays of Rydberg dipoles, arXiv:2408.07643 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[37]

T. F. J. Poon, X.-C. Zhou, B.-Z. Wang, T.-H. Yang, and X.-J. Liu, Fractional quantum anomalous Hall phase for Raman superarray of Rydberg atoms, Adv. Quantum Technol. 7, 2300356 (2023)

2023
[38]

Juli` a-Farr´ e, J

S. Juli` a-Farr´ e, J. V ovrosh, and A. Dauphin, Amorphou s quantum magnets in a two-dimensional Rydberg atom array, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012602 (2024)

2024
[39]

Homeier, S

L. Homeier, S. Hollerith, S. Geier, N.-C. Chiu, A. Browa eys, and L. Pollet, Supersolidity in Rydberg tweezer arrays, arXiv:2407.12752 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[40]

V . S. Liu, M. Bintz, M. Block, R. Samajdar, J. Kemp, and N. Y . Yao, Supersolidity and simplex phases in spin-1 Rydberg ato m arrays, arXiv:2407.17554 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[41]

De L´ es´ eleuc, V

S. De L´ es´ eleuc, V . Lienhard, P . Scholl, D. Barredo, S.Weber, N. Lang, H. P . B¨ uchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Observa- tion of a symmetry-protected topological phase of interact ing bosons with Rydberg atoms, Science 365, 775 (2019)

2019
[42]

Steinert, P

L.-M. Steinert, P . Osterholz, R. Eberhard, L. Festa, N. Lorenz, Z. Chen, A. Trautmann, and C. Gross, Spa- tially tunable spin interactions in neutral atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 243001 (2023)

2023
[43]

Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, and H. Pichler, Quantum dimer model s with Rydberg gadgets, arXiv:2402.10651 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[44]

Liu, S.-Y

L.-Y .-N. Liu, S.-Y . Y u, S.-R. Peng, J. Sheng, S. Yi, P . Xu , S.- S. Gong, T. Shi, and J. Cui, Novel ground states and emergent quantum many-body scars in a two-species Rydberg atom array, arXiv:2408.15965 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[45]

Labuhn, D

H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. De L´ es´ eleuc, T. Ma cr` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two-dimensional arrays of single Rydberg atoms for realizing quantum Ising models, Nature 534, 667 (2016)

2016
[46]

Bernien, S

H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omra n, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

2017
[47]

Schlosser, D

M. Schlosser, D. O. de Mello, D. Sch¨ affner, T. Preuschoff, L. Kohfahl, and G. Birkl, As- sembled arrays of Rydberg-interacting atoms, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 144001 (2020)

2020
[48]

Semeghini, H

G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wan g, D. Bluvstein, R. V erresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Sama- jdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simula...

2021
[49]

Scholl, M

P . Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eber- harter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V . Lienhard, L.-P . Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, et al. , Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hundreds of Rydberg atoms, Nature 595, 233 (2021)

2021
[50]

Ebadi, T

S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghin i, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, et al., Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

2021
[51]

Signoles, T

A. Signoles, T. Franz, R. Ferracini Alves, M. G¨ arttner , S. Whitlock, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Glassy dy- namics in a disordered Heisenberg quantum spin system, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011011 (2021)

2021
[52]

Scholl, H

P . Scholl, H. J. Williams, G. Bornet, F. Wallner, D. Barr edo, L. Henriet, A. Signoles, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, S. Geier, A. Tebben, A. Salzinger, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lahaye, M. Wei- dem¨ uller, and A. Browaeys, Microwave engineering of pro- grammable XXZ Hamiltonians in arrays of Ry...

2022
[53]

H¨ olzl, A

C. H¨ olzl, A. G¨ otzelmann, E. Pultinevicius, M. Wirth, and F. Meinert, Long-lived circular Rydberg qubits of alkaline-earth atoms in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021024 (2024)

2024
[54]

Bornet, G

G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, F. Machado, S. Chern, L. Leclerc, B. G´ ely, Y . T. Chew, D. Barredo, T. La- haye, N. Y . Yao, and A. Browaeys, Enhancing a many-body dipolar Rydberg tweezer array with arbitrary local control s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 263601 (2024)

2024
[55]

T. L. Nguyen, J. M. Raimond, C. Sayrin, R. Corti˜ nas, T. Cantat-Moltrecht, F. Assemat, I. Dotsenko, S. Gleyzes, S. Haroche, G. Roux, T. Jolicoeur, and M. Brune, To- wards quantum simulation with circular Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011032 (2018)

2018
[56]

T. F. Gallagher, Rydberg Atoms, Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 1994)

1994
[57]

Kleppner, Inhibited spontaneous emission, Phys

D. Kleppner, Inhibited spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 233 (1981) . 15

1981
[58]

R. G. Hulet, E. S. Hilfer, and D. Kleppner, In- hibited spontaneous emission by a Rydberg atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2137 (1985)

1985
[59]

circular

R. G. Hulet and D. Kleppner, Rydberg atoms in “circular” states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1430 (1983)

1983
[60]

Liang, M

J. Liang, M. Gross, P . Goy, and S. Haroche, Circular Rydb erg- state spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 33, 4437 (1986)

1986
[61]

A. A. Morgan, V . Zhelyazkova, and S. D. Hogan, Prepa- ration of circular Rydberg states in helium with n ≥ 70 using a modiﬁed version of the crossed-ﬁelds method, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043416 (2018)

2018
[62]

Cantat-Moltrecht, R

T. Cantat-Moltrecht, R. Corti˜ nas, B. Ravon, P . M´ ehai gnerie, S. Haroche, J. M. Raimond, M. Favier, M. Brune, and C. Sayrin, Long-lived circular Rydberg states of laser-cooled rubidi um atoms in a cryostat, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022032 (2020)

2020
[63]

Ravon, P

B. Ravon, P . M´ ehaignerie, Y . Machu, A. D. Hern´ andez, M. Favier, J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and C. Sayrin, Array of individual circular Rydberg atoms trapped in optical tweez ers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 093401 (2023)

2023
[64]

W. P . Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in p oly- acetylene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

1979
[65]

M´ ehaignerie, Y

P . M´ ehaignerie, Y . Machu, A. D. Hern´ andez, G. Creutze r, D. J. Papoular, J.-M. Raimond, C. Sayrin, and M. Brune, In- teracting circular Rydberg atoms trapped in optical tweeze rs, arXiv:2407.04109 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[66]

M´ ehaignerie,Interactions between optically-trapped circular Rydberg atoms for quantum simulation , PhD thesis, Sorbonne Universit´ e (2023)

P . M´ ehaignerie,Interactions between optically-trapped circular Rydberg atoms for quantum simulation , PhD thesis, Sorbonne Universit´ e (2023)

2023
[67]

Signoles, A

A. Signoles, A. Facon, D. Grosso, I. Dotsenko, S. Haroch e, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Conﬁned quantum Zeno dynamics of a watched atomic arrow, Nat. Phys. 10, 715 (2014)

2014
[68]

Kruckenhauser, R

A. Kruckenhauser, R. van Bijnen, T. V . Zache, M. Di Liberto, and P . Zoller, High-dimensional SO(4)- symmetric Rydberg manifolds for quantum simulation, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 015020 (2023)

2023
[69]

S. R. Cohen and J. D. Thompson, Quantum computing with circular Rydberg atoms, PRX Quantum 2, 030322 (2021)

2021
[70]

R. C. Teixeira, A. Larrouy, A. Muni, L. Lachaud, J.-M. Raimond, S. Gleyzes, and M. Brune, Preparation of long- lived, non-autoionizing circular Rydberg states of stront ium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 263001 (2020)

2020
[71]

Weber, C

S. Weber, C. Tresp, H. Menke, A. Urvoy, O. Firstenberg, H . P . B¨ uchler, and S. Hofferberth, Calculation of Rydberg interaction potentials, J. Phys. B 50, 133001 (2017)

2017
[72]

J. M. Brown and A. Carrington, Rotational Spectroscopy of Diatomic Molecules , Cambridge Molecular Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , 2003)

2003
[73]

Bravyi, D

S. Bravyi, D. P . DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrieffer– Wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Ann. Phys. 326, 2793 (2011)

2011
[74]

Matsubara and H

T. Matsubara and H. Matsuda, A lattice model of liquid he lium, I, Prog. Theor. Phys. 16, 569 (1956)

1956
[75]

M´ ehaignerie, C

P . M´ ehaignerie, C. Sayrin, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and G. Roux, Spin-motion coupling in a circular- Rydberg-state quantum simulator: Case of two atoms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 063106 (2023)

2023
[76]

N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spielman, Topologic al bands for ultracold atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015005 (2019)

2019
[77]

Aidelsburger, M

M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, Realization of the Hofstadter Hamiltonian with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185301 (2013)

2013
[78]

Baskaran, D

G. Baskaran, D. Sen, and R. Shankar, Spin- S Kitaev model: Classical ground states, order from disorder, and exact cor rela- tion functions, Phys. Rev. B 78, 115116 (2008)

2008
[79]

Malkova, S

N. Malkova, S. Kim, and V . Gopalan, Symmetrical perturb a- tion analysis of complex two-dimensional photonic crystal s, Phys. Rev. B 66, 115113 (2002)

2002
[80]

Bj¨ orkman, S

T. Bj¨ orkman, S. Kurasch, O. Lehtinen, J. Kotakoski, O. V . Yazyev, A. Srivastava, V . Skakalova, J. H. Smet, U. Kaiser, and A. V . Krasheninnikov, Defects in bilayer silica and graphen e: common trends in diverse hexagonal two-dimensional system s, Sci. Rep. 3, 3482 (2013)

2013
[81]

Leconte and J

N. Leconte and J. Jung, Commensurate and incommensurat e double moire interference in graphene encapsulated by hexa g- onal boron nitride, 2D Mater. 7, 031005 (2020)

2020
[83]

S. K. Dutta, J. R. Guest, D. Feldbaum, A. Walz-Flannigan , and G. Raithel, Ponderomotive optical lattice for Rydberg atom s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5551 (2000)

2000
[84]

Barredo, V

D. Barredo, V . Lienhard, P . Scholl, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T.Boulier, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Three-dimensional trapping of in- dividual Rydberg atoms in ponderomotive bottle beam traps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 023201 (2020)

2020
[85]

J. T. Wilson, S. Saskin, Y . Meng, S. Ma, R. Dilip, A. P . Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Trapping alkaline earth Rydberg atoms optical tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 033201 (2022)

2022
[86]

Wirth, C

M. Wirth, C. H¨ olzl, A. G¨ otzelmann, E. Pultinevicius, and 16 F. Meinert, Quadrupole coupling of circular Rydberg qubits to inner shell excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 123403 (2024)

2024
[87]

R. G. Corti˜ nas, M. Favier, B. Ravon, P . M´ ehaignerie, Y. Machu, J. M. Raimond, C. Sayrin, and M. Brune, Laser trapping of cir- cular Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 123201 (2020)

2020
[88]

Signoles, E

A. Signoles, E. K. Dietsche, A. Facon, D. Grosso, S. Haro che, J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Coherent transfer between low-angular-momentum and circular Rydberg states , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 253603 (2017)

2017
[89]

Cheret, F

M. Cheret, F. Roussel, T. Bolzinger, G. Spiess, J. Hare, and M. Gross, Barium circular atoms prepared by the crossed-ﬁel d method, EPL 9, 231 (1989)

1989
[90]

Lutwak, J

R. Lutwak, J. Holley, P . P . Chang, S. Paine, D. Klepp- ner, and T. Ducas, Circular states of atomic hydrogen, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1443 (1997)

1997
[91]

Patsch, D

S. Patsch, D. M. Reich, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, S. Gleyz es, and C. P . Koch, Fast and accurate circularization of a Rydber g atom, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053418 (2018)

2018
[92]

Larrouy, S

A. Larrouy, S. Patsch, R. Richaud, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, C. P . Koch, and S. Gleyzes, Fast navigation in a large Hilbert space using quantum optimal control, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021058 (2020)

2020
[93]

H¨ uls, private communication (2024)

M. H¨ uls, private communication (2024)

2024
[94]

Cardman and G

R. Cardman and G. Raithel, Circularizing Ry- dberg atoms with time-dependent optical traps, Phys. Rev. A 101, 013434 (2020)

2020
[95]

Labuhn, S

H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, D. Barredo, L. B´ eguin, F. Nogrett e, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Single-atom addressing in mi- crotraps for quantum-state engineering using Rydberg atom s, Phys. Rev. A 90, 023415 (2014)

2014
[96]

A. Muni, L. Lachaud, A. Couto, M. Poirier, R. C. Teix- eira, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Optical co- herent manipulation of alkaline-earth circular Rydberg st ates, Nat. Phys. 18, 502 (2022)

2022
[98]

T. L. Nguyen, Study of dipole-dipole interaction between Ryd- berg atoms - Toward quantum simulation with Rydberg atoms , PhD thesis, Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie (2016)

2016
[99]

Dietsche, Quantum sensing with Rydberg Schr¨ odinger cat states, PhD thesis, Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie (2017)

E.-K. Dietsche, Quantum sensing with Rydberg Schr¨ odinger cat states, PhD thesis, Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie (2017)

2017
[100]

H. Wu, R. Richaud, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyze s, Millisecond-lived circular Rydberg atoms in a room- temperature experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 023202 (2023)

2023
[101]

Osterwalder and F

A. Osterwalder and F. Merkt, Using high Rydberg states as elec- tric ﬁeld sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1831 (1999)

1999
[102]

Huber, A

T. Huber, A. Lambrecht, J. Schmidt, L. Karpa, and T. Schaetz, A far-off-resonance optical trap for a Ba + ion, Nat. Commun. 5, 5587 (2014)

2014
[103]

Borkowski, L

M. Borkowski, L. Reichs¨ ollner, P . Thekkeppatt, V . Bar b´ e, T. van Roon, K. van Druten, and F. Schreck, Active sta- bilization of kilogauss magnetic ﬁelds to the ppm level for magnetoassociation on ultranarrow Feshbach resonance s, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 94, 073202 (2023)

2023
[104]

Rogora, R

C. Rogora, R. Cominotti, C. Baroni, D. Andreoni, G. Lam- poresi, A. Zenesini, and G. Ferrari, Progress toward a zero- magnetic-ﬁeld environment for ultracold-atom experiment s, Phys. Rev. A 110, 013319 (2024)

2024
[784]

82 G, 678

07 G, 727. 82 G, 678. 36 G, 656. 33 G, 617. 97 G

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [82]

J¨ unemann, A

J. J¨ unemann, A. Piga, S.-J. Ran, M. Lewenstein, M. Rizz i, and A. Bermudez, Exploring interacting topological insula tors with ultracold atoms: The synthetic Creutz-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031057 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [1]

magic angle

Transverse (spin-exchange) interactions We start by examining the spin-exchange coefﬁcient C+−, which is shown in Fig. 1 as a function of θ andEdc, for dif- ferent combinations of spin species. For a pair of CC spins [Fig. 1(a)], the coefﬁcient C+− is simply given by the ﬁrst-order dipolar interaction, i.e., the matrix element ⟨⇑⇓ | ˆV (j,k)|⇓⇑⟩. Since th...

[3] [2]

can be ex- pressed as ˆHeﬀ = N∑ j=1 ˆh(j) + ∑ j<k ˆV (j,k) eﬀ . (6) All the effective spin interaction coefﬁcients can be there - fore calculated from the appropriate interaction matrix el e- 5 ments: Cj z = ⟨ ↑j ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ˆh(j) ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ↑j ⟩ − ⟨ ↓j ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ˆh(j) ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ↓j ⟩ + N∑ k⁄=j U jk ↑↑ +U jk ↑↓ −U jk ↓↑ −U jk ↓↓ 2 , (7) Cj + = N∑ k⁄=j ⟨ ↑j↑k ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ˆV (j,k) eﬀ ⏐...

[4] [3]

Cj z has been given earlier in Eq

Local Zeeman ﬁeld acting on individual spins We now analyze the local effective Zeeman ﬁeld Cj z acting on individual spins. Cj z has been given earlier in Eq. (

[5] [4]

The procedure for each (j,k ) is as follows

are obtained by evaluating the two-body interaction Hamiltonian ˆH (j,k) 2 = ˆh(j) + ˆh(k) + ˆV (j,k) for each pair of atoms (j,k ), restricting it to the subspace of effective spin states, and extracting the effective intera ction coefﬁcients from its matrix elements. The procedure for each (j,k ) is as follows. We build an extensive basis of pair states...

[6] [5]

U coefﬁcients

Effective energy-shift terms U Next, we consider the diagonal termsUσσ′ , which represent the interaction-induced energy shifts of speciﬁc effectiv e spin states |σ,σ ′⟩. These “U coefﬁcients” are crucial, as they make up the longitudinal interaction Czz and affect the local effec- tive Zeeman ﬁelds Cj z . Figure 2 shows the Uσσ′ coefﬁcients for different...

[7] [6]

J. T. Zhang, L. R. B. 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

[8] [7]

(13b) The ﬁrst term (Eq

as Cj z = ( ⟨↑j|ˆh(j)|↑j⟩ − ⟨↓j|ˆh(j)|↓j⟩ ) (13a) + ∑ k⁄=j U jk ↑↑ +U jk ↑↓ −U jk ↓↑ −U jk ↓↓ 2 . (13b) The ﬁrst term (Eq. ( 13a)) corresponds to the energy differ- ence between the two n manifolds corresponding to pseudo- spin states (n,n + 1 or n′,n ′ + 2). For Rydberg states this difference is on the order of 10 GHz. It is usually the largest energy sc...