Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Coherent control over the high-dimensional space of the nuclear spin of alkaline-earth atoms

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quadratic laser shift lets any chosen pair of strontium-87's ten nuclear spin states be rotated coherently while the other eight states stay untouched.

desk verdict Solid four-state demonstration of selective Raman rotations in 87Sr; the full-SU(10) control claim outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01731 v3 pith:SEQQALUU submitted 2025-01-03 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

Husain Ahmed , Andrea Litvinov , Pauline Guesdon , Etienne Maréchal , John H. Huckans , Benjamin Pasquiou , Bruno Laburthe-Tolra , Martin Robert-de-Saint-Vincent This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords tensorlightshiftnuclearspinquditstrontium-87RamantransitionsSU(N)symmetryRamseyinterferometrysimultaneousmeasurementultracoldatoms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper shows that a purely quadratic laser-induced shift of the ten Zeeman levels of fermionic strontium-87 makes Raman transitions between any chosen pair of spin states resonant while all other transitions stay far off resonance. The resulting evolution is a rotation generated by one SU(10) generator, not just precession of a spin vector. The authors demonstrate Rabi oscillations between a selected pair with no measurable population leakage, Ramsey coherence persisting beyond three seconds when the shift beam is off, and two four-state interferometer schemes: one sensing two external fields in parallel, the other reading out two non-commuting collective observables in a single shot.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tensor light shift $U_{TLS}(m_F)=q m_F^2$, produced by a $\pi$-polarized beam tuned within the hyperfine structure of the $^1S_0 \to {}^3P_1$ transition. Because adjacent Raman resonances are separated by multiples of $2q/h$, setting the Raman detuning picks out one pair of Zeeman states; with Raman intensity far below the tensor-shift beam intensity, off-resonant couplings are negligible. The resulting evolution is a rotation on a sub-Bloch sphere with generator $\sigma^x_{m_F,m_F'}$, and concatenating such rotations with $\sigma^z$ phases and coherent transfers to ancillary states produces the interferometric sequences that implement parallel field sensing and simultaneous non-commuting observable readout.

What would settle it

Drive a $\delta m_F=1$ Raman transition on a pair not among $\{-9/2,-7/2,-5/2,-3/2\}$, such as $-1/2 \leftrightarrow +1/2$, at the current bias $b\simeq -3q$. If neighboring Zeeman populations change by more than a few percent over a $\pi/2$ pulse, or if clean Rabi oscillations cannot be produced without multi-level leakage, the claim of full-manifold SU(10) control is falsified; the paper's own observation of uncontrolled transfers already indicates this failure mode, and the proposed fix of a higher field bias remains untested.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a tensor light shift $U_{TLS}(m_F)=q m_F^2$ turns the ground-state $F=9/2$ manifold of $^{87}$Sr into a controllable qudit register: with the two-photon Raman coupling weak compared to $2|q|$, the dynamics between a selected pair $(m_F,m_F')$ is well approximated by $\exp(-i\theta \sigma^x_{m_F,m_F'}/2)$, and the orthogonal manifold is essentially untouched. This implements unitary operations deriving from generators of the $\mathrm{su}(10)$ algebra, beyond the spin-$F$ representation of $\mathrm{su}(2)$. Concretely, the paper demonstrates Rabi oscillations between $m_F=-5/2$ and $-3/2$ with short-time contrast consistent with 1 and less than 1% population growth in the neighboring state, a Ramsey interferometer between $-7/2$ and $-5/2$ with no discernible contrast loss over 3 s when the tensor-shift beam is off, two parallel Ramsey interferometers that yield simultaneous readouts of the quadratic and linear Zeeman shifts, and a four-state measurement sequence that estimates two orthogonal collective pseudo-spin projections in a single experimental realization. The demonstrations use four of the ten states; the authors argue that the remaining pairs become addressable with a larger magnetic field bias $b>|q|(2F-1)$.

Load-bearing premise

The toolkit's reach over all ten states assumes the tensor shift is purely quadratic and the linear shift $b$ is controllable enough that every Zeeman pair is spectrally isolated; the paper demonstrates this only for four states and reports uncontrolled transfers on other pairs because $b\simeq -3q$ creates quasi-degeneracies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rotations restricted to any pair of Zeeman states realize generators of $\mathrm{su}(10)$, so arbitrary unitary operations and full spin-state tomography become possible in principle.
  • Long-lived Ramsey coherence, exceeding 3 s with the tensor-shift beam off, makes the nuclear-spin qubit useful for long-interrogation-time sensing and quantum information storage.
  • Parallel Ramsey interferometers measure $q$ and $b$ in each shot, enabling common-mode noise rejection and correlation analysis of field fluctuations.
  • The four-state measurement sequence gives simultaneous estimates of two orthogonal collective pseudo-spin projections, with only an added $N_{\mathrm{at}}/4$ variance term.
  • Combining $\delta m_F=1$ and $\delta m_F=2$ transitions covers 17 generators, and with a larger bias $b>|q|(2F-1)$ the whole ten-state manifold should become addressable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same tensor-shift addressing should transfer to other fermionic alkaline-earth-like atoms, such as Yb, Cd, or Hg, whose $^3P_1$ hyperfine-to-linewidth ratio is favorable, potentially giving SU(N) control in species with larger nuclear spin.
  • Shaped Raman pulses or optimal control, as the paper's own simulations suggest, could operate at $2|q|/\hbar\Omega_R \lesssim 1$ and perform full $\mathrm{su}(10)$ unitaries in roughly $30\hbar/|q|$, a speedup relative to the spectrally isolated regime used here.
  • The four-state non-commuting readout could be extended to all three spin projections of an ensemble of pseudo-spins 1/2, or to pseudo-spins larger than 1/2, at the cost of increased quantum projection noise, since ten states are available.
  • If the condition $b>|q|(2F-1)$ is not satisfied, the claimed complete SU(10) control over the whole manifold fails; the paper's data already show uncontrolled transfers outside the tested subset, so a direct test with other Zeeman pairs would settle the scope of the toolkit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports experimental demonstration of coherent Raman manipulation of nuclear-spin Zeeman states of ultracold 87Sr (F=9/2), using a tensor light shift U_TLS(m_F)=q m_F^2 to spectrally isolate transitions between selected pairs. It shows Rabi oscillations for Δm_F=1 between |−5/2⟩ and |−3/2⟩, Δm_F=2 oscillations between |−7/2⟩ and |−3/2⟩, and Ramsey fringes between |−7/2⟩ and |−5/2⟩ that retain full contrast for 3 s when the TLS beam is off. It then implements two four-state protocols: two parallel Ramsey interferometers that simultaneously determine q and b, and an ancillary-state mapping that provides simultaneous estimates of two non-commuting collective spin components of an ensemble of effective qubits. The paper claims that these operations implement generators of su(10) and constitute a toolkit for fully exploiting the 10-state manifold.

Significance. The direct observations, Rabi oscillations, Ramsey contrast, the phase relations (1) and (2), and the ancillary-state readout, are clearly presented with error bars and parameter sets; the phase relations φ1=T(4q−b)/ℏ and φ2=T(8q−b)/ℏ are parameter-free given the quadratic-shift spectrum. The 3-s coherence of a nuclear-spin superposition and the parallelism of two interferometers are of genuine interest for quantum sensing and for SU(N)-symmetric quantum simulation. However, the full-manifold su(10) claim is stronger than the demonstrated subset: only four of ten states are controlled, and the paper's own Sec. IV reports uncontrolled transfers outside this subset for the applied field b≈−3q. The response to the skeptic's concern therefore lands: the central four-state interferometry is internally consistent, but the full-toolkit conclusion rests on an unverified extrapolation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV (last paragraph) and Sec. VI] The central su(10)-toolkit claim is not supported by the reported data. The paper states that "when driving atoms in other states, we observed uncontrolled population transfers," attributing this to b≈−3q, and the proposed remedy b>|q|(2F−1) is not implemented. For the reported values b/h=960(5) Hz and q/h=−320 Hz, one has b≈−3q and b<|q|(2F−1)=2560 Hz, so the Zeeman spectrum is non-monotonic and resonances for different pairs overlap. Thus the demonstrations are confined to m_F∈{−9/2,−7/2,−5/2,−3/2}, and the conclusion that concatenating Δm_F=1,2 pulses implements all of su(10) is an extrapolation to an untested regime. Either demonstrate the higher-field regime or restrict the abstract and conclusion to the demonstrated four-state subset.
  2. [Sec. VI] The statement "We demonstrated these on four out of ten levels, with high fidelity >0.99" is inconsistent with the Δm_F=2 Rabi data in Sec. IV, where the 1/e damping time of 40(5) ms limits the π/2-pulse fidelity to approximately 0.90. The >0.99 fidelity derived from the Δm_F=1 Rabi experiment cannot be transferred to the four-state demonstration as a whole. Please report the fidelity separately for each demonstrated transition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III] The procedure of recalibrating η(−3/2) by up to 6% on the basis of extremal population estimates should be propagated into the error budget; otherwise the fidelity and population-normalization claims are not fully reproducible.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 2a] The green fit is a heuristic damped sine, and the red dashed curve comes from a master-equation simulation with an adjustable coherence-decay rate Γ_q; the text should state clearly that Γ_q is an empirical parameter fitted to these data and not independently measured.
  3. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (7)] The derivation of Var(Ô_{y,z}) = Var(ŝ_{y,z}) + N_at/4 is stated without proof; a brief sketch or a pointer to supplemental material would make the statistical claim easier to verify.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. V.B] The phrase "simultaneously measures multiple observables ... including non-commuting ones" could be misread; because the measured operators Ôz and Ôy commute (Eq. (6)), please state earlier that the scheme infers non-commuting observables of the original state from commuting measurements in an enlarged Hilbert space.
  5. [Throughout] The notation "su(N)" and "su(2)" appears in several places due to formatting; this should be corrected to "SU(N)" and "SU(2)" for consistency with standard usage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's control demonstrations are direct measurements, and fitted parameters are calibrations rather than predicted outputs.

full rationale

The central claims are direct experimental observations: Rabi oscillations between m_F=-5/2 and -3/2 with less than 1% leakage into neighboring states, Ramsey fringes with no resolvable contrast decay over 3 s when the tensor light shift is off, and two interferometric schemes using four states. The phase relations in Eqs. (1) and (2), phi1=T(4q-b)/hbar and phi2=T(8q-b)/hbar, are algebraic consequences of the assumed energy spectrum E_m = b m + q m^2; they are not definitions that presuppose the measured phases. The values of q and b are extracted from fringe periods and independently checked by Raman spectroscopy, so they are calibrations rather than the claimed result. The master-equation simulations in Sec. IV use adjustable parameters (Raman coupling, coherence decay rate, and the empirical Gamma_q term) to model the observed damping, but those fits do not generate the core control or coherence claims. The self-citations, e.g. Ref. [29] for spin-selective momentum transfer and Ref. [38] for the tensor-light-shift Hamiltonian, support the measurement techniques and physical background; they are not the load-bearing evidence for the demonstrated operations. The unverified extrapolation from four demonstrated states to full su(10) control, conditioned on b > |q|(2F-1), is an unsupported generalization or a correctness risk, but it is not circular: it does not reduce the claimed result to the paper's inputs by construction. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own measured data, and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quadratic-in-m_F form of the tensor shift, the isolation of two-level Raman subsystems, a clean single-spin initial state, and calibrated detection. Several decoherence and noise parameters are fitted to the same data that they are used to explain, which limits independent support for the model but not the direct observations.

free parameters (8)
  • Raman Rabi frequency Ω_R = 71 Hz (δm=1); 29(3) Hz (δm=2); 93 Hz (Ramsey); 77 Hz (parallel); 76 Hz (four-state)
    Calibrated by damped sinusoidal fits to Rabi oscillations; pulse area θ=∫Ω_R dt determines rotation angles and all π/2 pulses.
  • Tensor light shift coefficient q/h = -320, -190, -300, -95, -330 Hz across runs; -303(8) Hz from double interferometer
    Set by TLS beam intensity; creates the quadratic m_F^2 splitting that isolates Raman pairs; value enters the phase relations φ1=T(4q-b)/ℏ and φ2=T(8q-b)/ℏ.
  • Linear Zeeman/vector shift b/h = 1000(45) Hz from double interferometer; b≈-3q in most runs
    Together with q it sets resonance conditions; its value is responsible for uncontrolled transfers in untested states.
  • Empirical coherence decay rate Γ_q = 1.2 s^-1
    Ad hoc term Γ_q |m1^2-m2^2| added to the master equation to reproduce observed Rabi damping; fitted to the same data.
  • Spontaneous emission scaling factor = 3
    Heuristic factor multiplying spontaneous-emission rates to account for ASE pedestal; adopted in master-equation simulations.
  • Detection efficiency η(m_F) = 0.65 (-7/2), 0.70 (-5/2), 0.51 (-3/2); η(-3/2) recalibrated by up to 6%
    Calibrated from single-state clouds; recalibrated post hoc to cap population estimates at 1.
  • Master-equation linear Zeeman correction = 18 Hz
    Single adjustable parameter in the Fig. 5 simulation used to match the measured four-state data.
  • Ramsey phase-noise diffusion constant D = D=0.14(1) rad^2/ms with TLS; D=0.021(2) rad^2/ms without TLS
    Fitted to the variance of interferometer phase versus T; used to characterize sensitivity and decoherence sources.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Energies of the 10 Zeeman sublevels in the 87Sr ground state are E(m_F) = b m_F + q m_F^2 up to a common scalar shift.
    Used to compute all Raman resonance conditions and the interferometer phase equations (1) and (2); requires the tensor light shift to be exactly quadratic in m_F.
  • domain assumption The Raman coupling between a selected pair of states is an isolated two-level system; all other Raman processes are far off resonance.
    Core of the selective-rotation method; in the experiment I_R/I_TLS≤1e-4 so 2q/h≫Ω_R. The paper notes this fails for untested states due to b≈-3q degeneracies.
  • domain assumption The initial atomic sample is a pure or nearly pure m_F=-5/2 spin state.
    Prepared by optical pumping and state-selective radiation-pressure removal; residual population in other Zeeman states is below 1%.
  • domain assumption Population measurements are linear in atom number with calibrated detection efficiencies η(m_F).
    Detection efficiencies are measured on single-state clouds; η(-3/2) fluctuated and was corrected by up to 6% post hoc.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin decoherence can be modeled by an exponential rate Γ_q |m1^2-m2^2| plus photon scattering.
    The term with Γ_q=1.2 s^-1 is added empirically to the master equation to reproduce observed Rabi damping; it is not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Concatenating Δm_F=1 and Δm_F=2 transitions generates the full set of SU(10) generators.
    Stated in Section VI without proof or citation; used to argue that the demonstrated operations suffice for complete qudit control.
  • standard math Background group theory: operators σ^x_{m,m'} restricted to two-level subspaces are generators of SU(N).
    Standard SU(N) algebra assumed, invoked in Section II to identify the implemented operations as SU(N) rotations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent control over the high-dimensional space of the nuclear spin of alkaline-earth atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SEQQALUU

@misc{pith2026250101731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent control over the high-dimensional space of the nuclear spin of alkaline-earth atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SEQQALUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01731}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate coherent manipulation of the nuclear degrees of freedom of ultracold ground-state strontium 87 atoms, thus providing a toolkit for fully exploiting the corresponding large Hilbert space as a quantum resource and for quantum simulation experiments with SU(N)-symmetric matter. By controlling the resonance conditions of Raman transitions with a tensor light shift, we can perform rotations within a restricted Hilbert space of two isolated spin states among the 2F+1 = 10 possible states. These manipulations correspond to engineering unitary operations deriving from generators of the SU(N) algebra beyond what can be done by simple spin precession. We present Ramsey interferometers involving an isolated pair of Zeeman states with no measurable decoherence after 3 seconds. We also demonstrate that one can harvest the large spin degrees of freedom as a qudit resource by implementing two interferometer schemes over four states. The first scheme senses in parallel multiple external fields acting on the atoms, and the second scheme simultaneously measures multiple observables of a collective atomic state - including non-commuting ones. Engineering unitary transformations of the large spin driven by other generators than the usual spin-F representation of the SU(2) group offers new possibilities from the point of view of quantum metrology and quantum many-body physics, notably for the quantum simulation of large-spin SU(N)-symmetric quantum magnetism with fermionic alkaline-earth atoms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a, nor does artificially scaling the impact of spon￾taneous emission by a different factor. Instead, we note that there is TLS/Raman beam inhomogeneity, and em￾pirically add a decay of coherences between spin states (m1, m2) with rate Γq × |m2 1 − m2 2 |. With Γq = 1.2 s−1 , we recover excellent agreement with the data, as shown in Fig. 2a. We estimate independently, by simulations with a random distribution of (q, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: b, by protecting the TLS optical fiber from airflow. light shift for the ideal π polarization. By protecting the TLS optical fiber from airflow, only one group re￾mains, and the fluctuations become consistent with mea￾surement uncertainties (also impacted by the first …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Klempt, O

    C. Klempt, O. Topic, G. Gebreyesus, M. Scherer, T. Hen- ninger, P. Hyllus, W. Ertmer, L. Santos, and J. J. Arlt, Parametric amplification of vacuum fluctuations in a spinor condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 195303 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    J. S. Krauser, J. Heinze, N. Fl¨ aschner, S. G¨ otze, O. J¨ urgensen, D.-S. L¨ uhmann, C. Becker, and K. Sen- gstock, Coherent multi-flavour spin dynamics in a fermionic quantum gas, Nature Physics8, 813 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    S. Taie, R. Yamazaki, S. Sugawa, and Y. Takahashi, An SU(6) Mott insulator of an atomic Fermi gas realized by large-spin Pomeranchuk cooling, Nat. Phys.8, 825 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    de Paz, A

    A. de Paz, A. Sharma, A. Chotia, E. Mar´ echal, J. H. Huckans, P. Pedri, L. Santos, O. Gorceix, L. Vernac, and B. Laburthe-Tolra, Nonequilibrium quantum magnetism in a dipolar lattice gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 185305 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Pagano, M

    G. Pagano, M. Mancini, G. Cappellini, P. Lombardi, F. Sch¨ afer, H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, J. Catani, C. Sias, M. Ingus- cio, and L. Fallani, A one-dimensional liquid of fermions with tunable spin, Nat. Phys.10, 198 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Patscheider, B

    A. Patscheider, B. Zhu, L. Chomaz, D. Petter, S. Baier, A.-M. Rey, F. Ferlaino, and M. J. Mark, Controlling dipo- lar exchange interactions in a dense three-dimensional array of large-spin fermions, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023050 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Y. A. Alaoui, B. Zhu, S. R. Muleady, W. Du- bosclard, T. Roscilde, A. M. Rey, B. Laburthe-Tolra, and L. Vernac, Measuring correlations from the collective spin fluctuations of a large ensemble of lattice-trapped dipolar 13 spin-3 atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 023401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Kiktenko, A

    E. Kiktenko, A. Fedorov, A. Strakhov, and V. Man’ko, Single qudit realization of the Deutsch algorithm us- ing superconducting many-level quantum circuits, Phys. Lett. A379, 1409 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Fernholz, H

    T. Fernholz, H. Krauter, K. Jensen, J. F. Sherson, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Spin squeezing of atomic en- sembles via nuclear-electronic spin entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 073601 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Hamley, C

    C. Hamley, C. Gerving, T. Hoang, E. Bookjans, and M. Chapman, Spin-nematic squeezed vacuum in a quan- tum gas, Nat. Phys.8, 305 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Kajtoch and E

    D. Kajtoch and E. Witkowska, Spin squeezing in dipolar spinor condensates, Phys. Rev. A93, 023627 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Chalopin, C

    T. Chalopin, C. Bouazza, A. Evrard, V. Makhalov, D. Dreon, J. Dalibard, L. A. Sidorenkov, and S. Nascim- bene, Quantum-enhanced sensing using non-classical spin states of a highly magnetic atom, Nat. Commun.9, 4955 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    M. J. Peterer, S. J. Bader, X. Jin, F. Yan, A. Kamal, T. J. Gudmundsen, P. J. Leek, T. P. Orlando, W. D. Oliver, and S. Gustavsson, Coherence and decay of higher energy levels of a superconducting transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 010501 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Svetitsky, H

    E. Svetitsky, H. Suchowski, R. Resh, Y. Shalibo, J. M. Martinis, and N. Katz, Hidden two-qubit dynamics of a four-level Josephson circuit, Nat. Commun.5, 5617 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Godfrin, R

    C. Godfrin, R. Ballou, E. Bonet, M. Ruben, S. Kly- atskaya, W. Wernsdorfer, and F. Balestro, Generalized Ramsey interferometry explored with a single nuclear spin qudit, npj Quantum Inf.4, 53 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Randall, S

    J. Randall, S. Weidt, E. D. Standing, K. Lake, S. C. Web- ster, D. F. Murgia, T. Navickas, K. Roth, and W. K. Hensinger, Efficient preparation and detection of mi- crowave dressed-state qubits and qutrits with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A91, 012322 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional Hilbert spaces, Nat. Phys.5, 134 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn and M. Ueda, Spinor Bose gases: Symmetries, magnetism, and quantum dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1191 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Dipolar physics: a review of experiments with magnetic quantum gases, Rep. Prog. Phys.86, 026401 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Two-orbital SU(N) magnetism with ultracold alkaline-earth atoms, Nat. Phys.6, 289 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Hermele, V

    M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, Mott insulators of ultracold fermionic alkaline earth atoms: Undercon- strained magnetism and chiral spin liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 135301 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Corboz, K

    P. Corboz, K. Penc, F. Mila, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Simplex solids in SU(N) Heisenberg models on the kagome and checkerboard lattices, Phys. Rev. B86, 041106 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Cazalilla and A

    M. Cazalilla and A. Rey, Ultracold Fermi gases with emergent SU(N) symmetry, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 124401 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Hofrichter, L

    C. Hofrichter, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fernandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Direct probing of the Mott crossover in the SU(N) Fermi-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X6, 021030 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Ozawa, S

    H. Ozawa, S. Taie, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Anti- ferromagnetic spin correlation of SU(N) Fermi gas in an optical superlattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 225303 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    D. Tusi, L. Franchi, L. Livi, K. Baumann, D. Bene- dicto Orenes, L. Del Re, R. Barfknecht, T.-W. Zhou, M. Inguscio, G. Cappellini, M. Capone, J. Catani, and L. Fallani, Flavour-selective localization in interacting lattice fermions, Nat. Phys.18, 1201 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Leroux, K

    F. Leroux, K. Pandey, R. Rehbi, F. Chevy, C. Miniatura, B. Gr´ emaud, and D. Wilkowski, Non-Abelian adiabatic geometric transformations in a cold strontium gas, Nat. Commun.9, 3580 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Bataille, A

    P. Bataille, A. Litvinov, I. Manai, J. Huckans, F. Wiotte, A. Kaladjian, O. Gorceix, E. Mar´ echal, B. Laburthe- Tolra, and M. Robert-de Saint-Vincent, Adiabatic spin- dependent momentum transfer in an SU(N) degenerate Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A102, 013317 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Barnes, P

    K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, B. Bloom, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, N. Crisosto, J. King, S. Kondov, K. Kotru, S. Larsen, J. Lauigan, B. Lester, M. Mcdonald, E. Megidish, S. Narayanaswami, C. Nishiguchi, R. Noter- mans, L. Peng, A. Ryou, T.-Y. Wu, and M. Yarwood, Assembly and coherent c...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Deutsch and P

    I. Deutsch and P. Jessen, Quantum control and measure- ment of atomic spins in polarization spectroscopy, Opt. Commun.283, 681 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    S. Chen, C. Wu, S.-C. Zhang, and Y. Wang, Exact spontaneous plaquette ground states for high-spin lad- der models, Phys. Rev. B72, 214428 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Majorana, Atomi orientati in campo magnetico vari- abile, Il Nuovo Cimento9, 43 (1932)

    E. Majorana, Atomi orientati in campo magnetico vari- abile, Il Nuovo Cimento9, 43 (1932)

    1932

  26. [34]

    Barnett, A

    R. Barnett, A. Turner, and E. Demler, Classifying novel phases of spinor atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 180412 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    Bruno, Quantum geometric phase in Majorana’s stellar representation: Mapping onto a many-body Aharonov-Bohm phase, Phys

    P. Bruno, Quantum geometric phase in Majorana’s stellar representation: Mapping onto a many-body Aharonov-Bohm phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 240402 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Evrard, V

    A. Evrard, V. Makhalov, T. Chalopin, L. A. Sidorenkov, J. Dalibard, R. Lopes, and S. Nascimbene, Enhanced magnetic sensitivity with non-Gaussian quantum fluctu- ations, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 173601 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Omanakuttan, A

    S. Omanakuttan, A. Mitra, M. J. Martin, and I. H. Deutsch, Quantum optimal control of ten-level nuclear spin qudits in 87Sr, Phys. Rev. A104, L060401 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Burba, H

    D. Burba, H. Dunikowski, M. Robert-de-Saint-Vincent, E. Witkowska, and G. Juzeli¯ unas, Effective light-induced Hamiltonian for atoms with large nuclear spin, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033293 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Claude, L

    F. Claude, L. Lafforgue, J. J. A. Houwman, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Optical manipulation of spin states in ultracold magnetic atoms via an inner-shell hz transition, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L042016 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, and S. Kolkowitz, Reducing the in- stability of an optical lattice clock using multiple atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. X14, 011006 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    The detection efficiencies are probably limited by a lack 14 of optical power and by using rather warm clouds with momentum spread comparable to the optical recoil

  34. [42]

    Ruseckas, G

    J. Ruseckas, G. Juzeli¯ unas, P. ¨Ohberg, and M. Fleis- chhauer, Non-Abelian gauge potentials for ultracold atoms with degenerate dark states, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 010404 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    We look for a trial model for which a least-square si- nusoidal fit estimates the same amplitude and with the same residuals as the data. Note that the peak-to-peak amplitude of the sinusoidal fit is generally smaller than the contrast of the interferogram: an interferogram wi...

  36. [44]

    Baamara, M

    Y. Baamara, M. Gessner, and A. Sinatra, Quantum- enhanced multiparameter estimation and compressed sensing of a field, SciPost Phys.14, 050 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Kunkel, M

    P. Kunkel, M. Pr¨ ufer, S. Lannig, R. Rosa-Medina, A. Bonnin, M. G¨ arttner, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Simultaneous readout of noncommuting col- lective spin observables beyond the standard quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 063603 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    S. L. Campbell, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, A. Goban, N. D. Oppong, R. L. McNally, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, W. Zhang, B. J. Bloom, and J. Ye, A Fermi- degenerate three-dimensional optical lattice clock, Sci- ence358, 90 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Savoie, M

    D. Savoie, M. Altorio, B. Fang, L. A. Sidorenkov, R. Geiger, and A. Landragin, Interleaved atom inter- ferometry for high-sensitivity inertial measurements, Sci. Adv.4, eaau7948 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Schioppo, R

    M. Schioppo, R. C. Brown, W. F. McGrew, N. Hinkley, R. J. Fasano, K. Beloy, T. H. Yoon, G. Milani, D. Ni- colodi, J. A. Sherman, N. B. Phillips, C. W. Oates, and A. D. Ludlow, Ultrastable optical clock with two cold- atom ensembles, Nat. Photonics11, 48 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Cheiney, L

    P. Cheiney, L. Fouch´ e, S. Templier, F. Napolitano, B. Battelier, P. Bouyer, and B. Barrett, Navigation- compatible hybrid quantum accelerometer using a Kalman filter, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 034030 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Gessner, A

    M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Multiparameter squeezing for optimal quantum enhancements in sensor networks, Nat. Commun.11, 3817 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    We could equally have used an incoherent mixture of these two states

  44. [52]

    Technically,qandbcan also be time-varying during the interferometer sequence, and the interferometers are sen- sitive to their time-averages. Fluctuations of (q, b) at the timescale ofTwill be properly retrieved by the combined interferometers providedT≫1/Ω R, or if an additio...

  45. [53]

    S. Taie, Y. Takasu, S. Sugawa, R. Yamazaki, T. Tsuji- moto, R. Murakami, and Y. Takahashi, Realization of a SU(2)×SU(6) system of fermions in a cold atomic gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 190401 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Stellmer, R

    S. Stellmer, R. Grimm, and F. Schreck, Detection and manipulation of nuclear spin states in fermionic stron- tium, Phys. Rev. A84, 043611 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Bidinosti, G

    C. Bidinosti, G. Tastevin, and P.-J. Nacher, Generating accurate tip angles for NMR outside the rotating-wave approximation, J. Magn. Reson.345, 107306 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  49. [57]

    Yurke, S

    B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers, Phys. Rev. A33, 4033 (1986)

    1986

  50. [58]

    Est` eve, C

    J. Est` eve, C. Gross, A. Weller, S. Giovanazzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Squeezing and entanglement in a Bose–Einstein condensate, Nature455, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Lewenstein, B

    M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Optimization of entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310 (2000)

    2000

  52. [60]

    L¨ ucke, J

    B. L¨ ucke, J. Peise, G. Vitagliano, J. Arlt, L. Santos, G. T´ oth, and C. Klempt, Detecting multiparticle entan- glement of Dicke states, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 155304 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    A. S. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and ex- treme spin squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4431 (2001)

    2001

  55. [63]

    Vitagliano, P

    G. Vitagliano, P. Hyllus, I. L. Egusquiza, and G. T´ oth, Spin squeezing inequalities for arbitrary spin, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 240502 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Lepoutre, J

    S. Lepoutre, J. Schachenmayer, L. Gabardos, B. Zhu, B. Naylor, E. Mar´ echal, O. Gorceix, A. M. Rey, L. Vernac, and B. Laburthe-Tolra, Out-of-equilibrium quantum magnetism and thermalization in a spin-3 many-body dipolar lattice system, Nat. Commun.10, 1714 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Aziz Alaoui, S

    Y. Aziz Alaoui, S. R. Muleady, E. Chaparro, Y. Trifa, A. M. Rey, T. Roscilde, B. Laburthe-Tolra, and L. Vernac, Measuring bipartite spin correlations of lattice-trapped dipolar atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 203401 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Leprince, V

    C. Leprince, V. Gondret, C. Lamirault, R. Dias, Q. Marolleau, D. Boiron, and C. I. Westbrook, Coher- ent coupling of momentum states: selectivity and phase control, arXiv , 2411.09284 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Onishchenko, S

    O. Onishchenko, S. Pyatchenkov, A. Urech, C.-C. Chen, S. Bennetts, G. A. Siviloglou, and F. Schreck, Frequency of the ultranarrow 1S0−3P2 transition in 87Sr, Phys. Rev. A99, 052503 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    map- ping

    for implementing positive-operator-valued measures (POVMs), and the literature on POVMs, e.g. to esti- mate measurement fluctuations [69], applies. Here, we have studied the case where two orthogonal pseudo-spin projections of an ensemble of qubits are measured by ex- panding ...

    2022

  61. [69]

    Peres and W

    A. Peres and W. K. Wootters, Optimal detection of quan- tum information, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1119 (1991)

    1991

  62. [70]

    Massar, Uncertainty relations for positive-operator- valued measures, Phys

    S. Massar, Uncertainty relations for positive-operator- valued measures, Phys. Rev. A76, 042114 (2007)

    2007

  63. [71]

    Pucher, V

    S. Pucher, V. Kl¨ usener, F. Spriestersbach, J. Geiger, A. Schindewolf, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, Fine-structure qubit encoded in metastable strontium trapped in an op- tical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 150605 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Nakamura, T

    Y. Nakamura, T. Kusano, R. Yokoyama, K. Saito, K. Hi- gashi, N. Ozawa, T. Takano, Y. Takasu, and Y. Taka- hashi, Hybrid atom tweezer array of nuclear spin and optical clock qubits, Phys. Rev. X14, 041062 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Satoor, A

    T. Satoor, A. Fabre, J.-B. Bouhiron, A. Evrard, R. Lopes, and S. Nascimbene, Partitioning dysprosium’s electronic spin to reveal entanglement in nonclassical states, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Bornet, G

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

    2024

  67. [75]

    Mamaev, R

    M. Mamaev, R. Blatt, J. Ye, and A. M. Rey, Cluster state generation with spin-orbit coupled fermionic atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 160402 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, 15 C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Probing R´ enyi entanglement entropy via random- ized measurements, Science364, 260 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Optimal entanglement wit- nesses: A scalable data-driven approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040401 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.