Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Blue-detuned Magneto-optical Trap of BaF molecules

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors realize a blue-detuned magneto-optical trap of BaF molecules, and their (1+2) conveyor-belt version compresses the molecular cloud to 320 µm and 240 µK, a fifty-fold density increase over the red MOT.

desk verdict Solid first BDM for BaF with a real density gain, but the conveyor-belt mechanism is under-tested and the abstract oversells the loading efficiency. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12892 v1 pith:MDMXIWFW submitted 2025-06-15 physics.atom-ph

Zixuan Zeng , Shoukang Yang , Shuhua Deng , Bo Yan This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords blue-detunedmagneto-opticaltrapconveyor-beltMOTBaFmolecularlasercoolingmovingopticallatticeType-IItransitionphase-spacedensity
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

BaF is the heaviest molecule ever held in a magneto-optical trap, and this paper reports trapping it with blue-detuned light. The two-laser (1+1) blue-detuned MOT offers only a weak trapping force for BaF, so the authors implement a (1+2) conveyor-belt MOT, where two frequency-offset beams and their retro-reflections create two counter-moving optical lattices. This configuration compresses the cloud to a radius of $320(20)\,\mu$m, cools it to $240(60)\,\mu$K, and raises the peak density to $1.3\times10^{7}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, a fifty-fold improvement over their red MOT. They also show the conveyor-belt MOT loads directly from a slowed molecular beam with near-unity efficiency over a detuning window roughly seven times wider than the red MOT.

What carries the argument

The conveyor-belt MOT is a (1+2) blue-detuned trap in which two lasers with opposite polarizations and a small frequency offset $\delta_a$ are retro-reflected to form two moving optical lattices that travel in opposite directions with speed $\delta_a/k$. Because the molecular cooling transition is Type-II, optical pumping preferentially puts molecules into the lattice moving toward the trap center, producing a much larger trapping force than a stationary blue-detuned MOT. The paper identifies the moving-lattice velocity $\pm\delta_a/k$ as the control parameter and characterizes the trap's response to $\delta_a$, the two-photon detuning $\delta_b$, the single-photon detuning $\Delta$, the magnetic gradient, and beam intensity; its intensity study shows that the $\sigma_1^-$ and $\sigma_3^+$ beams also contribute cooling and trapping, so the conveyor-belt effect is one part of a multi-mechanism compression.

What would settle it

Measure the velocity-dependent force of the conveyor-belt MOT directly, for example by sending a beam of slow BaF molecules through the (1+2) light fields and recording deflection as the frequency offset $\delta_a$ is varied: reversing the sign of $\delta_a$ should reverse the force direction if the moving-lattice mechanism dominates, while a static sub-Doppler explanation would predict no sign dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a (1+2) conveyor-belt MOT works for BaF, the heaviest molecule trapped in a MOT so far, and that it outperforms the (1+1) blue-detuned MOT for this species. With optimized parameters $\Delta=10$ MHz, $\delta_a=3$ MHz, $\delta_b=2.2$ MHz, and a magnetic-field gradient ramped to 32 G/cm, the molecular cloud shrinks by a factor of 4.5 in size and its temperature drops by more than an order of magnitude relative to the red MOT, reaching $240(60)\,\mu$K at a peak density of $1.3\times10^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$. The authors attribute the strong trapping to the conveyor-belt mechanism, while noting that the compression results from the combined action of multiple mechanisms, including sub-Doppler cooling from the $\sigma_1^-$ and $\sigma_3^+$ beams.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central attribution is that the moving-lattice conveyor-belt effect, not static sub-Doppler cooling, is what makes the (1+2) MOT compress BaF so strongly, but it does not directly measure the lattice velocity or the force profile, and its own intensity data show several mechanisms working together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BaF can be compressed to a peak density of $1.3\times10^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$ and a temperature of 240 µK, making loading into an optical dipole trap or lattice a realistic next step.
  • The conveyor-belt MOT loads directly from a slowed molecular beam with near-unity efficiency, so for BaF the red MOT and gray-molasses stage can be bypassed.
  • The broad detuning window (about 20 MHz for direct loading) makes the conveyor-belt MOT a practical search tool when first locking onto an unknown molecular transition.
  • Because the trap works for the heaviest molecule tried, the conveyor-belt method is a promising route for other heavy diatomics where (1+1) BDMs have weak trapping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the moving-lattice picture is the dominant mechanism, the optimal lattice velocity should be proportional to $\delta_a/k$, so a measurement of loading efficiency versus $\delta_a$ at fixed single-photon detuning would directly test the model.
  • The near-unity direct-loading efficiency, achieved without gray molasses, hints that conveyor-belt MOTs could shorten the cooling chain for future molecular species, but the paper does not compare against a gray-molasses-assisted loading efficiency.
  • The lifetime stays above 100 ms even at 32 G/cm, unlike CaOH in the cited work; comparing the gradient dependence of lifetime across species may reveal whether heavy mass or hyperfine structure controls magnetic-field-induced losses.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first blue-detuned magneto-optical trap (BDM) for BaF molecules, comparing a (1+1) BDM and a (1+2) 'conveyor-belt' MOT. The authors find that the (1+1) configuration compresses the red MOT to 630(70) µm and 190(100) µK but provides weak trapping, while the (1+2) configuration compresses the cloud to 320(20) µm, 240(60) µK, and a peak density of 1.3e7 cm^-3, a 50-fold density improvement. They also report direct loading of slowed molecules into the conveyor-belt MOT with a broad detuning window and claim 'near unity' loading efficiency in the abstract.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is the first blue-detuned and conveyor-belt MOT for BaF, the heaviest molecule trapped in a MOT to date, and the demonstrated 50-fold density increase is a meaningful step toward higher phase-space density for directly laser-cooled molecules. The paper's strengths include direct in-situ images of compression, systematic parameter scans over δa, δb, Δ, B'_z, and intensity, lifetime measurements, and a direct-loading comparison between red and conveyor-belt MOTs. The empirical compression and density improvement are credible, but the conveyor-belt mechanism attribution and several quantitative claims need sharper support before publication.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (Fig. 4)] The abstract states that the loading efficiency from the red MOT 'reaches near unity', but the text in §4 reports that the conveyor-belt MOT achieves 'about half the molecular number' of the red MOT under the same fluorescence-based definition. These two statements cannot both be true for the same efficiency metric; please define the efficiency precisely and reconcile the abstract with the measured half-number result.
  2. [§2–§3 (temperature measurement)] The temperature of 240(60) µK is quoted for the optimized conveyor-belt MOT, but the paper never describes how the temperature was measured (e.g., release-recapture, time-of-flight, or Doppler method) or how the uncertainty was obtained. Since the paper concludes a temperature reduction by more than an order of magnitude, this measurement must be specified with its fit procedure and error propagation.
  3. [§3, Fig. 3(e)] The central attribution of the compression to the moving-lattice conveyor-belt mechanism is not directly tested. The manuscript states that the minimum size occurs at I1 ≈ 2·Iσ2+ and that 'the compression of the molecular cloud results from the combined action of multiple mechanisms', and no measurement of lattice velocity, sign-dependent force, or velocity-selective loading is presented. A static sub-Doppler or stationary-lattice Sisyphus mechanism remains consistent with the data; please provide a control experiment or quantitative modeling that isolates the conveyor-belt contribution, or soften the mechanism claim accordingly.
  4. [§3, after Fig. 3(d)] The peak density of 1.3e7 cm^-3 is reported without an uncertainty and without stating how it is derived from the measured number, cloud size, and temperature. Given that this value underpins the 50-fold improvement claim, please give the formula used and propagate the uncertainties from the fitted size and molecule number.
  5. [§3, Fig. 3(a) discussion] The text says that when δa = 0 MHz 'the effects of σ1− and σ2+ cancel each other out and offer zero trapping force', yet Fig. 3(a) shows good compression across δa = 0–10 MHz. Please clarify whether the σ3+ beam alone provides trapping at δa = 0, or revise the statement to specify that only the conveyor-belt component vanishes at δa = 0.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] There is a typo in 'the magnetic filed gradient stays at 8 G/cm'; it should be 'magnetic field gradient'.
  2. [Abstract and §2] The abstract gives the cloud radius as '320 µm' without the uncertainty, while the body reports 320(20) µm; please keep the uncertainty consistently in both places.
  3. [Fig. 3] The individual data points in Fig. 3(a)–(f) would benefit from error bars or a statement on the statistical uncertainty of the fitted sizes; currently only selected values have uncertainties in the text.
  4. [§4] The sentence 'This finding is consistent with our results in Fig.2 (c)' refers to a panel (c) that does not appear in Fig. 2; please correct the cross-reference.
  5. [References] Please verify that Ref. [2] (Zeng and Yan, 'Quantum Review Letters') is published and correctly titled, as this journal name is not standard in the field.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an experimental report whose operating parameters are empirically optimized and whose conveyor-belt mechanism is imported from independent prior work, not derived from the present data.

full rationale

This paper does not present a closed derivation that reduces to its inputs. The claimed results—cloud radius 320(20) μm, temperature 240(60) μK, peak density 1.3 × 10^7 cm^-3, and near-unity loading efficiency—are direct measurements from in-situ imaging and fluorescence ratios, not predictions obtained from a fitted model. The conveyor-belt MOT mechanism is attributed to moving lattices created by the (1+2) laser configuration, but the mechanism is imported from independent prior work (refs [36,38]) rather than derived here; the present authors merely implement that configuration. The experimental setup citations to their own prior work (refs [13,42,43]) are infrastructural, not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper's own caveat in Fig. 3(e)—that compression results from the combined action of multiple mechanisms and that the intensity optimum occurs at I1 ≈ 2 I_sigma2+—actually acknowledges that the conveyor-belt attribution is not uniquely tested, but that is a mechanistic ambiguity, not circularity. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or self-citation is used to force the conclusion. The central claim is therefore self-contained as an experimental report.

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

The central result is an experimental observation, so the ledger records the physical assumptions that must hold for the presentation to be valid: the BaF level structure, the applicability of the moving-lattice model, fluorescence as a number proxy, and the beam source. There are no invented entities. The listed operating parameters are optimized, not fitted model constants.

free parameters (5)
  • Single-photon detuning Delta = 10 MHz
    Optimized for minimum conveyor-belt MOT size in Fig.3(c); larger detuning weakens trapping, smaller detuning causes heating.
  • Two-photon offset detuning delta_a = 3 MHz
    Sets the moving-lattice velocity; optimized in Fig.3(a), zero gives no trapping force and 10 MHz causes heating.
  • Two-photon detuning delta_b = 2.2 MHz
    Optimized in Fig.3(b); the MOT works over roughly a 10 MHz range, including negative values.
  • Magnetic field gradient B'_z = 32 G/cm, ramped from 8 G/cm
    Higher gradients compress further; 32 G/cm is the coil current limit, as shown in Fig.3(d).
  • Beam intensity ratio I1/I_sigma2+ = about 2
    The minimum size occurs at I1 roughly twice I_sigma2+, indicating combined cooling mechanisms, as shown in Fig.3(e).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BaF hyperfine and rotational level structure used for the cooling transitions is correct.
    Figure 1 relies on BaF transition frequencies and g-factors; these are taken from prior spectroscopy [41] and prior MOT work [13], not independently measured here.
  • domain assumption The (1+2) moving-lattice conveyor-belt mechanism described in refs [36,38] applies to BaF.
    The paper attributes enhanced trapping to velocity-dependent pumping into the inward-moving lattice, but provides no direct measurement of lattice velocity or force; Fig.3(e) admits combined mechanisms.
  • domain assumption Type-II cycling transitions allow a closed cooling cycle for BaF.
    The scheme relies on the Type-II transition cycling condition from [22]; no ab initio calculation of closure is given.
  • domain assumption MOT fluorescence signal is proportional to trapped molecule number.
    Loading efficiency is inferred from fluorescence ratio under the same red MOT beam; this assumes no saturation or background variation between configurations.
  • domain assumption The buffer-gas beam and chirped slowing produce a slowed molecular beam suitable for MOT capture.
    Setups are inherited from prior work [13,42,43]; no beam velocity characterization is presented in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blue-detuned Magneto-optical Trap of BaF molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDMXIWFW

@misc{pith2026250612892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blue-detuned Magneto-optical Trap of BaF molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDMXIWFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12892}
}
read the original abstract

We report the realization of a blue-detuned magneto-optical trap (BDM) of BaF molecules. The (1 + 1) type BDM and (1 + 2) type conveyor-belt MOT are explored. While the (1+1) BDM provides only weak trapping force, the conveyor-belt MOT significantly compresses the molecular cloud, achieving a radius of 320(20) {\mu}m, a temperature of 240(60) {\mu}K, and a peak density of 1.3{\times}10^7 cm^{-3}, representing a significant improvement over the red MOT. Interestingly, the conveyor-belt MOT of BaF exhibits a large capture velocity, and the loading efficiency from red MOT reaches near unity even without gray molasses. We confirm this by directly loading slowed molecules into the conveyor-belt MOT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12892 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) The energy levels involved with BaF molecules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) The compression process of both the (1+1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (color online) The loading efficiency as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Trapping and cooling mechanisms in blue-detuned magneto-optical traps of molecules

    physics.atom-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Trapping in blue-detuned molecular MOTs is caused by a Zeeman-induced dark state, not by the standard Doppler force.

  2. Optical Trapping of SrOH Molecules for Dark Matter and T-violation Searches

    physics.atom-ph 2025-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    An optical dipole trap holds about 1,400 SrOH molecules, and eEDM- and dark-matter-sensitive vibrational states show lifetimes of 135 to 320 ms, consistent with radiative decay.

  3. Optical cycling of MgF molecules within the hyperfine states in X(N=1) state

    physics.atm-clus 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Optimized three-frequency optical cycling plus a tilted magnetic field enhances MgF P1/Q12(1) scattering by about 6x.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Langen, G

    T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Nature Physics 20, 702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Zeng and B

    Z. Zeng and B. Yan, Quantum Review Letters (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    De Marco, G

    L. De Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J. P. Covey, and J. Ye, Science 363, 853 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Schindewolf, R

    A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, X.-Y . Chen, M. Duda, T. Karman, I. Bloch, and X.-Y . Luo, Nature 607, 677 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Karman, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Nature 631, 289 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Caldwell and M

    L. Caldwell and M. Tarbutt, Physical Review Research 2, 013251 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Y . Lu, S. J. Li, C. M. Holland, and L. W. Cheuk, Nature Physics 20, 389 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Y . Bao, S. S. Yu, J. You, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.- K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Physical Review X 14, 031002 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    J. F. Barry, D. J. McCarron, E. B. Norrgard, M. H. Steinecker, and D. DeMille, Nature 512, 286 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, E. Chae, B. Hemmerling, N. R. Hutzler, A. Ravi, A. Collopy, J. Ye, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 103201 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    A. L. Collopy, S. Ding, Y . Wu, I. A. Finneran, L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, J. M. Doyle, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 213201 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, A. Winnicki, D. Mitra, and J. M. Doyle, Nature 606, 70 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Z. Zeng, S. Deng, S. Yang, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 143404 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Z. D. Lasner, A. Frenett, H. Sawaoka, L. Anderegg, B. Augen- braun, H. Lampson, M. Li, A. Lunstad, J. Mango, A. Nasir, et al., arXiv:2409.04948 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Padilla-Castillo, J

    J. Padilla-Castillo, J. Cai, P. Agarwal, P. Kukreja, R. Thomas, B. Sartakov, S. Truppe, G. Meijer, and S. Wright, arXiv:2506.02266 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, L. W. Cheuk, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Nature Physics 14, 890 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Anderegg, L

    L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science 365, 1156 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Y . Bao, S. S. Yu, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science 382, 1138 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    C. M. Holland, Y . Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, Science 382, 1143 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    L. W. Cheuk, L. Anderegg, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, S. S. Yu, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Physical review letters 125, 043401 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Anderegg, S

    L. Anderegg, S. Burchesky, Y . Bao, S. S. Yu, T. Karman, E. Chae, K.-K. Ni, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Science 373, 779 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    B. K. Stuhl, B. C. Sawyer, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Physical review letters 101, 243002 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    Tarbutt, New Journal of Physics 17, 015007 (2015)

    M. Tarbutt, New Journal of Physics 17, 015007 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Weidemüller, T

    M. Weidemüller, T. Esslinger, M. A. Ol’shanii, A. Hemmerich, and T. W. Hänsch, Europhysics Letters27, 109 (1994)

    1994

  17. [25]

    D. R. Fernandes, F. Sievers, N. Kretzschmar, S. Wu, C. Sa- lomon, and F. Chevy, Europhysics Letters 100, 63001 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Truppe, H

    S. Truppe, H. J. Williams, M. Hambach, L. Caldwell, N. J. Fitch, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Nat. Phys. 13, 1173 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    McCarron, M

    D. McCarron, M. Steinecker, Y . Zhu, and D. DeMille, Physical review letters 121, 013202 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    L. W. Cheuk, L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Physical review letters 121, 083201 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Caldwell, J

    L. Caldwell, J. Devlin, H. Williams, N. Fitch, E. Hinds, B. Sauer, and M. Tarbutt, Physical review letters 123, 033202 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    S. Ding, Y . Wu, I. A. Finneran, J. J. Burau, and J. Ye, Physical Review X 10, 021049 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Hallas, N

    C. Hallas, N. B. Vilas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, A. Winnicki, C. Zhang, L. Cheng, and J. M. Doyle, Physical Review Letters 130, 153202 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    K. N. Jarvis, J. Devlin, T. Wall, B. Sauer, and M. Tarbutt, Phys- ical review letters 120, 083201 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    J. J. Burau, P. Aggarwal, K. Mehling, and J. Ye, Physical Re- view Letters 130, 193401 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    S. J. Li, C. M. Holland, Y . Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, Physical review letters 132, 233402 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Jorapur, T

    V . Jorapur, T. K. Langin, Q. Wang, G. Zheng, and D. DeMille, Physical Review Letters 132, 163403 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    G. K. Li, C. Hallas, and J. M. Doyle, New Journal of Physics 5 27, 043002 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Hallas, G

    C. Hallas, G. K. Li, N. B. Vilas, P. Robichaud, L. Anderegg, and J. M. Doyle, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03636 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. S. Yu, J. You, Y . Bao, L. Anderegg, C. Hallas, G. K. Li, D. Lim, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15262 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    T. Chen, W. Bu, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063415 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Aggarwal, H

    P. Aggarwal, H. L. Bethlem, A. Borschevsky, M. Denis, K. Esa- jas, P. A. B. Haase, Y . Hao, S. Hoekstra, K. Jungmann, T. B. Meijknecht, M. C. Mooij, R. G. E. Timmermans, W. Ubachs, L. Willmann, A. Zapara, and N. eEDM Collaboration, Euro. Phys. J. D 72 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    W. Bu, Y . Zhang, Q. Liang, T. Chen, and B. Yan, Front. Phys. 17 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    W. Bu, T. Chen, G. Lv, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032701 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Zhang, Z

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zeng, Q. Liang, W. Bu, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. A 105, 033307 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.