Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dipolar optimal control of entangled current states

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that time-dependent magnetic-field orientation alone can prepare entangled current states in ultracold dipolar rings, reaching perfect fidelity where symmetry allows and saturating the theoretical fidelity bounds elsewhere.

desk verdict Useful paper with correct symmetry bounds and a concrete protocol, but the controllability headline outruns the proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22822 v4 pith:NQNKWOAE submitted 2025-07-30 cond-mat.quant-gas

Héctor Briongos-Merino , Felipe Isaule , Bruno Juliá-Díaz , Montserrat Guilleumas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords quantumoptimalcontroldipolarultracoldatomsBose-Hubbardmodelentangledcurrentstatesatomtroniccircuitsmagnetostirringcontrollabilitylatticering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a quantum-control scheme for atomtronic circuits: instead of shaping traps or interactions, it simply rotates the direction of the magnetic field that polarizes ultracold dipolar bosons on a lattice ring. With only two control functions — the two angles of the dipole orientation — the scheme drives the system into entangled current states, superpositions of different circulation directions such as NOON and W states. The paper's central finding is that the reachable fidelity is fully determined by a few symmetry and protection constraints, and that numerical optimal control hits those limits exactly: perfect fidelity on rings with an odd number of sites, and the exact theoretical ceiling on even-site rings where inversion symmetry or a protected two-boson state intervenes. If the result holds, it gives experimentalists a simple, feasible way to prepare the kind of circulating entangled states relevant for rotation sensing and qubit proposals in ultracold-atom circuits.

What carries the argument

The working mechanism is the anisotropic dipole-dipole interaction acting as a control: changing the two spherical angles $(\theta,\phi)$ of the dipole moment $\mu(t)$ modulates the long-range density-density couplings $\hat n_j \hat n_k$ without moving the lattice. The reachable set is then bounded by three constraints. First, a Lie-algebra calculation on the linearized control operators $\{\hat n_j \hat n_k\}$ shows that odd-$L$ rings generate the full unitary algebra while even-$L$ rings do not, because site pairs related by inversion $j \leftrightarrow j+L/2$ carry identical weights for every field orientation. Second, the inversion operator $\hat I$ endows each EC state with a definite parity, so the even-parity ground state can only reach the even-parity part of the target. Third, the two-boson state $|\Psi_{\rm DI}\rangle = (1/\sqrt{2L})\sum_j (-1)^j \hat a_j^\dagger \hat a_j^\dagger |\mathrm{vac}\rangle$ is an eigenstate of the full Hamiltonian with energy $U$ for every orientation, making it a protected, unreachable component; the hard-core projector $P_{\rm HCB}$ plays the analogous role when strong on-site interactions project out multiply occupied sites.

What would settle it

Run the same optimization on an odd-site ring with $L=11$ or $L=13$ and $N=4$, preparing an EC state not blocked by symmetry: if the best fidelity over many random initial trajectories falls below $0.999$, the claim that symmetry constraints fully determine the controllability limits would be falsified. Equivalently, a laboratory implementation of the optimized polarization schedule on a dipolar ring that systematically misses the ceilings in Eqs. (8), (10), and (11) would reveal an additional constraint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the controllability of a dipolar Bose-Hubbard ring under magnetic-field-orientation control is set entirely by a small number of geometric constraints, and that these constraints are saturated by optimal control. For rings with an odd number of sites the Lie algebra generated by the drift and control operators spans the full unitary group, so any entangled current state is in principle reachable. For even rings, inversion symmetry splits the Hilbert space into parity sectors; starting from the even-parity ground state, only the even-parity component of the target can be prepared, giving $F_{\max} = \sum_{k \in \Omega} 1/K$ over modes with $Nk$ even, where $K$ is the number of winding modes in $\Omega$. For two bosons on rings with $L=4,8,12,\ldots$, an additional protected state $|\Psi_{\rm DI}\rangle$ is an eigenstate for every field orientation, so its overlap with the target must be subtracted, $F_{\max}=1-|\langle\Psi_{\rm DI}|\Psi_{\rm EC}\rangle|^2$. In the hard-core regime the maximum fidelity for any EC state is $F_{\max}=L^{-N}L!/(L-N)!$. Gradient-ascent numerical optimizations reach these ceilings in every tested case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that rotating the field in just two angles can achieve everything that a much wider set of independent interaction knobs could achieve; the paper verifies this saturation numerically only for small rings, up to L=9 and N=3, and does not prove it for larger systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Odd-site rings are fully controllable: every EC state, including NOON and W states, can be prepared with unit fidelity.
  • On even-site rings, the achievable fidelity is exactly the even-parity fraction of the target, computable from the windings in $\Omega$ before any optimization.
  • For $N=2$ on rings with $L=4,8,12,\ldots$, the protected two-boson state lowers the ceiling below the symmetry bound, so perfect NOON-state preparation is impossible there.
  • With experimental-like strong interactions ($U/J=74$), the physically allowed projected EC states can still be prepared at the hard-core fidelity ceiling $L^{-N}L!/(L-N)!$.
  • The minimum control time grows almost linearly with $L$, keeping the protocol practical as the ring grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the inversion-symmetry analysis should carry over to 2D lattice arrays and continuous rings, where the same parity blocking would define reachable-state boundaries; the paper leaves this untested.
  • Beyond the paper: because the bounds come from density-density operators, they should be nearly independent of the tunneling and on-site interaction strengths for a fixed ring geometry and boson number; a numerical scan of $U/J$ would be a cheap test of that prediction.
  • Beyond the paper: the protected state $|\Psi_{\rm DI}\rangle$, being immune to the control field, could be used deliberately as a built-in 'dark' resource for error filtering or storage in an atomtronic qubit; the paper does not explore this.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the use of time-dependent magnetic-field orientation as a two-parameter quantum optimal control for dipolar bosons on a lattice ring, aiming to prepare entangled current (EC) states. The authors derive three types of fidelity upper bounds: an inversion-symmetry bound (Eq. (8)) for even-length rings, a bound from the protected two-boson state |Ψ_DI⟩ (Eq. (10)) for L∈4ℤ and N=2, and a hard-core projection bound (Eq. (11)). They then use the GRAPE algorithm with M=30 piecewise-constant control steps to demonstrate numerically that these bounds are saturated for small systems (L≤9, N≤3) and selected EC targets, concluding that symmetry fully determines the controllability limits of the protocol.

Significance. If the claimed saturation is generic, the protocol would provide a physically feasible route to entangled current states in atomtronic circuits, and the explicit bounds would be a useful characterization of dipolar quantum control. The paper's strengths include the explicit derivations in Appendix E, the open data availability, and the use of standard, reproducible numerical tools. The significance is tempered, however, by the fact that the central controllability claim rests on an extrapolation from small systems: the upper bounds are computed from a linear control envelope that is much larger than the actual two-angle control, and the numerical validation covers only a limited parameter range.

major comments (2)
  1. The Lie-algebra controllability upper bound is computed for the set of all independent pair-density operators (or inversion-symmetric combinations), not for the actual two-parameter control Hamiltonian H_c(θ,φ) in Eq. (3). The image of the control map in the pair-operator space is at most four-dimensional when expanded in spherical harmonics, so full controllability of the expanded linear system does not imply that the two-angle system is fully controllable. The numerical GRAPE saturation in Section IV covers only L≤9, N≤3, and specific EC targets. The paper's conclusion in Section VII that "symmetry fully determines the controllability bounds" therefore requires additional support. Please compute the dynamical Lie algebra generated by H_0 and the actual span of {H_c(θ,φ)} (e.g., using H_c at several representative angles or a basis of the spherical-harmonic subspace) for the systems in Table I, and compare it with the algebra used to derive the bounds. If the two agree, state this explicitly; if not, the abstract's claim of perfect fidelity "across a wide range of systems" is not supported and should be qualified.
  2. Even within the linear-envelope analysis, Table I shows for L=4,N=2 a Lie algebra dimension of 33, which is smaller than the inversion-symmetry-adapted block-diagonal algebra u(6)⊕u(4) of dimension 52, and also smaller than the dimension 42 expected if the only additional constraint were the invariant subspace of the protected state |Ψ_DI⟩. This indicates that additional conserved quantities or dynamical constraints exist beyond the inversion symmetry and the DI eigenstate, but the paper does not identify them. Consequently, the statement that "symmetry fully determines the controllability bounds" is not a consequence of the Lie-algebra computation; it is an assumption that is tested numerically only for the specific EC states in Section IV. The derivation of Eq. (10) as the maximum fidelity assumes the entire even-parity subspace orthogonal to |Ψ_DI⟩ is reachable, which is not established by the algebra. Please characterize these additional constraints or provide a direct proof that they do not lower the reachable fidelity for the EC targets considered.
minor comments (4)
  1. The control Hamiltonian is written as H_c(μ,t) while the text and Fig. 1(b) parameterize the control by θ(t)={θ(t),φ(t)}; please unify the notation for clarity.
  2. In the experimental feasibility section, the word "impedancy" should be "impedance".
  3. The fidelity shown is the best over 10 optimization runs. Since Appendix C documents that some runs converge to lower fidelities, reporting the median or the distribution (as in Fig. 4) along with the best would give a more complete picture of the expected performance of the protocol.
  4. Please specify how the Lie algebra dimensions are computed (e.g., which numerical algorithm and whether using exact arithmetic) and provide a reference or code repository, given that the cost is stated to scale as (dim H)^8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fidelity bounds are derived from exact symmetry, protected-state, and hard-core projection arguments, and the GRAPE optimizations provide an independent numerical test; the only self-citation is the magnetostirring motivation from Ref. [38], which is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on three independently derived upper bounds. Equation (8) is the projection of the target EC state onto the even-parity subspace, a direct mathematical consequence of inversion symmetry preserving that subspace for even L. Equation (10) subtracts the overlap with the protected two-boson state |Psi_DI>, which is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at every time and therefore has constant projection. Equation (11) is the squared norm of the EC state under the hard-core projection. None of these bounds is fitted to numerical data, and none presupposes that the two-angle control can reach them; the GRAPE simulations in Section IV are an external numerical check of saturation. The Lie-algebra computation in Section III is explicitly described as an upper bound using a larger set of independent density-density controls than the actual two-angle control, and the authors state that they 'employ numerical simulations to demonstrate that our dipolar control scheme saturates this bound.' This is a recognized gap rather than a circular reduction: full controllability of the expanded linear system does not imply full controllability of the nonlinear two-parameter system, a point the authors concede by restricting validation to EC states on small rings. The only self-citation is Ref. [38], the authors' earlier magnetostirring protocol, used as the physical mechanism and motivation; no specific result of that paper is required for the controllability bounds, the protected-state argument, or the numerical optimization. The paper is self-contained in its derivations and honest about the extrapolation to larger systems, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction and no definitional reduction is present. Score 1 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation rather than any circularity in the central claim.

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

The central claim rests on standard QOC controllability criteria, the dBHH model, and the experimental feasibility of fast field rotation. No ad hoc fitted parameters are introduced; the model parameters are taken as inputs. The derived bounds are exact within the stated model.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math A finite-dimensional quantum system with drift Hamiltonian H0 and control Hamiltonian Hc(t) is completely controllable if the Lie algebra generated by {iH0, iHc} spans the unitary algebra u(N_H).
    Standard QOC controllability criterion used in Sec. III to define the upper bound on the dipolar control's reachable set; source refs. [46,47,51,52].
  • domain assumption The extended dipolar Bose-Hubbard model describes N ultracold dipolar bosons in a lattice ring within the tight-binding approximation.
    Central model, Eqs. (2)-(3); validity for dipolar atoms in optical lattices is established in the cited experimental and theoretical literature [27-34,54].
  • domain assumption For an even number of sites L, the ring and the dipolar interaction are invariant under inversion r -> -r for every orientation of the dipole moment.
    Used in Sec. III to split the Hilbert space into parity subspaces and derive Eq. (8); requires a regular polygon geometry.
  • domain assumption In the linear-control upper-bound analysis, each independent density-density operator n_j n_k (or inversion-symmetrized combination for even L) can be considered an independent control direction.
    Basis for the Lie algebra dimension computations in Table I; the actual nonlinear control only explores a subset of these directions, making this an upper bound.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field orientation can be switched at rates up to about 2 pi x 1 kHz, fast enough to reproduce the 30-step control schedule.
    Experimental feasibility estimate in Sec. VI, supported by Ref. [56] on rotating magnetic fields in quantum gases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dipolar optimal control of entangled current states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQNKWOAE

@misc{pith2026250722822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dipolar optimal control of entangled current states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQNKWOAE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22822}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum state control is a fundamental tool for quantum technologies. In this work, we propose and analyze the use of quantum optimal control to exploit the dipolar interaction of ultracold atoms on a lattice ring, focusing on the generation of selected states with entangled circulation. This scheme requires time-dependent control over the orientation of the magnetic field, a technique that is feasible in ultracold atom laboratories. The system's evolution is driven by just two independent control functions. We describe the symmetry constraints of this approach and numerically test them using the extended Bose-Hubbard model. We find that the proposed control can engineer entangled current states with perfect fidelity across a wide range of systems, and that in the remaining cases, the theoretical upper bounds for fidelity are reached.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22822 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the system with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Final fidelity obtained via the dipolar QOC protocol as a function of the control time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Final fidelity obtained with the dipolar QOC protocol as a function of the control time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Final fidelity as a function of the control time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Local reminiscence in the PXP model

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the PXP spin chain, the theta-symmetric and blockaded initial states keep their single-site density matrices close to the initial value (average local fidelity above 0.99) even though global dynamics stay irregular...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, A Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP- Complete Problem, Science292, 472 (2001)

    2001

  2. [2]

    We include the preparation of a different family of entangled states in Appendix A

    and the W state (K= 3). We include the preparation of a different family of entangled states in Appendix A. 3 III. CONTROLABILITY OF THE SYSTEM A fundamental question in QOC is whether, or to what extent, it is possible to control a quantum sys- tem to achieve any physically permitted evolution. This is called complete controllability [46, 47], and refers...

  3. [3]

    X. Chen, B. Zeng, Z.-C. Gu, B. Yoshida, and I. L. Chuang, Gapped Two-Body Hamiltonian Whose Unique Ground State Is Universal for One-Way Quantum Com- putation, Physical Review Letters102, 220501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    A. S. Sørensen, E. Altman, M. Gullans, J. V. Porto, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Adiabatic preparation of many-body states in optical lattices, Physical Review A 81, 061603 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Ljubotina, B

    M. Ljubotina, B. Roos, D. A. Abanin, and M. Serbyn, Optimal Steering of Matrix Product States and Quantum Many-Body Scars, PRX Quantum3, 030343 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    C. Lin, Y. Ma, and D. Sels, Optimal control for quantum metrology via Pontryagin’s principle, Physical Review A 103, 052607 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    D. S. Gr¨ un, K. Wittmann W., L. H. Ymai, J. Links, and A. Foerster, Protocol designs for NOON states, Commu- nications Physics5, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Jarzynski, Generating shortcuts to adiabaticity in quantum and classical dynamics, Physical Review A88, 040101 (2013)

    C. Jarzynski, Generating shortcuts to adiabaticity in quantum and classical dynamics, Physical Review A88, 040101 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    L. C. Venuti, T. Albash, M. Marvian, D. Lidar, and P. Za- nardi, Relaxation versus adiabatic quantum steady-state preparation, Physical Review A95, 042302 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    T. Hatomura, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Theoretical framework, relations between different methods, and ver- satile approximations, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics57, 102001 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Albertini and D

    F. Albertini and D. D’Alessandro, Notions of control- lability for quantum mechanical systems (2002), quant- ph/0106128

    2002

  4. [12]

    Dong and I

    D. Dong and I. Petersen, Quantum control theory and applications: A survey, IET Control Theory & Applica- tions4, 2651 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. K¨ ockenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Training Schr¨ odinger’s cat: Quantum opti- mal control, The European Physical Journal D69, 279 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, 2nd ed

    D. D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, 2nd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum op- timal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Eu...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Morandi, Optimal control of entanglement in atom pairs with dipole-dipole interaction by quantum phase space formalism, Physics Letters A502, 129390 (2024)

    O. Morandi, Optimal control of entanglement in atom pairs with dipole-dipole interaction by quantum phase space formalism, Physics Letters A502, 129390 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    L.-N. Wu, X. Li, N. Goldman, and B. Wang, Optimal control for preparing fractional quantum Hall states in optical lattices (2025), 2501.10720 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    T. Haug, R. Dumke, L.-C. Kwek, C. Miniatura, and L. Amico, Machine-learning engineering of quantum cur- rents, Physical Review Research3, 013034 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Perciavalle, D

    F. Perciavalle, D. Rossini, J. Polo, O. Morsch, and L. Amico, Quantum superpositions of current states in Rydberg-atom networks, Physical Review Research6, 043025 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Machnes, U

    S. Machnes, U. Sander, S. J. Glaser, P. de Fouqui` eres, A. Gruslys, S. Schirmer, and T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, Comparing, optimizing, and benchmarking quantum- control algorithms in a unifying programming framework, Physical Review A84, 022305 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: Design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    M. M. M¨ uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, One decade of quantum optimal control in the chopped random basis, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 076001 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    D. M. Reich, M. Ndong, and C. P. Koch, Monotoni- cally convergent optimization in quantum control using Krotov’s method, The Journal of Chemical Physics136, 7 104103 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 045002 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Norambuena, M

    A. Norambuena, M. Mattheakis, F. J. Gonz´ alez, and R. Coto, Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Quantum Control, Physical Review Letters132, 010801 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Amico, M

    L. Amico, M. Boshier, G. Birkl, A. Minguzzi, C. Miniatura, L.-C. Kwek, D. Aghamalyan, V. Ahufinger, D. Anderson, N. Andrei, A. S. Arnold, M. Baker, T. A. Bell, T. Bland, J. P. Brantut, D. Cassettari, W. J. Chet- cuti, F. Chevy, R. Citro, S. De Palo, R. Dumke, M. Ed- wards, R. ...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Amico, D

    L. Amico, D. Anderson, M. Boshier, J.-P. Brantut, L.-C. Kwek, A. Minguzzi, and W. von Klitzing, Colloquium: Atomtronic circuits: From many-body physics to quan- tum technologies, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 041001 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    M. Lu, N. Q. Burdick, S. H. Youn, and B. L. Lev, Strongly Dipolar Bose-Einstein Condensate of Dyspro- sium, Physical Review Letters107, 190401 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Y. Tang, N. Q. Burdick, K. Baumann, and B. L. Lev, Bose–Einstein condensation of 162Dy and 160Dy, New Journal of Physics17, 045006 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Aikawa, A

    K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, A. Rietzler, R. Grimm, and F. Ferlaino, Bose-Einstein Condensation of Erbium, Physical Review Letters108, 210401 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Griesmaier, J

    A. Griesmaier, J. Werner, S. Hensler, J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau, Bose-Einstein Condensation of Chromium, Physical Review Letters94, 160401 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Miyazawa, R

    Y. Miyazawa, R. Inoue, H. Matsui, G. Nomura, and M. Kozuma, Bose-Einstein Condensation of Europium, Physical Review Letters129, 223401 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Cold molecules: Progress in quantum engineering of chemistry and quan- tum matter, Science357, 1002 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Langen, G

    T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Quantum state manipulation and cooling of ultracold molecules, Nature Physics20, 702 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Karman, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Observation of Bose–Einstein condensation of dipolar molecules, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Gallem ´ ı, M

    A. Gallem ´ ı, M. Guilleumas, R. Mayol, and A. Sanpera, Role of anisotropy in dipolar bosons in triple-well poten- tials, Physical Review A88, 063645 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Rovirola, H

    M. Rovirola, H. Briongos-Merino, B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, and M. Guilleumas, Ultracold dipolar bosons trapped in atomtronic circuits, Physical Review A109, 063331 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    L. H. Ymai and A. P. Tonel, Tunneling control of dipolar bosons in triple-well circuits via dipole polarization orien- tation and quantum sensing application, Physical Review A112, 013302 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Briongos-Merino, F

    H. Briongos-Merino, F. Isaule, M. Guilleumas, and B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, Dipolar magnetostirring protocol for three- well atomtronic circuits, SciPost Physics19, 059 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Klaus, T

    L. Klaus, T. Bland, E. Poli, C. Politi, G. Lamporesi, E. Casotti, R. N. Bisset, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Observation of vortices and vortex stripes in a dipolar condensate, Nature Physics18, 1453 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    S. B. Prasad, T. Bland, B. C. Mulkerin, N. G. Parker, and A. M. Martin, Vortex lattice formation in dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates via rotation of the polariza- tion, Physical Review A100, 023625 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    S. B. Prasad, B. C. Mulkerin, and A. M. Martin, Arbitrary-angle rotation of the polarization of a dipo- lar Bose-Einstein condensate, Physical Review A103, 033322 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Bland, G

    T. Bland, G. Lamporesi, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Vortices in dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates, Comptes Rendus. Physique24, 1 (2023), 2303.13263 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M. A. Kasevich, Preci- sion Rotation Measurements with an Atom Interferome- ter Gyroscope, Physical Review Letters78, 2046 (1997)

    1997

  37. [45]

    Pelegr ´ ı, J

    G. Pelegr ´ ı, J. Mompart, and V. Ahufinger, Quantum sensing using imbalanced counter-rotating Bose–Einstein condensate modes, New Journal of Physics20, 103001 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    J. E. Mooij and C. J. P. M. Harmans, Phase-slip flux qubits, New Journal of Physics7, 219 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Ramakrishna, M

    V. Ramakrishna, M. V. Salapaka, M. Dahleh, H. Rab- itz, and A. Peirce, Controllability of molecular systems, Physical Review A51, 960 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    S. G. Schirmer, H. Fu, and A. I. Solomon, Complete con- trollability of quantum systems, Physical Review A63, 063410 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Jurdjevic and H

    V. Jurdjevic and H. J. Sussmann, Control systems on Lie groups, Journal of Differential Equations12, 313 (1972)

    1972

  42. [50]

    Turinici and H

    G. Turinici and H. Rabitz, Quantum wavefunction con- trollability, Chemical Physics267, 1 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    Chakrabarti and H

    R. Chakrabarti and H. and Rabitz, Quantum control landscapes, International Reviews in Physical Chemistry 26, 671 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    H. Fu, S. G. Schirmer, and A. I. Solomon, Complete con- trollability of finite-level quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34, 1679 (2001), quant-ph/0102017

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zeier and T

    R. Zeier and T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, Symmetry princi- ples in quantum systems theory, Journal of Mathematical Physics52, 113510 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    M. H. Goerz, S. C. Carrasco, and V. S. Malinovsky, Quantum Optimal Control via Semi-Automatic Differen- tiation, Quantum6, 871 (2022), 2205.15044 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Baier, M

    S. Baier, M. J. Mark, D. Petter, K. Aikawa, L. Chomaz, Z. Cai, M. Baranov, P. Zoller, and F. Ferlaino, Extended Bose-Hubbard models with ultracold magnetic atoms, Science352, 201 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, R. Groth, S. F. Ozturk, A. Krahn, A. H. H´ ebert, G. A. Phelps, S. Ebadi, S. Dick- erson, F. Ferlaino, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Greiner, Dipolar quantum solids emerging in a Hubbard quantum simula- tor, Nature622, 724 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Y. Tang, W. Kao, K.-Y. Li, and B. L. Lev, Tuning the Dipole-Dipole Interaction in a Quantum Gas with a Rotating Magnetic Field, Physical Review Letters120, 230401 (2018). 8

    2018

  50. [58]

    Briongos-Merino, F

    H. Briongos-Merino, F. Isaule, M. Guilleumas, and B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, Data for: Dipolar optimal control of quantum states - state preparation, Zenodo 10.5281/zen- odo.18661208 (2025)

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    Ninio, A simple proof of the Perron-Frobenius theorem for positive symmetric matrices, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General9, 1281 (1976)

    F. Ninio, A simple proof of the Perron-Frobenius theorem for positive symmetric matrices, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General9, 1281 (1976)

    1976

  52. [60]

    Deffner and E

    S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Energy–time uncertainty rela- tion for driven quantum systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46, 335302 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Okuyama and M

    M. Okuyama and M. Ohzeki, Comment on ‘Energy- time uncertainty relation for driven quantum systems’, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 318001 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Carlini, A

    A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Time- Optimal Quantum Evolution, Physical Review Letters 96, 060503 (2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    P. J. Jones and P. Kok, Geometric derivation of the quan- tum speed limit, Physical Review A82, 022107 (2010). Appendix A: Production of spatially entangled states Besides the EC states, we have also performed cal- culations for other entangled targets. We report here the nume...

    2010

Pith tools

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