Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Efficient single-atom transfer from an optical conveyor belt to a tightly confined optical tweezer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Real-time feedback lifts single-atom loading into a tight optical tweezer from 57.5% to 77.6%.

desk verdict Useful atom-transport engineering with a plausible absolute loading number, but the 57.5% vs 77.6% comparison does not isolate the effect of feedback. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21456 v1 pith:VVGE6XTH submitted 2025-07-29 physics.atom-ph

Lei Xu , Ling-Xiao Wang , Guang-Jie Chen , Zhu-Bo Wang , Xin-Biao Xu , Guang-Can Guo , Chang-Ling Zou , Guo-Yong Xiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords opticalconveyorbelttweezersingle-atomloadingreal-timefeedbackcontrolFPGArubidium-87collisionalblockadeatomtransport
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 shows that a moving one-dimensional optical lattice—an optical conveyor belt—can carry 87Rb atoms from a magneto-optical trap located 0.6 mm away into a tightly focused static optical tweezer, and that real-time feedback on the number of atoms in the overlap region turns a 57.5% single-atom loading probability into 77.6%. The feedback works by measuring fluorescence from the overlap region, comparing the count to a threshold, and if the count indicates more than one atom, shifting the conveyor belt by one lattice site and probing again until only one atom remains. The result matters because static traps inside cavities or near nanophotonic surfaces cannot be overlapped with a MOT, so this supplies a practical, repeatable pipeline for loading single atoms into such traps.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the optical conveyor belt: a one-dimensional lattice made by two counter-propagating 852 nm Gaussian beams whose relative frequency $\delta$, set by phase-locked AOMs, moves the lattice at $v = \tfrac{1}{2}\lambda\delta$ and shuttles trapped atoms along the beam axis. The feedback loop is built on the fluorescence count $C_p$ in the overlap region as a real-time proxy for atom number; the paper shows $C_p$ near 40 corresponds to roughly 95% single-atom loading after ramp-down, while $C_p$ near 80 corresponds to two atoms lost to light-assisted collisions. Atom-loss dynamics are modeled by $\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}t = -\Gamma_1 N - \Gamma_2 N(N-1)$, with fitted loss rates $\Gamma_1 = 0.17$ s$^{-1}$ and $\Gamma_2 = 0.21$ s$^{-1}$ at $U_c = 0.62$ mK, quantifying the trade-off that deeper conveyor traps lower loss but shrink the single-atom fluorescence window through ac Stark shifts.

What would settle it

Re-measure the joint distribution of $C_p$ before ramp-down and $C_v$ after ramp-down with the threshold swept around 40; if a substantial fraction of trials with $C_p$ just below 40 end with $C_v$ below the 24-count single-atom threshold, then a sub-threshold $C_p$ does not guarantee a surviving single atom. A direct check is to compare the conditional success rate $P(C_v \ge 24 \,|\, C_p < 40)$ with the reported ~95% at $C_p \approx 40$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors demonstrate and characterize feedback-controlled single-atom transfer: after MOT loading, atoms are transported in a conveyor belt formed by counter-propagating 852 nm beams (waist 10 µm) to overlap with a 2 µm-waist tweezer (depth $U_t = 1.2$ mK). A 50 ms fluorescence measurement gives $C_p$; an FPGA compares $C_p$ with $C_t = 40$. If $C_p \ge C_t$, a 10 ms frequency sweep displaces the lattice by 3.75 µm (one site), and the cycle repeats up to a total 1 s; when $C_p < C_t$, the conveyor belt is ramped down in 2 ms and a parity-projection probe leaves either one or zero atoms in the tweezer. With optimal conveyor depth $U_c = 0.62$ mK and $C_t = 40$, the single-atom loading probability rises from 57.5% (no feedback) to 77.6% ± 1.2%. The paper attributes the remaining failures to an ~8.6% probability that the overlap region starts empty, ~4% loss during the non-adiabatic ramp-down, and fluorescence fluctuations that push a single atom above threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The 77.6% result depends on the fluorescence count threshold $C_t = 40$ being a correct yes/no test for exactly one atom in the overlap region at the moment the conveyor belt is ramped down; if that classification is noisy or biased, the feedback can stop with zero or multiple atoms and the reported probability falls.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static tweezers that cannot be overlapped with a MOT—traps inside optical cavities or near nanophotonic chips—can be loaded with single atoms at roughly 78% probability after transport over 0.6 mm.
  • The feedback cycle adds on average 260 ms (about four loops) per loading event, and the authors state this duration can be reduced by shortening the 50 ms probe and the 10 ms sweep, preserving a high repetition rate.
  • Deeper conveyor-belt traps lower both single-atom and two-atom loss rates, but shrink the fluorescence window used to classify atom number; the demonstrated optimum is $U_c = 0.62$ mK with threshold $C_t = 40$.
  • The three identified failure channels—initial empty overlap (~8.6%), ramp-down loss (~4%), and threshold-crossing fluorescence fluctuations—set a concrete budget for further improving the loading probability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $C_p \approx 40$ classification is as clean as the measured ~95% conditional loading suggests, then eliminating the initial-empty and ramp-down loss channels would push the demonstrated 77.6% close to that classification ceiling, making the pipeline near-deterministic.
  • The same FPGA threshold-and-shift feedback could run on a conveyor belt serving multiple static tweezers in sequence, loading and verifying one site before moving to the next, which the paper gestures at for surface traps but does not demonstrate.
  • Because the control relies only on fluorescence counting and lattice displacement, it should transfer to other alkali species and to chip traps, with $C_t$ and $U_c$ re-optimized for the new scattering rate and trap geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of loading single 87Rb atoms from an optical conveyor belt into a tightly confined static optical tweezer located about 600 µm from a magneto-optical trap. The authors implement real-time FPGA-based feedback: fluorescence counts in the overlap region are compared with a threshold, and if multiple atoms are detected the conveyor lattice is shifted to change the local atom number, repeating until a single-atom signal is found; the conveyor is then ramped down. They report a single-atom loading probability of 77.6% with feedback, compared with 57.5% without feedback, and they study how the conveyor-belt trap depth affects the fluorescence-count window and atom loss rates. The paper also provides a brief failure analysis and discusses the applicability to cavity and nanophotonic interfaces.

Significance. If the headline result is sound, the technique addresses a real need: deterministic loading of single atoms into static traps that cannot be directly overlapped with a MOT, particularly in cavity-QED and nanophotonic settings. The absolute 77.6% value is directly measured with 250 repetitions and a stated 1σ error of 0.012, and the paper explicitly quantifies several failure channels. The systematic study of conveyor-belt depth versus loss rates and fluorescence-window width is practically useful. The main weakness is that the advertised improvement over the no-feedback case is not established by a matched control, because the 57.5% reference and the 77.6% feedback run use different trap depths, tweezer depths, and detection thresholds. The absolute feedback performance is still credible, but the causal attribution to feedback needs additional experimental support.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 2(b)] The central claim that feedback increases the single-atom loading probability from 57.5% to 77.6% is not supported by a matched control. The 57.5% value is measured in Section II with Ut=1 mK, Uc=0.3 mK, and a 24-count detection threshold, whereas the feedback experiment in Fig. 2(b) uses Ut=1.2 mK, Uc=0.62 mK, and Ct=40. Since Fig. 3(e) shows that increasing Uc substantially reduces both single-atom and two-atom loss rates, and a deeper tweezer should reduce loss during ramp-down, the observed improvement could be partly or wholly due to the different trap parameters rather than to feedback. Please provide a no-feedback control measurement acquired at the same settings as the feedback run, or explicitly state that the 57.5% reference corresponds to a different configuration and adjust the claim accordingly.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 3(a-d)] The readout reliability at the chosen operating point is not quantified, although the feedback protocol's success depends on the classification 'Cp < Ct means exactly one atom'. Section III and Fig. 3(a-d) show that increasing Uc compresses the fluorescence-count window because ac Stark shifts alter the scattering rate, making the single-atom/multi-atom distinction less reliable. The paper does not report the probability of misclassification for Cp near the threshold at Uc=0.62 mK, nor the resulting probability that the feedback terminates on zero, one, or multiple atoms. Please add a direct characterization of the Cp distribution for known atom-number states at the operating point, including the overlap of the single-atom and multi-atom peaks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2(b) caption] The caption says 'without and with feedback control' but does not list the experimental parameters for each histogram; please add Uc, Ut, and the count threshold to the legend or caption so the comparison is unambiguous.
  2. [Section III, paragraph 2] The sentence 'the lattice is displaced by 3.75 µm per step' should relate this displacement to the conveyor lattice period (λ/2 = 426 nm) and explain why a non-integer multiple is used; otherwise it is unclear whether the step is adiabatic and whether atoms remain trapped during the sweep.
  3. [Eq. (1) and inset of Fig. 3(e)] The text states that atom number N is 'determined by the identified fluorescence step of a single atom', but the procedure for assigning fluorescence steps to atom numbers is not described; please define this identification and its uncertainties.
  4. [Section IV] The failure probabilities (8.6% for initial no-load, 4% for ramp-down loss) are given without statistical uncertainties or the number of trials; please provide these and, if possible, combine them to check consistency with the measured 22.4% failure rate (1 - 0.776).
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, including 'F or' in the author affiliation and 'V .' in several references; these should be corrected during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central result is a measured loading probability, not a derivation from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental measurement: implementing FPGA feedback raises the single-atom loading probability from 57.5% to 77.6% (Section III, Fig. 2). This is a direct histogram comparison of fluorescence counts in the tweezer after ramp-down, not a quantity derived from an assumed model or from a fitted parameter. The only quantitative model in the paper is the loss-rate equation dN/dt = −Γ1N − Γ2N(N−1) (Eq. 1), used to extract single-atom and two-atom loss rates from measured atom-number evolution. These fitted loss rates are used to interpret trap-depth dependence (Fig. 3), but they do not feed back into the reported loading probability. The threshold count Ct = 40 and conveyor-belt depth Uc = 0.62 mK are reported as experimental optimizations chosen from measured loading-probability curves, which is parameter selection over data, not circular reasoning: the paper does not claim to predict those probabilities from the fits. Self-citations [26], [32], and [35] provide background on conveyor-belt transport, a pipeline proposal, and collision loss in dipole traps, respectively; none is load-bearing in the sense of being the sole justification for the feedback result. The loss-rate model from [35] is an external empirical framework used for analysis, not an assumed conclusion on which the central loading claim depends. A possible concern that the no-feedback baseline in Fig. 2(b) may not be explicitly matched to the feedback settings is an experimental-comparison issue, not a circularity issue, and the text does present both histograms as 'without and with feedback control' in the same experiment. Overall, the derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained and empirical; no prediction reduces by construction to an input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental methods paper. It introduces no new physical entities and makes no theoretical derivation. The reported loading probability depends on hand-set experimental parameters (trap depths, thresholds, step size) and on standard, cited cold-atom physics such as collisional blockade and sub-Poissonian loading. The main empirical assumptions are the reliability of fluorescence counts as an atom-number readout and the adiabaticity of the ramp-down, both partially validated in the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Feedback threshold Ct = 40 counts per 50 ms
    Chosen by scanning threshold values in Fig. 4 to maximize the reported single-atom loading probability; the headline 77.6% is achieved at this threshold.
  • Conveyor belt trap depth Uc = 0.62 mK
    Selected from a scan of Uc values (0.52, 0.57, 0.62, 0.68 mK) as the operating point that optimizes the tradeoff between atom loss rate and fluorescence count window; the reported loading probability is at this depth.
  • Tweezer trap depth Ut = 1.2 mK
    Fixed for the feedback experiments; chosen to hold the atom after the conveyor belt is ramped down. The central result depends on this operating point.
  • Lattice displacement per feedback step = 3.75 µm
    Hand-set shift applied during each feedback sweep to move a fresh set of conveyor lattice sites into the 2 µm tweezer region; not fitted to data but a key control parameter.
  • Single-atom detection threshold = 24 counts per 50 ms
    Used to classify a successful single-atom loading event in the tweezer after ramp-down; set from the histogram separation in Fig. 1(d).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Light-assisted collisions cause rapid loss of two or more atoms in a tightly confined dipole trap, so after the conveyor belt is ramped down the tweezer contains at most one atom.
    Invoked in Section II: 'Multi-atom loading events are suppressed due to light-assisted collisions.' This is the basis for parity projection and for interpreting high Cp values as two-atom configurations that will be lost.
  • domain assumption The fluorescence count rate from a single atom in the overlap region is high enough and stable enough that the histogram peaks for background, one atom, and multiple atoms are resolvable.
    Used throughout to set thresholds; the paper itself notes the count window shrinks with increasing conveyor depth due to ac Stark shifts (Section III).
  • domain assumption The 2 ms ramp-down of the conveyor belt is adiabatic enough that a single atom initially in the overlap region remains in the tweezer with high probability.
    The paper measures a 4% single-atom loss during ramp-down (Section IV), so this is empirically supported but not derived.
  • domain assumption The conveyor belt lattice can be shifted by 3.75 µm via the AOM frequency difference without heating or ejecting atoms during the 10 ms feedback sweep.
    Assumed in the feedback protocol; the paper does not directly measure per-step transport fidelity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient single-atom transfer from an optical conveyor belt to a tightly confined optical tweezer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VVGE6XTH

@misc{pith2026250721456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient single-atom transfer from an optical conveyor belt to a tightly confined optical tweezer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VVGE6XTH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21456}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient loading of single atoms into tightly confined traps is crucial for advancing quantum information processing and exploring atom-photon interactions. However, directly loading atoms from a magneto-optical trap (MOT) into static tweezers in cavity-based systems and hybrid atom-photon interfaces remains a challenge. Here, we demonstrate atom loading in a tightly confined optical tweezer 0.6mm away from MOT by an optical conveyor belt. By employing real-time feedback control of the atom number in the overlapping region between the conveyor belt and the tweezer, we enhance a single-atom loading probability to 77.6%. Our technique offers a versatile solution for deterministic single-atom loading in various experimental settings and paves the way for diverse applications based on hybrid photonic-atom structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Single-atom transfer from an optical conveyor belt to a tightly confined optical tweezer. (a) Schematic of the experimental setup for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Feedback control for the single-atom transfer from an op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Single-atom loading probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Influence of conveyor belt trap depth. (a-d) Single-atom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Controlled single-photon emission from a single trapped two-level atom,

    B. Darqui ´e, M. P. A. Jones, J. Dingjan, J. Beugnon, S. Bergamini, Y . Sortais, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, “Controlled single-photon emission from a single trapped two-level atom,” Science 309, 454 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Deterministic loading of individual atoms to a high-finesse optical cavity,

    K. M. Fortier, S. Y . Kim, M. J. Gibbons, P. Ahmadi, and M. S. Chapman, “Deterministic loading of individual atoms to a high-finesse optical cavity,” Physical Review Letters 98, 233601 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Quantum informa- tion with rydberg atoms,

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, “Quantum informa- tion with rydberg atoms,” Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer,

    T. M. Graham, Y . Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinkemeyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Lichtman, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Campbell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers, T. Noel, and M. Saffman, “Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quan- tum simulator,

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quan- tum simulator,” Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Variational spin-squeezing algorithms on programmable quantum sensors,

    R. Kaubruegger, P. Silvi, C. Kokail, R. Van Bijnen, A. M. Rey, J. Ye, A. M. Kaufman, and P. Zoller, “Variational spin-squeezing algorithms on programmable quantum sensors,” Physical Review Letters 123, 260505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Many-body physics with individ- ually controlled rydberg atoms,

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, “Many-body physics with individ- ually controlled rydberg atoms,” Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Nanoscale atomic suspended waveguides for improved vapour coherence times and optical frequency referencing,

    R. Zektzer, N. Mazurski, Y . Barash, and U. Levy, “Nanoscale atomic suspended waveguides for improved vapour coherence times and optical frequency referencing,” Nature Photonics 15, 772 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Chip-scale integration of nanophotonic-atomic magnetic sen- sors,

    Y . Sebbag, A. Naiman, E. Talker, Y . Barash, and U. Levy, “Chip-scale integration of nanophotonic-atomic magnetic sen- sors,” ACS Photonics 8, 142 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its quantum ground state,

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, and C. A. Regal, “Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its quantum ground state,” Physical Review X 2, 041014 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Coherence and raman sideband cooling of a sin- gle atom in an optical tweezer,

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, A. S. Zibrov, V . Vuleti ´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Coherence and raman sideband cooling of a sin- gle atom in an optical tweezer,” Physical Review Letters 110, 133001 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Imaging and localizing individual atoms inter- faced with a nanophotonic waveguide,

    Y . Meng, C. Liedl, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, “Imaging and localizing individual atoms inter- faced with a nanophotonic waveguide,” Physical Review Letters 125, 053603 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Resolved raman sideband cooling of a single optically trapped cesium atom,

    Z. Tian, H. Chang, X. Lv, M. Yang, Z. Wang, P. Yang, P. Zhang, G. Li, and T. Zhang, “Resolved raman sideband cooling of a single optically trapped cesium atom,” Optics Letters 49, 542 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Sub- poissonian loading of single atoms in a microscopic dipole trap,

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, I. Protsenko, and P. Grangier, “Sub- poissonian loading of single atoms in a microscopic dipole trap,” Nature 411, 1024 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Collisional block- ade in microscopic optical dipole traps,

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, “Collisional block- ade in microscopic optical dipole traps,” Physical Review Let- ters 89, 023005 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free ar- bitrary 2d atomic arrays,

    D. Barredo, S. de L ´es´eleuc, V . Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free ar- bitrary 2d atomic arrays,” Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one- dimensional cold atom arrays,

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. An- schuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V . Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, “Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one- dimensional cold atom arrays,” Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Realization of strong coupling between deterministic single-atom arrays and a high-finesse miniature optical cavity,

    Y . Liu, Z. Wang, P. Yang, Q. Wang, Q. Fan, S. Guan, G. Li, P. Zhang, and T. Zhang, “Realization of strong coupling between deterministic single-atom arrays and a high-finesse miniature optical cavity,” Physical Review Letters130, 173601 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Superresolution microscopy of optical fields using tweezer-trapped single atoms,

    E. Deist, J. A. Gerber, Y .-H. Lu, J. Zeiher, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, “Superresolution microscopy of optical fields using tweezer-trapped single atoms,” Physical Review Letters 128, 083201 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Submicron positioning of single atoms in a micro- cavity,

    S. Nußmann, M. Hijlkema, B. Weber, F. Rohde, G. Rempe, and A. Kuhn, “Submicron positioning of single atoms in a micro- cavity,” Physical Review Letters95, 173602 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Cavity-modified collective rayleigh scattering of two atoms,

    R. Reimann, W. Alt, T. Kampschulte, T. Macha, L. Ratschbacher, N. Thau, S. Yoon, and D. Meschede, “Cavity-modified collective rayleigh scattering of two atoms,” Physical Review Letters 114, 023601 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Purcell-enhanced generation of photonic bell states via the inelastic scattering off single atoms,

    J. Wang, X.-L. Zhou, Z.-M. Shen, D.-Y . Huang, S.-J. He, Q.-Y . Huang, Y .-J. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, “Purcell-enhanced generation of photonic bell states via the inelastic scattering off single atoms,” Physical Review Letters134, 053401 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    A cavity qed system with defect-free single-atom array strongly coupled to an optical cavity,

    Z. Wang, S. Guan, G. Teng, P. Yang, P. Zhang, G. Li, and T. Zhang, “A cavity qed system with defect-free single-atom array strongly coupled to an optical cavity,” (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Trapping single atoms on a nanophotonic circuit with configurable tweezer lattices,

    M. E. Kim, T.-H. Chang, B. M. Fields, C.-A. Chen, and C.- L. Hung, “Trapping single atoms on a nanophotonic circuit with configurable tweezer lattices,” Nature Communications 10, 1647 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Cou- pling single atoms to a nanophotonic whispering-gallery-mode resonator via optical guiding,

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, “Cou- pling single atoms to a nanophotonic whispering-gallery-mode resonator via optical guiding,” Physical Review Letters 130, 103601 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Transporting Cold Atoms towards a GaN-on-Sapphire Chip via an Optical Conveyor Belt,

    L. Xu, L.-X. Wang, G.-J. Chen, L. Chen, Y .-H. Yang, X.-B. Xu, A. Liu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, and G.-Y . Xi- ang, “Transporting Cold Atoms towards a GaN-on-Sapphire Chip via an Optical Conveyor Belt,” Chinese Physics Letters 40, 093701 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Systematic design of a robust half-w1 photonic crystal waveguide for interfacing slow light and trapped cold atoms,

    A. Bouscal, M. Kemiche, S. Mahapatra, N. Fayard, J. Berroir, T. Ray, J.-J. Greffet, F. Raineri, A. Levenson, K. Bencheikh, C. Sauvan, A. Urvoy, and J. Laurat, “Systematic design of a robust half-w1 photonic crystal waveguide for interfacing slow light and trapped cold atoms,” ...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Mul- tifunctional Metalens for Trapping and Characterizing Single Atoms,

    G. Chen, D. Zhao, Z. Wang, Z. Li, J. Zhang, L. Chen, Y . Zhang, X. Xu, A. Liu, C. Dong, G. Guo, K. Huang, and C. Zou, “Mul- tifunctional Metalens for Trapping and Characterizing Single Atoms,” Laser & Photonics Reviews 19, 202401595 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Observation of strong coupling between one atom and a monolithic microres- onator,

    T. Aoki, B. Dayan, E. Wilcut, W. P. Bowen, A. S. Parkins, T. J. Kippenberg, K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kimble, “Observation of strong coupling between one atom and a monolithic microres- onator,” Nature 443, 671 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Quantum optical circulator controlled by a single chirally coupled atom,

    M. Scheucher, A. Hilico, E. Will, J. V olz, and A. Rauschenbeu- tel, “Quantum optical circulator controlled by a single chirally coupled atom,” Science 354, 1577 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    All-optical routing of single photons by a one-atom switch controlled by a single photon,

    I. Shomroni, S. Rosenblum, Y . Lovsky, O. Bechler, G. Guen- delman, and B. Dayan, “All-optical routing of single photons by a one-atom switch controlled by a single photon,” Science 345, 903 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Proposal of a free-space-to- chip pipeline for transporting single atoms,

    A. Liu, J. Liu, Z. Kang, G.-J. Chen, X.-B. Xu, X. Ren, G.-C. Guo, Q. Wang, and C.-L. Zou, “Proposal of a free-space-to- chip pipeline for transporting single atoms,” Physical Review A 108, 033108 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Continuous opera- tion of a coherent 3,000-qubit system,

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stew- art, S. Hollerith, P. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Continuous opera- tion of a coherent 3,000-qubit ...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Deterministic delivery of a single atom,

    S. Kuhr, W. Alt, D. Schrader, M. Muller, V . Gomer, and D. Meschede, “Deterministic delivery of a single atom,” Sci- ence 293, 278 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Controllable atomic collision in a tight optical dipole trap,

    Z.-B. Wang, C. Gu, X.-X. Hu, Y .-T. Zhang, J.-Z. Zhang, G. Li, X.-D. He, X.-B. Zou, C.-H. Dong, G.-C. Guo, and C.-L. Zou, “Controllable atomic collision in a tight optical dipole trap,” Optics Letters 48, 1064 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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