Effects of Small-Chain Superexchange Dynamics on Spin-Orbit Coupled Clock Spectroscopy

Ana Maria Rey; Mikhail Mamaev; William R. Milner

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 46 references

Effects of Small-Chain Superexchange Dynamics on Spin-Orbit Coupled Clock Spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a 3D optical lattice clock, superexchange inside short atom chains imprints chain-length-dependent revivals and peak shifts on Ramsey and Rabi spectroscopy.

desk verdict Chain-length-dependent superexchange revivals are real and worth testing, but the ensemble prediction needs a quantitative check of the independent-chain assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11433 v1 pith:VSGZX2NL submitted 2025-07-15 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Mikhail Mamaev , Ana Maria Rey , William R. Milner This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

keywords opticallatticeclocksuperexchangeFermi-Hubbardmodelspin-orbitcouplingRamseyspectroscopyRabispinchaindynamicsMottinsulator

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 argues that in a three-dimensional optical lattice clock at the temperatures currently reached in experiments, thermal holes split each vertical tube into small independent chains of roughly one to five atoms. Because the clock laser imprints a spin-orbit phase from site to site, superexchange within each chain produces spin dynamics whose signatures in Ramsey and Rabi spectroscopy depend sharply on the chain length. The paper predicts Ramsey contrast revivals at dark times proportional to one less than the chain length, a reinforced total revival at $tV=4\pi$, and Rabi excitation peaks that shift non-monotonically with chain length and spin-orbit phase. These are concrete, observable signatures that would let experiments benchmark the superexchange rate, read the thermal chain-length distribution, and selectively manipulate short chains.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the small superexchange-coupled spin chain: an uninterrupted run of $L$ filled lattice sites whose low-energy dynamics is an anisotropic, spin-orbit-phase-dependent Heisenberg-type Hamiltonian with coupling $V_j\propto 4t_z^2/U$. Its power comes from two ingredients working together. The harmonic trap makes holes into stationary walls, so a tube factorizes into independent chains, and a Fermi-Dirac filling model supplies the average number $N_L$ of chains of each length, so the total signal is a weighted sum over chain-length contributions. The chain-length dependence itself enters through the spectrum of the $L$-site open-boundary spin chain, which is what produces revivals at $tV=2\pi(L-1)$ and the reinforced peak at $tV=4\pi$.

What would settle it

Measure Ramsey contrast versus dark time in a 3D optical lattice clock at the intermediate lattice depths used here and check for the predicted reinforced revival at $tV=4\pi$, with $V=4t_z^2/U$; absence of a revival at that dark time would rule out the isolated-chain superexchange picture. A complementary calculation is to evolve the full Fermi-Hubbard model for one tube with a known hole configuration and compare it with the weighted sum of independent-chain solutions, since the difference near the trap center directly measures the fixed-wall approximation's error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the one-dimensional Fermi-Hubbard model for a vertical tube, with tunneling $t_z$, on-site repulsion $U$, harmonic confinement $\eta_z$, and a clock-laser phase $\phi$ per site, reduces at low energies to independent superexchange spin-1/2 chains of length $L$. The effective Hamiltonian is $\hat{H}'=\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} V_j[\frac{1}{2}(e^{i\phi}\hat{s}^+_j\hat{s}^-_{j+1}+\mathrm{h.c.})+\hat{s}^z_j\hat{s}^z_{j+1}]+\Omega\sum_j \hat{s}^y_j$, with $V_j=4t_z^2U/(U^2-[2(j-j_0)+1]^2\eta_z^2)$. After a $\pi/2$ pulse, free evolution under this Hamiltonian makes the Ramsey contrast of an $L$-site chain revive at dark times $tV=2\pi(L-1)$, and the thermal average over chain lengths produces a reinforced total revival at $tV=4\pi$, where the $L=2$ and $L=3$ revivals coincide. Under continuous weak driving, the Rabi excitation fraction develops peaks whose positions depend non-monotonically on $L$ and $\phi$, traced to the spin-spiral texture, the anisotropic interactions, and open boundary conditions. The isolated-chain description is benchmarked against the full Hubbard model and a spin-1 $t$-$J$ model and is shown to hold away from the trap center, where the harmonic trap suppresses direct tunneling into holes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each vertical tube can be split into stationary independent chains of atoms because the harmonic trap's energy slope makes empty sites act as walls; near the trap center, where the local potential difference between adjacent sites is comparable to the tunneling rate, the paper shows this assumption breaks down and does not quantify what fraction of the atoms sits in the invalid region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fourier analysis of Ramsey contrast decay would directly expose the superexchange rate $V$, because each chain length contributes its own oscillation frequencies and revives at $tV=2\pi(L-1)$.
The reinforced total revival at $tV=4\pi$ gives a temperature-insensitive marker for detecting superexchange in current clocks without single-site resolution.
The long-time average of the total Ramsey contrast, set mainly by non-oscillating isolated atoms, can be used as a thermometer for the initial gas temperature once the chain-length distribution is modeled.
Because Rabi excitation peaks depend non-monotonically on chain length and spin-orbit phase, one can choose a pulse time at which $L=2$ chains are maximally excited while $L=3$ chains are not, enabling chain-length-selective removal by resonant fluorescence.
These superexchange effects can be suppressed by colder gas, deeper lattices along the clock direction, or $\phi \bmod 2\pi = 0$ via an accordion lattice; conversely, the same interactions can be harnessed for spin squeezing, with different chain lengths reaching maximal squeezing at different times.

Reading between the lines

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

The height of the $tV=4\pi$ revival could be read as an estimate of the fraction of atoms in $L=2$ and $L=3$ chains; comparing that estimate with a full-tube Hubbard simulation would quantify how much of the cloud is in the trap-center regime where the fixed-wall assumption fails.
If the non-monotonic Rabi response survives the thermal ensemble average, it implies an interaction-induced distribution of effective Rabi frequencies across chains, which may act as an intrinsic line-broadening or dephasing mechanism at intermediate lattice depths.
Tuning the spin-orbit phase $\phi$, for example through the clock-laser wavelength or the lattice spacing, could switch the clock signal between chain-length-sensitive and chain-length-insensitive operation, making the same setup serve as either a diagnostic or a metrology tool.
Because the chain-length distribution is set by temperature and filling, spatially resolved contrast-revival amplitudes across the cloud would map how chain-length statistics vary from center to edge, turning a clock into a local probe of lattice thermodynamics.

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

Short version: this is a solid, honest theory paper with two genuinely new things—the chain-length-dependent Ramsey revivals (tV = 2π(L−1), with the L=2 and L=3 coincidence at 4π) and the non-monotonic Rabi excitation that suggests a chain-length filtering tool. The superexchange derivation is textbook Schrieffer-Wolff, but applying it to spin-orbit-coupled clock chains and building a spin-1 t−J model for holes is a real contribution. The benchmarking against full Hubbard numerics in Fig. 4 is careful and convincing, and the analytic results for L=2 and L=3 in Appendix D are useful.

The soft spot the authors themselves flag is the independent-chain assumption: holes act as fixed walls only when the local harmonic potential difference exceeds tz. The stress test is right that this is unquantified. Fig. 4(a) shows the spin-1/2 chain model fails near the trap center, where holes are mobile, and the paper asserts without computing the density-weighted fraction that most atoms are in the valid regime. For the Fig. 4 parameters (tz/h = 23 Hz, ηz/h = 17 Hz), the breakdown region is within a site or so of the potential minimum—exactly where the density peaks. If a sizable fraction of the cloud sits there, the ensemble-averaged revivals in Fig. 2(e) could be washed out. This is fixable: weight the two models by the actual thermal density profile, or present the spin-1 t−J results for the full cloud at the temperatures used in Fig. 2(b). The generic Gaussian disorder model is also a shortcut; it's probably harmless for the qualitative story, but the real harmonic inhomogeneity should be checked. The omission of double-hop terms in the t−J model is stated but not quantified; the authors say it's small, and I have no reason to doubt it, but a number would help.

Overall, the central physics—superexchange modifies clock spectroscopy chain-length-dependently under SOC—holds up. The paper deserves a serious referee and likely publication after the independent-chain validity is quantified. The citations look appropriate, including the companion experiment [1]. I'd bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies Ramsey and Rabi spectroscopy of fermionic atoms in a three-dimensional optical lattice clock, focusing on the regime where the vertical lattice is shallow enough that superexchange dynamics are relevant. Starting from a 1D Fermi-Hubbard model with a clock-laser-induced spin-orbit phase and harmonic confinement, the authors derive an effective spin-1/2 superexchange Hamiltonian for filled chains and a spin-1 t-J model that includes holes. They predict chain-length-dependent Ramsey contrast revivals at tV = 2π(L−1), a reinforced ensemble revival at tV = 4π, and strongly non-monotonic Rabi excitation peaks as functions of chain length and spin-orbit phase. They benchmark the effective models against full Hubbard numerics for selected initial configurations and discuss implications for clock operation.

Significance. If the predictions survive realistic ensemble averaging, the paper provides a valuable theoretical roadmap for observing superexchange dynamics in current optical lattice clock experiments. Its strengths include the careful Schrieffer-Wolff derivation of the spin models, exact small-chain numerics, benchmarking against full Hubbard time evolution for selected configurations, and the use of experimental parameter values from the literature rather than fitted parameters. The headline predictions—chain-length-dependent Ramsey revivals, a reinforced revival at tV = 4π, and non-monotonic Rabi peak shifts—are concrete and falsifiable, which makes the paper useful despite being purely theoretical. However, the quantitative ensemble predictions rest on two approximations that are not yet fully quantified: the decomposition into stationary independent chains and the replacement of the actual superexchange disorder by a generic Gaussian model. These need to be addressed before the paper can be considered complete.

major comments (4)

[§III, §VI, Fig. 4(a)] The independent-chain approximation is load-bearing for every quantitative prediction in the paper, yet the paper never quantifies the density-weighted fraction of atoms for which it is valid. Section III asserts that a vertical tube can be split into stationary independent chains whenever the local potential difference [2(j−j0)+1]η_z exceeds t_z, and Section VI concedes that this fails near the trap center; Fig. 4(a) indeed shows the spin-1/2 chain model disagreeing with the Hubbard result for atoms near the center. For the parameters used in Fig. 4 (t_z/h = 23 Hz, η_z/h = 17 Hz), the condition already fails for the central two sites, which are precisely the sites with the highest local density. The paper should compute, for the thermal profiles used in Fig. 2(b), the fraction of atoms residing in chains whose couplings satisfy the validity condition, and should demonstrate that the predicted tV = 4π revival and the chain-length-averaged Rabi structure survive when the central-region dynamics are treated with the spin-1 t-J model or the Hubbard model instead of the spin-1/2 chain model.
[§IV, Fig. 2(d,e)] The ensemble calculations replace the experimentally determined superexchange couplings with a generic Gaussian distribution for V_j, but the central quantitative claims—the sharpness and height of the tV = 4π total-contrast revival and the shape of the ensemble Rabi signal—depend on the disorder statistics. In the experiment V_j is not an independent random variable: it is fixed by Eq. (8) through the site index, the trap-center offset j0 (including the gravitational sag discussed in Appendix C), and the chain position. The authors should either average Eqs. (12)–(16) over the actual distribution of V_j generated by the harmonic confinement and experimental parameters, or provide evidence that the independent Gaussian model reproduces the relevant statistical properties. Without this step, the quantitative predictions in Fig. 2(e) and the chain-averaged Rabi results are not yet connected to the experimental system.
[§IV, §V] The paper repeatedly states that the Ramsey π/2 pulse and the "strong Rabi" limit require Ω ≫ U, t_z (Section IV, first paragraph; Section V, first paragraph). This is inconsistent with the derivation of the effective spin model in Section III, which requires |Ω| ≪ U, and with the actual simulations, which use Ω/V = 0.25. A Rabi frequency larger than U would take the system out of the singly-occupied subspace on which Eq. (7) is defined. The text should specify the intermediate regime t_z, V ≪ Ω ≪ U for the pulse and for the Rabi spectroscopy calculations.
[§VI, Eq. (17) and Appendix A, Eq. (A11)] The superexchange coefficient in the spin-1 t-J model appears inconsistent between the main text and Appendix A. Equation (17) multiplies the superexchange terms by 4V_j, while the derivation in Eq. (A11) gives the coefficient t_z^2 U/[U^2 − (2(j−j0)+1)^2 η_z^2] = V_j/4, a factor of 16 difference. Since Eq. (17) is the model used for the benchmarking in Fig. 4, the authors should correct the typo and confirm that the simulations used the coefficient from Appendix A.

minor comments (3)

[Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The integral over z in Eq. (B3) is written with both limits as ∞; it should be ∫_{-∞}^{∞} dz.
[Abstract and Fig. 2(c)] The abstract says atoms are localized into small chains of approximately 1–5 atoms, but Fig. 2(c) and the total-contrast calculation include chains up to length 16. The text should clarify that the 1–5 range is typical for the hotter temperatures considered, not a strict bound.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption of Fig. 4 does not specify the spin-orbit phase ϕ used in the benchmark; since the spin-1/2 breakdown near the trap center may depend on ϕ, this parameter should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the superexchange model is derived from the Hubbard Hamiltonian in Appendix A, all parameters are independently specified, and the central predictions are benchmarked against the full Hubbard model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. Section III and Appendix A derive the spin-1/2 superexchange Hamiltonian, Eq. (7), from the Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), by explicit Schrieffer-Wolff perturbation theory: the two-site matrix is written out (Eq. A2), the projectors are given (Eq. A6), and the coupling Vj = 4 t_z^2 U / (U^2 - [2(j-j0)+1]^2 eta_z^2) follows from the stated denomators. The parameters t_z, U, eta_z are taken from the experimental lattice setup, not fitted to the target observables. The chain-length distribution N_L is obtained from an independent Fermi-Dirac loading model in Appendix B, not from the Ramsey or Rabi signals. The predicted revivals at tV = 2 pi (L-1), the reinforced total revival at tV = 4 pi, and the chain-length-dependent Rabi dynamics are outputs of exact numerical time evolution of the derived spin Hamiltonian, not definitions of the observables. The spin-1/2 and spin-1 effective models are validated in Section VI against the full Fermi-Hubbard model with realistic parameters (Fig. 4), which is an external benchmark rather than a self-citation. The paper honestly flags an applicability limitation: Section VI states that the independent-chain picture 'breaks down when the tunneling rate tz becomes comparable to the local energy differences [2(j-j0)+1] eta_z,' and that the spin-1/2 prediction remains valid only if the filled lattice is wide enough that most atoms sit in the localized regime. This is an unquantified regime condition and thus a correctness risk, but it is not a circular step; the breakdown is identified by comparison with the Hubbard solution, not by assuming the predictions. The low-temperature statement in Section IV that very-long-chain contrast decays with no significant oscillations is stated without numerics, but it is peripheral and not load-bearing for the small-chain predictions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical result is merely relabeled as a new derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the Fermi-Hubbard description, the second-order perturbation theory, the independent-chain decomposition, and the Fermi-Dirac loading model. The only hand-chosen free parameter is the Gaussian disorder width σ for the superexchange couplings; the temperature and Rabi ratio are scanned physical parameters. The key fragility is the independent-chain assumption, which the paper acknowledges breaks down near the trap center.

free parameters (3)

disorder standard deviation sigma_V = 0, 0.05, 0.1 (fraction of mean V)
Used in Fig. 2(d,e) to model inhomogeneity in superexchange couplings. Chosen by hand as a generic level of disorder rather than derived from experimental harmonic trap parameters.
temperature T/T_F = 0.05 to 1.0
Used to compute chain-length distributions. It is a physical condition, but the paper varies it to show dependence; not fitted to the target signals.
Rabi frequency ratio Omega/V = 0.25 (weak drive)
Chosen to be in the weak-driving regime for Rabi spectroscopy; not fit to data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Fermi-Hubbard model with SOC phase in tunneling (Eq. 6) describes the lattice clock system
Standard model for fermionic atoms in a deep lattice; justified by experimental conditions.
domain assumption Second-order Schrieffer-Wolff perturbation theory is valid: U >> t_z and |U +/- potential difference| >> t_z
Needed to derive the superexchange spin model in Eq. (7).
domain assumption Holes act as fixed walls; atoms in a tube split into independent chains with no inter-chain hopping (Eq. 12)
Core decomposition used for all predictions; benchmarked in Fig. 4 and shown to break down near trap center.
domain assumption The gas fills the lattice according to a Fermi-Dirac distribution using the local density approximation (Appendix B)
Used to compute chain-length distribution NL; ignores band excitations and non-adiabatic loading.
ad hoc to paper Double-hop interaction-mediated processes in the spin-1 t-J model are negligible
Stated in Section VI and Appendix A without a quantitative bound.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of Small-Chain Superexchange Dynamics on Spin-Orbit Coupled Clock Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSGZX2NL

@misc{pith2026250711433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of Small-Chain Superexchange Dynamics on Spin-Orbit Coupled Clock Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSGZX2NL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11433}
}

abstract

Optical lattice clocks have set records in clock precision and accuracy. Continuing to advance their performance, via probing as many atoms for the longest interrogation time affordable, requires experimentally and theoretically studying a many-body lattice system. Motivated by recent experimental results on a Fermi-degenerate three-dimensional optical lattice clock, we present a theoretical overview of Ramsey and Rabi spectroscopy in one-dimensional chains. At realistic experimental temperatures and confinement conditions, atoms are spatially localized into small chains of $\approx 1-5$ atoms. We show that in the presence of spin-orbit coupling induced by the clock laser, the spectroscopy observables are modified by superexchange interactions within each chain, and depend strongly on the length of the chain. The thermal distribution of chain lengths thus plays a key role in the spectroscopy measurements. Our results offer insight into observable many-body effects in state-of-the-art lattice clocks and suggest new directions for optimizing clock performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11433 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (d) plots numerically-computed contrast decay for different small chain lengths L. Disorder σ in the couplings generally leads to a damping of oscillations at longer dark times. However, short chains exhibit a revival of contrast at dark time tV = 2π(L − 1), scaling with the length of the chain L. Analogous revivals can be found in Ising spin models [38]. Since these revivals do not occur at the same time for diffe… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

W. R. Milner, S. Lannig, M. Aeppli,L. Yan, A. Chu, B. Lewis, M. N. Frankel, R. B. Hutson, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Coherent evolution of superexchange interaction in seconds long optical clock spectroscopy(Science 388, 503 (2025))

work page 2025
[2]

Kolkowitz, I

S. Kolkowitz, I. Pikovski, N. Langellier, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, J. Ye,Gravitational wave detection with optical lattice atomic clocks (Phys. Rev. D 94, 124043 (2016))

work page 2016
[3]

Sanner, N

C. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, C. Tamm, E. Peik, M. S. Safronova, and S. G. Porsev, Optical clock com- parison for Lorentz symmetry testing(Nature (London) 567, 204 (2019))

work page 2019
[4]

C. J. Kennedy, E. Oelker, J. M. Robinson, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, W. R. Milner, G. E. Marti, A. Derevianko, and J. Ye, Precision Metrology Meets Cosmology: Improved Constraints on Ultralight Dark Matter from Atom-Cavity Frequency Comparisons (Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201302 (2020))

work page 2020
[5]

Takamoto, I

M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, N. Ohmae, T. Yahagi, K. Kokado, H. Shinkai, and H. Katori, Test of general rela- tivity by a pair of transportable optical lattice clocks(Nat. Photonics 14, 411 (2020))

work page 2020
[6]

D. F. J. Kimball, D. Budker, T. E. Chupp, A. A. Geraci, S. Kolkowitz, J. T. Singh, and A. O. Sushkov, Prob- ing fundamental physics with spin-based quantum sensors (Rev. Mod. Phys. 108, 010101 (2023))

work page 2023
[7]

D. E. Chang, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling dipole- dipole frequency shifts in a lattice-based optical atomic clock (Phys. Rev. A 69, 023810 (2004))

work page 2004
[8]

R. B. Hutson, W. R. Milner, L. Yan, J. Ye, C. Sanner, Observation of millihertz-level cooperative Lamb shifts in an optical atomic clock(Science 383, 384 (2024))

work page 2024

Show all 46 references

[9]

Bothwell, C

T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample (Nature (London) 602, 420 (2022))

2022
[10]

J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Direct comparison of two spin squeezed optical clocks below the quantum projection noise limit, Nature Physics 20, 208 (2024)

2024
[11]

W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Realizing spin squeezing with Rydberg inter- actions in an optical clock, Nature (London) 621, 734 (2023). 9

2023
[12]

Lemonde and P

P. Lemonde and P. Wolf, Optical lattice clock with atoms confined in a shallow trap, Phys. Rev. A 72, 033409 (2005)

2005
[13]

Kolkowitz, S

S. Kolkowitz, S. Bromley, T. Bothwell, M. Wall, G. Marti, A. Koller, X. Zhang, A. Rey, and J. Ye, Spin– orbit-coupled fermions in an optical lattice clock, Nature 542, 66 (2017)

2017
[14]

D¨ orscher, R

S. D¨ orscher, R. Schwarz, A. Al-Masoudi, S. Falke, U. Sterr, and C. Lisdat, Lattice-induced photon scatter- ing in an optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A 97, 063419 (2018)

2018
[15]

R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, G. E. Marti, L. Sonderhouse, C. Sanner, and J. Ye, Engineering quantum states of mat- ter for atomic clocks in shallow optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 123401 (2019)

2019
[16]

L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling spin exchange interactions of ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090402 (2003)

2003
[17]

Trotzky, P

S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S. Folling, M. Feld, U. Schnor- rberger, A. M. Rey, A. Polkovnikov, E. A. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and I. Bloch, Time-resolved observation and con- trol of superexchange interactions with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science 319, 295 (2008)

2008
[18]

A. Celi, P. Massignan, J. Ruseckas, N. Goldman, I. B. Spielman, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and M. Lewenstein, Synthetic gauge fields in synthetic dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 043001 (2014)

2014
[19]

Barbarino, L

S. Barbarino, L. Taddia, D. Rossini, L. Mazza, and R. Fazio, Synthetic gauge fields in synthetic dimen- sions: interactions and chiral edge modes, New Journal of Physics 18, 035010 (2016)

2016
[20]

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
[21]

L. Livi, G. Cappellini, M. Diem, L. Franchi, C. Clivati, M. Frittelli, F. Levi, D. Calonico, J. Catani, M. Inguscio, et al., Synthetic dimensions and spin-orbit coupling with an optical clock transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 220401 (2016)

2016
[22]

M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, T. Menke, D. Borgnia, P. M. Preiss, F. Grusdt, A. M. Kaufman, and M. Greiner, Microscopy of the interacting harper– hofstadter model in the two-body limit, Nature 546, 519 (2017)

2017
[23]

S. Hild, T. Fukuhara, P. Schauß, J. Zeiher, M. Knap, E. Demler, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Far-from-equilibrium spin transport in heisenberg quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 147205 (2014)

2014
[24]

P. N. Jepsen, W. W. Ho, J. Amato-Grill, I. Dimitrova, E. Demler, and W. Ketterle, Transverse spin dynamics in the anisotropic heisenberg model realized with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041054 (2021)

2021
[25]

P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, Long-lived phan- tom helix states in heisenberg quantum magnets, Nature Physics 18, 899 (2022)

2022
[26]

Liang, D

Q.-Y. Liang, D. Trypogeorgos, A. Vald´ es-Curiel, J. Tao, M. Zhao, and I. B. Spielman, Coherence and decoher- ence in the harper-hofstadter model, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023058 (2021)

2021
[27]

F. A. An, E. J. Meier, and B. Gadway, Direct observation of chiral currents and magnetic reflection in atomic flux lattices, Science advances 3, e1602685 (2017)

2017
[28]

G. E. Marti, R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, S. L. Campbell, N. Poli, and J. Ye, Imaging optical frequencies with 100 µhz precision and 1.1 µm resolution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 103201 (2018)

2018
[29]

Mamaev, I

M. Mamaev, I. Kimchi, R. M. Nandkishore, and A. M. Rey, Tunable-spin-model generation with spin-orbit- coupled fermions in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013178 (2021)

2021
[30]

Mamaev, T

M. Mamaev, T. Bilitewski, B. Sundar, and A. M. Rey, Resonant dynamics of strongly interacting su(n) fermionic atoms in a synthetic flux ladder, PRX Quan- tum 3, 030328 (2022)

2022
[31]

Bukov, M

M. Bukov, M. Kolodrubetz, and A. Polkovnikov, Schrieffer-wolff transformation for periodically driven systems: Strongly correlated systems with artificial gauge fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 125301 (2016)

2016
[32]

Mamaev, I

M. Mamaev, I. Kimchi, M. A. Perlin, R. M. Nandkishore, and A. M. Rey, Quantum entropic self-localization with ultracold fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 130402 (2019)

2019
[33]

W. Xu, W. Morong, H.-Y. Hui, V. W. Scarola, and B. De- Marco, Correlated spin-flip tunneling in a fermi lattice gas, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023623 (2018)

2018
[34]

W. R. Milner, L. Yan, R. B. Hutson, C. Sanner, and J. Ye, High-fidelity imaging of a band insulator in a three-dimensional optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A107, 063313 (2023)

2023
[35]

Mukherjee, Z

B. Mukherjee, Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, Z. Hadzibabic, T. Yef- sah, J. Struck, and M. W. Zwierlein, Homogeneous atomic fermi gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 123401 (2017)

2017
[36]

Omran, M

A. Omran, M. Boll, T. A. Hilker, K. Kleinlein, G. Sa- lomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Microscopic observation of pauli blocking in degenerate fermionic lattice gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 263001 (2015)

2015
[37]

Dimitrova, N

I. Dimitrova, N. Jepsen, A. Buyskikh, A. Venegas- Gomez, J. Amato-Grill, A. Daley, and W. Ketterle, En- hanced superexchange in a tilted mott insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043204 (2020)

2020
[38]

Foss-Feig, K

M. Foss-Feig, K. R. Hazzard, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, Nonequilibrium dynamics of arbitrary-range ising models with decoherence: An exact analytic solution, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042101 (2013)

2013
[39]

Schachenmayer, A

J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Many- body quantum spin dynamics with monte carlo trajecto- ries on a discrete phase space, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011022 (2015)

2015
[40]

K. Kim, A. Aeppli, W. Warfield, A. Chu, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Atomic coherence of 2 minutes and instability of 1.5 e-18 at 1 s in a wannier-stark lattice clock, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06444 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[41]

Kitagawa and M

M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993)

1993
[42]

J. Ma, X. Wang, C.-P. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Physics Reports 509, 89 (2011)

2011
[43]

P. He, M. A. Perlin, S. R. Muleady, R. J. Lewis-Swan, R. B. Hutson, J. Ye, and A. M. Rey, Engineering spin squeezing in a 3d optical lattice with interacting spin- orbit-coupled fermions, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033075 (2019)

2019
[44]

Hern´ andez Yanes, M

T. Hern´ andez Yanes, M. P lodzie´ n, M. Mack- oit Sinkeviˇ cien˙ e, G. ˇZlabys, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and E. Witkowska, One-and two-axis squeezing via laser coupling in an atomic fermi-hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 090403 (2022)

2022
[45]

Mamaev, D

M. Mamaev, D. Barberena, and A. M. Rey, Spin squeez- ing in mixed-dimensional anisotropic lattice models, 10 Phys. Rev. A 109, 023326 (2024). 11 Appendix A: Superexchange and t − J model derivations In the main text, we describe an effective superexchange spin-1/2 model to cap...

2024
[46]

The projector ˆP is onto the first 9 states

All remaining off-diagonal tunneling matrix elements comprise the perturbation ˆH ′ pert. The projector ˆP is onto the first 9 states. The 9 × 9 matrix resulting from the perturbation theory calculation is written in terms of tensor products of spin-1 operators (in practice th...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

W. R. Milner, S. Lannig, M. Aeppli,L. Yan, A. Chu, B. Lewis, M. N. Frankel, R. B. Hutson, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Coherent evolution of superexchange interaction in seconds long optical clock spectroscopy(Science 388, 503 (2025))

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Kolkowitz, I

S. Kolkowitz, I. Pikovski, N. Langellier, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, J. Ye,Gravitational wave detection with optical lattice atomic clocks (Phys. Rev. D 94, 124043 (2016))

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Sanner, N

C. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, C. Tamm, E. Peik, M. S. Safronova, and S. G. Porsev, Optical clock com- parison for Lorentz symmetry testing(Nature (London) 567, 204 (2019))

work page 2019

[4] [4]

C. J. Kennedy, E. Oelker, J. M. Robinson, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, W. R. Milner, G. E. Marti, A. Derevianko, and J. Ye, Precision Metrology Meets Cosmology: Improved Constraints on Ultralight Dark Matter from Atom-Cavity Frequency Comparisons (Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201302 (2020))

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Takamoto, I

M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, N. Ohmae, T. Yahagi, K. Kokado, H. Shinkai, and H. Katori, Test of general rela- tivity by a pair of transportable optical lattice clocks(Nat. Photonics 14, 411 (2020))

work page 2020

[6] [6]

D. F. J. Kimball, D. Budker, T. E. Chupp, A. A. Geraci, S. Kolkowitz, J. T. Singh, and A. O. Sushkov, Prob- ing fundamental physics with spin-based quantum sensors (Rev. Mod. Phys. 108, 010101 (2023))

work page 2023

[7] [7]

D. E. Chang, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling dipole- dipole frequency shifts in a lattice-based optical atomic clock (Phys. Rev. A 69, 023810 (2004))

work page 2004

[8] [8]

R. B. Hutson, W. R. Milner, L. Yan, J. Ye, C. Sanner, Observation of millihertz-level cooperative Lamb shifts in an optical atomic clock(Science 383, 384 (2024))

work page 2024