Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Engineered Molecular Clock Transitions for Symmetry Violation Searches

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tuning applied fields to a 'magic' point makes YbOH clock transitions immune to stray electric and magnetic fields while keeping high eEDM sensitivity.

desk verdict Solid direct demonstration of field-insensitive transitions in YbOH; the eEDM-sensitivity claim is a model-dependent add-on that needs an independent check. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06787 v1 pith:YO2NAUBJ submitted 2025-08-09 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Yuiki Takahashi , Harish D. Ramachandran , Arian Jadbabaie , Yi Zeng , Chi Zhang , Nicholas R. Hutzler This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph PACS 32.60.+i33.20.-t11.30.Er
keywords electronelectricdipolemomentclocktransitionspolyatomicmoleculesYbOHStarkandZeemanshiftssymmetryviolationRamseyspectroscopymolecularengineering
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 reports the first experimental demonstration of engineered 'EDM clock transitions' in a polyatomic molecule, YbOH. By tuning applied electric and magnetic fields to a magic operating point, the authors make a chosen hyperfine transition insensitive to external field fluctuations—the measured electric and magnetic sensitivities drop by factors of at least 710 and 230 relative to ordinary molecular transitions—while the transition still carries a large differential internal effective electric field of roughly 22 GV/cm for sensing the electron electric dipole moment. The same apparatus uses nearby field-sensing transitions to read out and correct non-reversing stray fields, offering a built-in comagnetometer. Because the method relies only on tunable external fields and not on a specific electronic structure, it should extend to laser-coolable molecules and species with complex nuclei used in nuclear CP-violation searches.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'EDM clock transition': two states in the parity-doubled $(010)$ bending manifold whose differential first-order Stark and Zeeman shifts are tuned to zero simultaneously by applied $E$ and $B$ at a magic point, while their differential eEDM sensitivity $\Delta P = \langle \hat{\mathbf{S}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{n}}\rangle_1 - \langle \hat{\mathbf{S}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{n}}\rangle_0$ stays large. The magic point arises because the parity doublets mix nonlinearly in $E$ and $B$, so the first derivatives of the transition frequency cross zero. Complementary 'field-sensing transitions' with near-natural sensitivities act as rulers for stray fields. Ramsey spectroscopy with two-

What would settle it

Measure the ECT frequency with a Hamiltonian that explicitly includes nuclear-spin and rotational-Zeeman terms, or repeat the experiment on the $^{173}$YbOH isotopologue with a spinful nucleus, and check whether the electric and magnetic zero-crossings remain coincident at $E \approx 39.60$ V/cm, $B \approx 12.15$ G to within a few kHz; if the magic point moves or the zero-crossings split, the claimed suppression factors and generality are invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the $N''=1$, $\tilde{X}(010)$ bending mode of $^{174}$YbOH, a pair of states has differential Stark and Zeeman shifts that both vanish at the same applied fields, $E \approx 39.60\,\mathrm{V/cm}$ and $B \approx 12.15\,\mathrm{G}$. At this magic point, Ramsey spectroscopy gives $\Delta d_{\mathrm{eff}} = (-0.0009 \pm 0.0006)\,\mathrm{MHz/(V/cm)}$ and $\Delta \mu_{\mathrm{eff}} = (-0.0004 \pm 0.0055)\,\mathrm{MHz/G}$ — suppression of electric and magnetic sensitivity by at least factors of 710 and 230 relative to the molecule's dipole and Zeeman scales — while retaining $E_{\mathrm{eff}}\Delta P \approx 22\,\mathrm{GV/cm}$ (≥93% of the full-mixing maximum). Switching between this EDM-clock

Load-bearing premise

The model of the YbOH science state—with parameters tuned within prior spectroscopic errors and with hyperfine terms taken from previous work—must predict the few-kHz-level shifts accurately enough that the electric and magnetic zero-crossings coincide at the same field values; if unmodeled terms shift them apart, the suppression claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EDM searches can use laser-coolable molecules with large magnetic moments: the engineered clock suppresses stray-field systematics without relying on a $^3\Delta_1$ electronic structure.
  • Nuclear CP-violation searches in species with heavy, spinful nuclei (e.g., $^{173}$YbOH) become more robust because the method does not require simple hyperfine structure.
  • Alternating ECT and FST measurements provides an in-situ comagnetometer for non-reversing fields, enabling shimming or numerical subtraction of the dominant false-eEDM systematics.
  • Immunity to field noise extends coherence times, opening the door to quantum-enhanced (beyond standard quantum limit) eEDM measurements.
  • The same clock-transition idea applies to trapped ions or ultracold molecules, extending robust symmetry-violation searches to species not amenable to beam methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the magic-point tuning is generic, the same simultaneous zero-crossing could be engineered in other parity-doubled molecules; the required field values will scale with the molecule's dipole moment and g-factor, so some species may need impractically large fields.
  • Because the model parameters were partially adjusted within prior uncertainties, confirming the magic point in a different isotopologue would test the claim that no unmodeled physics interferes; this is a natural next experiment.
  • The combination of field-insensitive clock and field-sensitive sensing transitions could serve other precision measurements, such as searches for drifts of fundamental constants or Lorentz-violation tests, where stray-field immunity is equally important.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental demonstration of engineered 'EDM-clock transitions' in 174YbOH. In the N''=1, X~(010) manifold a particular transition is identified whose Stark and Zeeman shifts are simultaneously suppressed at E = 39.60 V/cm and B = 12.15 G. Ramsey measurements yield Δd_eff = (-0.0009 ± 0.0006) MHz/(V/cm) and Δμ_eff = (-0.0004 ± 0.0055) MHz/G, corresponding to suppression factors of at least 710 (electric) and 230 (magnetic) relative to typical molecular moments. The paper also reports that the transition retains a calculated differential eEDM sensitivity E_eff ΔP ≈ 22 GV/cm (ΔP/ΔP_max ≳ 93%), that Ramsey contrast is robust to applied field noise two orders of magnitude larger than for a field-sensing transition, and that switching between the ECT and FST provides a protocol for sensing and correcting non-reversing electric and magnetic fields.

Significance. The direct experimental demonstration of simultaneous electric- and magnetic-field insensitivity is significant and is solidly supported by the data. The Ramsey contrast robustness under field noise is a useful practical demonstration, and the switch-channel analysis provides a viable systematic-error-correction scheme analogous to the HfF+ protocol. The paper is generally careful about systematic effects (field calibration, light shifts, shot noise). The main weakness is that the headline eEDM-sensitivity claim is not measured but computed from an adjusted effective Hamiltonian; this needs quantitative uncertainty treatment before the full central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text, eEDM-sensitivity paragraph; Fig. 2(c)] The claim that the ECT retains E_effΔP ≈ 22 GV/cm (ΔP/ΔP_max ≳ 93%) is presented in the abstract as an experimental preservation ('while preserving high sensitivity to the eEDM'). However, ΔP is not measured; it is computed from the Table S1 Hamiltonian. Table S1 lists several parameters as 'manually adjusted in this work to better reproduce the observed field sensitivities.' Because the same data (the field-sensitivity curves in Fig. 2a,b) are used to refine the model, the computation of P is at least partially circular: the zero crossings constrain parameter combinations but do not uniquely fix the state composition at the magic point. A different parameter set within the quoted prior uncertainties could reproduce the two sensitivity curves yet yield a different ΔP. The authors should either (i) compute ΔP from an unadjusted Hamiltonian and propagate the full spectroscopic uncertaintie
  2. [Supplementary, Table S2 and Section B] The supplement states that 'the nuclear spin and rotational Zeeman terms are neglected' in the predictions and that the hydrogen hyperfine parameters b_F(H), c(H) are taken from ref [54] without independent verification in the (010) band. The measured residual first-order sensitivities at the magic point correspond to frequency shifts of order 0.6 kHz/(V/cm) and 5.5 kHz/G, and the second-order coefficients C_EE = 2.59 kHz/(V/cm)^2, C_BB = 76.91 kHz/G^2. The neglected terms are expected to contribute at the few-kHz level, comparable to the scale of the analysis. The location of the magic point and the computed ΔP could therefore shift by amounts that are not quantified. Please estimate the sensitivity of the magic point and of ΔP to these omitted terms (or to the range of b_F(H), c(H)), and state the resulting uncertainty on the eEDM-sensitivity claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. main text] The abstract gives suppression factors of '700 and 200' while the main text reports '710 and 230'; please harmonize the numbers.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 3 paragraph] The FST used for the contrast comparison is described as 'different from the FST shown in Fig. 1(c)' but is not labeled; please give it a distinct name or label to avoid reader confusion.
  3. [Main text, switch-channel paragraph] Typo: 'shits in f_ME and f_MB' should be 'shifts in f_ME and f_MB'.
  4. [Supplementary, Fig. S3] The theory curves in Fig. S3 are computed with the adjusted Table S1 parameters; please mark them clearly as predictions and indicate the parameter uncertainty on the curves.
  5. [Supplementary, Eq. (17)] The term '2σEB / f ME f MB' is ambiguous; please typeset it more explicitly to distinguish '2 σ_EB / (f_ME f_MB)' from other groupings.
  6. [Main text, suppression factors] The suppression factors are quoted as 'at least' values derived from 1σ or 2σ limits; please state the confidence level used for these bounds.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Measured field suppression is direct; the companion eEDM-sensitivity claim is computed from a Hamiltonian manually adjusted to those same field-sensitivity data, so it is a model postdiction rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Material B / Table S1; main text Fig. 2(c) and 'At the same time' paragraph]
    "We can then manually adjust the molecular parameters within their spectroscopic uncertainties to better reproduce the observed field sensitivities. The adjusted molecular parameters used in this work are given in the Table S1. ... The predicted eEDM sensitivity, based on molecular parameters provided in the Supplementary Material, is expressed in terms of EeffΔP (GV/cm)."

    The headline eEDM-sensitivity claim (EeffΔP ≈ 22 GV/cm; ΔP/ΔPmax ≳ 93%) is not directly measured; it is calculated from the Table S1 effective Hamiltonian. Table S1 states that several parameters are 'manually adjusted in this work to better reproduce the observed field sensitivities' shown in Fig. 2(a,b). The same measured Stark/Zeeman data are therefore used both to pin the model and to produce the 'predicted' eEDM sensitivity of Fig. 2(c). The two quantities are not identical—field sensitivities are derivatives of the transition energy with respect to E and B, while ΔP is a state-composition matrix element—so this is not a definitional identity; but the eEDM value is a model postdiction rather than an independent prediction. The supplementary also lists neglected nuclear-spin and rotati

full rationale

The central experimental claim—suppression of Δdeff and Δμeff by at least factors of 710 and 230 at E = 39.60 V/cm and B = 12.15 G—is a direct Ramsey measurement and does not reduce to the model; even if the effective Hamiltonian were imperfect, the measured zero crossings, suppression factors, and coherence-vs-noise data stand as independent experimental facts. I do not mark those as circular. The only partial circularity is in the companion claim that the ECT 'maintains a large internal effective electric field of EeffΔP ≈ 22 GV/cm.' That number is computed (Fig. 2c) from Table S1, whose parameters are explicitly 'manually adjusted in this work to better reproduce the observed field sensitivities.' Thus the eEDM-sensitivity figure is not an independent prediction: it is an output of a model conditioned on the same measurements used for the field-sensitivity fits. The supplement further notes that nuclear-spin and rotational Zeeman terms are neglected (Table S2) and that hydrogen hyperfine parameters are taken from ref [54] without re-determination in the (010) band, so the retained-eEDM-sensitivity claim is conditional. The self-citations to refs [15,35,54] are prior work by the same group, but they are used as prior spectroscopic inputs and not as a uniqueness proof or as a substitute for the present measurement; they do not by themselves raise the circularity score. Overall score 4: the direct field-suppression result is independent, but the headline eEDM-applicability claim contains a fitted-input/prediction overlap.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on a previously developed effective Hamiltonian and spectroscopic constants for YbOH; the parameters in Table S1 are partly fitted to the new field-sensitivity data. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • Rotational constant B = 7328.43 MHz
    Manually adjusted from 7328.6(2) MHz (ref [35]) to better reproduce observed field sensitivities (Table S1).
  • Spin-rotation parameter gamma = -87.7 MHz
    Adjusted from -88.7(9) MHz in Table S1.
  • Axial spin-rotation gamma_G = 15.6 MHz
    Adjusted from 16(2) MHz in Table S1.
  • l-doubling q_G = -12.2 MHz
    Adjusted from -12.0(2) MHz in Table S1.
  • P-odd l-doubling p_G = -10.3 MHz
    Adjusted from -11(1) MHz in Table S1.
  • Molecular dipole moment D_mol = 2.17 Debye
    Adjusted from 2.16(1) Debye in Table S1; enters Stark shift and computed eEDM sensitivity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The effective Hamiltonian H = -D n.E - g mu_B S.B + d_e E_eff S.n (Eq. 1) accurately describes state energies of YbOH in applied fields.
    Standard framework for polar molecules; used for all Stark, Zeeman, and eEDM shifts.
  • domain assumption The parity-doubled N''=1, X(010) bending-mode level structure and its angular momentum coupling model, with parameters from prior spectroscopy [15,35], correctly predict eigenvectors and the eEDM sensitivity P = <S.n>.
    Used to compute ΔP and the magic-point location; parameters partly adjusted in Table S1.
  • domain assumption The transition frequency expansion to second order in E and B (Eq. 7) and the switch-channel decomposition (Table S3) capture all relevant systematic shifts; higher-order terms are negligible.
    Underpins the f_ME/f_MB field-sensing and the systematic-error correction protocol.
  • domain assumption The internal effective field E_eff ≈ 22 GV/cm for YbOH, computed in prior work (refs [28-30]), is accurate.
    The central claim of retained high eEDM sensitivity uses this value; it is not measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption The molecular beam forward-velocity distribution is Gaussian, and the Ramsey pulse and free-evolution times spread accordingly.
    The Ramsey fringe fit function (Fig. 1b) incorporates this distribution to extract transition frequencies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Engineered Molecular Clock Transitions for Symmetry Violation Searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YO2NAUBJ

@misc{pith2026250806787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Engineered Molecular Clock Transitions for Symmetry Violation Searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YO2NAUBJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06787}
}
read the original abstract

Heavy polar molecules are sensitive probes of physics Beyond the Standard Model. However, uncontrolled external electromagnetic fields pose challenges to achieving precise and accurate measurements. Minimizing susceptibility to these fields is therefore critical and has played an important role in all precision experiments of this type. Here we devise and demonstrate clock transitions engineered to realize robust symmetry violation searches in the polyatomic molecule YbOH. Sensitivities to external fields can be suppressed by orders-of-magnitude while preserving high sensitivity to the electron electric dipole moment (eEDM). We perform Ramsey measurements on these clock transitions and observe suppression of electric and magnetic sensitivities by at least a factor of 700 and 200, respectively, and demonstrate the robustness of their spin coherence against large electromagnetic field fluctuations. We further identify and employ selected quantum states to make sensitive measurements of external magnetic and electric fields, another critical feature for highly accurate measurements. This approach of molecular engineering is broadly applicable to diverse molecular species and states, including those with complex nuclei and those that are compatible with state-of-the-art cooling and trapping techniques, thereby offering the potential to significantly improve experimental sensitivity to a wide range of New Physics while expanding the chemical design space for molecular quantum science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A schematic representation of the experiment. A beam of YbOH molecules is directed through a series of lasers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Measured electric field sensitivity (a), measured mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Reduction in Ramsey fringe contrast as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_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. Spin interferometry in a beam of ultracold molecules

    physics.atom-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fully characterized spin interferometer for ultracold YbF molecules is demonstrated, with a projected electron-EDM statistical sensitivity of 8.6×10⁻³⁰ e·cm in 24 hours.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [54]

    Jadbabaie, Measuring Fundamental Symmetry Vio- lation in Polyatomic Molecules, Ph.D

    A. Jadbabaie, Measuring Fundamental Symmetry Vio- lation in Polyatomic Molecules, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    E. A. Hinds, Phys. Scr. T70, 34 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [2]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  4. [3]

    N. R. Hutzler, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 044011 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    DeMille, N

    D. DeMille, N. R. Hutzler, A. M. Rey, and T. Zelevinsky, Nature Physics 20, 741 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Science 381, 46 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Andreev, D

    V. Andreev, D. G. Ang, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, J. Haefner, N. R. Hutzler, Z. Lasner, C. Meisenhelder, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, A. D. West, E. P. West, and X. Wu, Nature 562, 355 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Regan, E

    B. Regan, E. Commins, C. Schmidt, and D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 071805 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    et al., Physical Review Letters 124, 081803 (2020)

    Abel, C. et al., Physical Review Letters 124, 081803 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    et al., arXiv:2203.08103 (2022)

    Alarcon, R. et al., arXiv:2203.08103 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    T. A. Isaev and R. Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063006 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    Kozyryev, L

    I. Kozyryev, L. Baum, K. Matsuda, and J. M. Doyle, ChemPhysChem 17, 3641 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Fitch and M

    N. Fitch and M. Tarbutt, Advances in Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 70, 157 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    F. J. Collings, N. J. Fitch, J. M. Dyne, R. A. Jenkins, E. Wursten, M. T. Ziemba, X. S. Zheng, F. Castellini, J. Lim, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Low-noise en- vironment for probing fundamental symmetries (2025), arXiv:2503.21725 [physics.atom-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Grasdijk, O

    O. Grasdijk, O. Timgren, J. Kastelic, T. Wright, S. Lam- oreaux, D. DeMille, K. Wenz, M. Aitken, T. Zelevinsky, T. Winick, and D. Kawall, Quantum Science and Tech- nology 6, 044007 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Takahashi, C

    Y. Takahashi, C. Zhang, A. Jadbabaie, and N. R. Hut- zler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 183003 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Verma, A

    M. Verma, A. M. Jayich, and A. C. Vutha, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 153201 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    C. Ho, J. Lim, B. Sauer, and M. Tarbutt, Front. Phys. 11:1086980 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    Anderegg, N

    L. Anderegg, N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, P. Robichaud, A. Jadbabaie, J. M. Doyle, and N. R. Hutzler, Science 382, 665 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Derevianko and H

    A. Derevianko and H. Katori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 331 (2011)

    2011

  13. [20]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    H. Kim, H. S. Han, and D. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 7 243004 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    Ushijima, M

    I. Ushijima, M. Takamoto, and H. Katori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 263202 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Kotochigova and D

    S. Kotochigova and D. DeMille, Physical Review A 82, 063421 (2010)

    2010

  17. [24]

    Burchesky, L

    S. Burchesky, L. Anderegg, Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Physical Review Letters 127, 123202 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    K. H. Leung, B. Iritani, E. Tiberi, I. Majewska, M. Borkowski, R. Moszynski, and T. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011047 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Kozyryev and N

    I. Kozyryev and N. R. Hutzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 133002 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    V. S. Prasannaa, N. Shitara, A. Sakurai, M. Abe, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062502 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Denis, P

    M. Denis, P. A. B. Haase, R. G. E. Timmermans, E. Eliav, N. R. Hutzler, and A. Borschevsky, Physical Review A 99, 42512 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    Gaul and R

    K. Gaul and R. Berger, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012508 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    V. V. Flambaum, D. DeMille, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 103003 (2014)

    2014

  25. [32]

    Baron, W

    J. Baron, W. C. Campbell, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, Y. V. Gurevich, P. W. Hess, N. R. Hut- zler, E. Kirilov, I. Kozyryev, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, M. F. Parsons, B. Spaun, A. C. Vutha, A. D. West, and E. P. West, New J. Phys. 19, 073029 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Kirilov, W

    E. Kirilov, W. C. Campbell, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, Y. V. Gurevich, P. W. Hess, N. R. Hutzler, B. R. O’Leary, E. Petrik, B. Spaun, A. C. Vutha, and D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. A 88, 013844 (2013)

    2013

  27. [34]

    Petrov and A

    A. Petrov and A. Zakharova, Physical Review A 105, L050801 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    Jadbabaie, Y

    A. Jadbabaie, Y. Takahashi, N. H. Pilgram, C. J. Conn, Y. Zeng, C. Zhang, and N. R. Hutzler, New Journal of Physics 25, 073014 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    H. Loh, K. C. Cossel, M. C. Grau, K.-K. Ni, E. R. Meyer, J. L. Bohn, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Science 342, 1220 (2013)

    2013

  30. [37]

    Caldwell, T

    L. Caldwell, T. S. Roussy, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012804 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    X. Wu, Z. Han, J. Chow, D. G. Ang, C. Meisenhelder, C. D. Panda, E. P. West, G. Gabrielse, J. M. Doyle, and D. DeMille, New Journal of Physics 22, 023013 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    N. H. Pilgram, A. Jadbabaie, Y. Zeng, N. R. Hutzler, and T. C. Steimle, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 244309 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    T. Chen, C. Zhang, L. Cheng, K. B. Ng, S. Malbrunot- Ettenauer, V. V. Flambaum, Z. Lasner, J. M. Doyle, P. Yu, C. J. Conn, C. Zhang, N. R. Hutzler, A. M. Jayich, B. Augenbraun, and D. DeMille, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 128, 6540 (2024), pMID: 39047199

    2024

  34. [41]

    K. C. Stuntz, K. L. Rice, L. Cheng, and B. L. Augen- braun, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042807 (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    Sunaga, Y

    A. Sunaga, Y. Takahashi, A. Vutha, and Y. Takahashi, New Journal of Physics 26, 023023 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    Fraval, M

    E. Fraval, M. J. Sellars, and J. J. Longdell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 077601 (2004)

    2004

  37. [44]

    M. Fan, B. Nima, A. Radak, G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, and A. Vutha, First results from a search for axionlike dark matter using octupole-deformed nuclei in a crystal (2024), arXiv:2410.02218 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024

  38. [45]

    A. Marc, M. Hubert, and T. Fleig, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062815 (2023)

    2023

  39. [46]

    ´Smia lkowski and M

    M. ´Smia lkowski and M. Tomza, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022802 (2021)

    2021

  40. [47]

    L¨ ow, M

    M. L¨ ow, M. Ibr¨ ugger, G. Rempe, and M. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 113402 (2025)

    2025

  41. [48]

    Zhang, P

    C. Zhang, P. Yu, A. Jadbabaie, and N. R. Hutzler, Phys- ical Review Letters 131, 193602 (2023)

    2023

  42. [49]

    Najafian, Z

    K. Najafian, Z. Meir, and S. Willitsch, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 23083 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    Prehn, M

    A. Prehn, M. Ibr¨ ugger, G. Rempe, and M. Zeppenfeld, Physical Review Letters 127 (2021)

    2021

  44. [51]

    Jadbabaie, N

    A. Jadbabaie, N. H. Pilgram, J. Klos, S. Kotochigova, and N. R. Hutzler, New J. Phys. 22 (2020)

    2020

  45. [52]

    N. R. Hutzler, H.-I. Lu, and J. M. Doyle, Chem. Rev. 112, 4803 (2012)

    2012

  46. [53]

    Takahashi, D

    Y. Takahashi, D. Shlivko, G. Woolls, and N. R. Hutzler, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 023018 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Santra, E

    R. Santra, E. Arimondo, T. Ido, C. H. Greene, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 173002 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Zanon-Willette, A

    T. Zanon-Willette, A. D. Ludlow, S. Blatt, M. M. Boyd, E. Arimondo, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 233001 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    A. V. Taichenachev, V. I. Yudin, C. W. Oates, Z. W. Barber, N. D. Lemke, A. D. Ludlow, U. Sterr, C. Lisdat, and F. Riehle, JETP Letters 90, 713 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Yudin, A

    V. Yudin, A. Taichenachev, C. Oates, Z. Barber, N. Lemke, A. Ludlow, U. Sterr, C. Lisdat, and F. Riehle, Phys. Rev. A 82, 011804(R) (2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    Hobson, W

    R. Hobson, W. Bowden, S. A. King, P. E. G. Baird, I. R. Hill, and P. Gill, Phys. Rev. A 93, 010501 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Duan, W.-T

    Z.-X. Duan, W.-T. Wu, Y.-T. Lin, and S.-J. Yang, Re- view of Scientific Instruments 93, 123201 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Baron, W

    J. Baron, W. C. Campbell, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, Y. V. Gurevich, P. W. Hess, N. R. Hut- zler, E. Kirilov, I. Kozyryev, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, M. F. Parsons, E. S. Petrik, B. Spaun, A. C. Vutha, and A. D. West, Science 343, 269 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Lasner, Order-of-magnitude-tighter bound on the elec- tron electric dipole moment, PhD Thesis, Yale University (2019)

    Z. Lasner, Order-of-magnitude-tighter bound on the elec- tron electric dipole moment, PhD Thesis, Yale University (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    science chamber

    N. R. Hutzler, A New Limit on the Electron Electric Dipole Moment, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University (2014). 8 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL A. Methods In the experiment, YbOH molecules are produced by laser ablation of pressed powder targets at a ∼1 Hz repetition rate and subseque...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.