Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

The detuning that rebalances two absorption minima equals the Rydberg level energy shift.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 04:13 UTC pith:E65CIXXR

load-bearing objection A promising split-EIA balance readout for Rydberg shifts, but the core mapping is never calibrated against a known shift, so the main quantitative claims are under-supported. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15221 v2 pith:E65CIXXR submitted 2026-07-16 physics.atom-ph

Measuring Interaction-Induced Energy Shifts of Rydberg Atoms in Hot Vapor

Tomasz Prokop , Bartosz Kasza , Wojciech Wasilewski , Micha{\l} Parniak This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords Rydberg atomselectromagnetically induced absorptionfour-level ladderenergy shift measurementhot vaporStark shiftionizationvan der Waals interactions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper introduces a method to measure interaction-induced energy shifts of a Rydberg level in a hot atomic vapor. In a four-level ladder system, the probe transmission shows two absorption dips (split EIA) whose symmetry is extremely sensitive to the coupling-laser detuning. When the Rydberg level shifts, the dips become unbalanced; retuning the coupling laser to restore balance yields a compensation detuning equal to the shift. Applying this to rubidium-87 atoms, the authors measure shifts up to 2π×7 MHz and argue the dominant cause is ionization-induced DC Stark shifts, not van der Waals interactions. The method offers a direct, calibration-free readout of mean-field Rydberg interaction energies, which matters for modeling bistability and for assessing Rydberg-based sensors in dense vapors.

Core claim

The paper claims that the balance of the two split-EIA transmission minima is a null indicator of the top-level energy in a four-level ladder: any shift of the Rydberg level is equivalent to a coupling-laser detuning, so the compensating detuning that restores equal minima transmission equals the interaction-induced level shift. In a hot 87Rb vapor exciting the 55P3/2 Rydberg state, the measured shifts grow with probe Rabi frequency (and thus Rydberg population) up to 2π×7 MHz. Comparing with models, the data match an ionization-induced quadratic DC Stark shift, with inferred ion density roughly linear in Rydberg density above a threshold and exceeding it; the estimated van der Waals mean sh

What carries the argument

The central object is the split electromagnetically induced absorption (EIA) double minimum in a four-level ladder (probe 780 nm, dressing 776 nm, coupling 1258 nm to a Rydberg level). The two minima arise from the intersection of the three-photon resonance line with the two dressed absorption branches; their balance is highly sensitive to the coupling-laser detuning. The method uses this as a null meter: detune the coupling laser to rebalance the minima, and read the level shift directly from the compensation detuning, with the Rydberg population held nearly constant at the minima.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the only coupling-laser-detuning-dependent mechanism that controls the EIA minima balance is the Rydberg level energy shift; the paper's Section IV attributes the effect to interaction-induced shifts without a control measurement excluding other 1258 nm-power-dependent effects (such as ac Stark shifts, radiation trapping, or optical-pumping-induced density changes).

What would settle it

Perform a control experiment with fixed 780 nm and 776 nm powers and a fixed Rydberg density (constant probe Rabi frequency and temperature), then vary the 1258 nm coupling power while measuring the compensation detuning. If the compensation detuning changes with coupling power even though the Rydberg level energy should be fixed, the method is not isolating level shifts. Alternatively, measure the full probe transmission spectrum at zero Rydberg population and check whether the EIA minima balance shifts when the coupling laser is scanned; a shift would indicate a power-dependent artifact rath

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, any four-level ladder with a top Rydberg state can serve as a direct energy-shift sensor without needing absolute transmission calibration.
  • The claim that ionization-induced Stark shifts dominate over van der Waals shifts in hot vapor would reframe the interpretation of Rydberg bistability experiments, where van der Waals interactions are often assumed to dominate.
  • The inferred threshold behavior—negligible ions below a Rydberg density, ions proportional to Rydberg density above—would set a practical upper bound on Rydberg density before ion-induced decoherence degrades sensing.
  • Because the Rydberg population stays nearly constant at the EIA minima, the method enables systematic study of mean-field shifts as a function of Rydberg density.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not report a control experiment varying the 1258 nm coupling-laser power at fixed probe power and Rydberg density; without that, the identification of the compensation detuning with a pure level shift leaves open contributions from ac Stark shifts or power-dependent medium effects. A coupling-power scan at fixed Rydberg density would clarify this.
  • The analysis uses the median of the Holtsmark field distribution to connect ion density to the measured shift; a full lineshape model that includes the field distribution might predict asymmetric or broadened EIA minima that could be tested directly against the recorded spectra.
  • The threshold behavior could be independently checked by measuring ion current or fluorescence as a function of Rydberg density, rather than inferring ion density solely from energy shifts.
  • Repeating the method on Rydberg states with different polarizabilities and lifetimes would distinguish ionization-induced Stark shifts from van der Waals shifts more sharply, since the predicted scaling with density differs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for measuring interaction-induced energy shifts of the top Rydberg level in a four-level ladder system by monitoring the balance of the two minima of a split electromagnetically induced absorption (EIA) feature in the probe transmission spectrum. The central claim is that the coupling-laser detuning required to restore the balance, Δcomp, equals the Rydberg-level energy shift. The method is applied to hot 87Rb vapor with the 55P3/2 Rydberg state; measured shifts up to 2π × 7 MHz are reported and attributed to DC Stark shifts from ionized Rydberg atoms, while van der Waals interactions are argued to be too weak to explain the observations. The theoretical resonance-line picture (Sec. II) is clean, and the authors provide a transparent account of their simulation calibration, but the experimental inference relies on several unvalidated assumptions.

Significance. If the central identity Δcomp = Rydberg-level energy shift were independently validated, the method would be a useful, general tool for characterizing mean-field interactions in hot Rydberg vapors and for sensing the onset of strong interactions. The split-EIA balancing idea is conceptually elegant and the resonance-line framework in Sec. II provides a clear physical picture. The paper also makes data openly available, which is a strength. However, the experimental demonstration as presented does not establish the quantitative equivalence between the compensating detuning and the level shift, nor does it rule out competing coupling-laser-power-dependent mechanisms. The subsequent conclusions about ion densities and the exclusion of van der Waals interactions therefore remain conditional. The significance is real but presently limited by these gaps.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV (also Sec. II, Eq. (3))] The central identification of the measured compensating detuning Δcomp with the Rydberg-level energy shift is asserted from the Hamiltonian but never calibrated against an externally known level shift. The calibration in Sec. III (Fig. 2) sets simulation parameters only at Δ23 = 0 (or at the operating point) and does not test the balance-to-shift mapping at independently known nonzero shifts. A DC-field Stark calibration, where the applied field produces a known level shift and the method's output is compared with that shift, is needed before the attribution in Sec. IV ('We attribute the observed effect to an atomic interaction-induced Rydberg level energy shift') can be accepted. Without such a control, any mechanism with the same qualitative effect on the EIA minima balance would be misattributed.
  2. [Sec. III / Sec. IV] No control measurement is reported that varies the 1258 nm coupling-laser power while keeping the 780 nm probe power fixed, or vice versa. Since the EIA minima balance could in principle be affected by coupling-power-dependent ac Stark shifts, optical pumping, radiation trapping, or ion-induced dephasing, the absence of such a control leaves the central identification vulnerable. The paper reports only a single coupling power (356 mW, Sec. III), so the detuning Δcomp cannot be disentangled from power-dependent effects. A simple power-dependence scan at fixed probe power would materially strengthen the claim.
  3. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (5)] The conversion from Δcomp to ion density n_ions assumes (i) that the entire shift is a quadratic DC Stark shift with the ARC polarizability α_s, and (ii) that the median of the Holtsmark distribution (with coefficient 0.333) is the representative field. The subsequent plot of n_ions versus n_Rydberg (Fig. 4(b)) is therefore not an independent test of the ionization-Stark mechanism; it is partly circular, because the same mechanism is used to infer n_ions from Δcomp. The reported linear scaling above a threshold is thus a consistency check, not confirmation. The choice of the median rather than a full distribution average is also not justified beyond a qualitative statement, and the sensitivity of the inferred n_ions to this choice is not quantified.
  4. [Sec. III and Fig. 3(b)] The calibration parameters—the common Rabi scaling factor 0.67, transit-time broadening 2π × 1.45 MHz, and the two atomic densities per scan—are hand-set with no uncertainty estimates, and the measured Δcomp values in Fig. 3(b) are presented without error bars. Since the quantitative conclusion (shifts of 2π × 1–7 MHz) rests on the simulation's fidelity, the paper should report at least a sensitivity analysis: how much would Δcomp change under reasonable variations of the hand-set parameters? Without this, the claimed accuracy of the method and the comparison to theory in Sec. V cannot be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Several DOIs appear malformed or placeholder-like, e.g., [18] '10.1103/k2n6-1xm3' and [20] '10.1103/yb4y-lwzm'. These should be corrected to resolvable identifiers.
  2. [Sec. V.A] The statement that the inferred ion density is higher than the Rydberg-atom density is discussed only briefly ('equilibration of collisional and relaxation processes'); a more quantitative argument or a reference for the ion production/loss balance would help the reader evaluate this nontrivial claim.
  3. [Sec. II, Fig. 1(f)] The near-constant Rydberg population around the EIA minima is an important assumption for relating the measured shift to a single Rydberg density. It would be helpful to state the range of Δ12 over which this constancy holds and the corresponding variation in ρ̄33.
  4. [Sec. III] The beam waist is quoted as (405 ± 10) μm, but it is unclear whether this is the 1/e² radius or the intensity radius; please specify consistently with the Rabi-frequency calculation.
  5. [Sec. I / abstract] The abstract and introduction use 'mean Rydberg atom interactions'—consider clarifying that the measured quantity is a mean-field shift, not a pairwise interaction constant, to avoid confusion with the van der Waals C₆ coefficient discussed later.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Stark-shift interpretation is partially circular: inferred ion density is defined from the measured shift via the assumed mechanism, so the positive attribution to ionization is not independently tested.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section V.A, Eq. (5) and Fig. 4(b); also Intro and Section VI]
    "Combining polarizability with the median field, we arrive at the formula connecting Δcomp with nions: nions = C Δ^{3/4}_comp, where C≈8.75(ε²_0/(e² α_s))^{3/4}. Figure 4(b) presents the ion number density nions, corresponding to the measured Rydberg level energy shift Δcomp (c.f. Fig. 3(b)) against the Rydberg number density n|3⟩ = n|0⟩ ρ33."

    Equation (5) is the inverse of the assumed Stark/Holtsmark relation, so each measured Δcomp is converted into an nions that reproduces exactly that Δcomp as a Stark shift. Figure 4(b) then displays these converted densities as 'corresponding' to the measured shifts, and the paper concludes that 'ionization-induced Stark shifts can' explain the observations. The positive attribution to ionization is thus guaranteed by construction: the conversion assumed the Stark mechanism to define nions. The van der Waals comparison is genuinely independent, but the Stark conclusion is not independently tested without an external ion-density measurement or a calibration of Δcomp against a known level shift.

full rationale

The split-EIA balancing method itself is not circular: the two EIA minima respond oppositely to Δ23 in the four-level model, and the paper's Hamiltonian/Doppler simulations (calibrated to EIT and split-EIA scans) support the balancing criterion. Self-citations [43,44] are to established Lindblad/Doppler-averaging tools and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The van der Waals exclusion is also independent: the pair-interaction and nearest-neighbor estimates give a mean shift about an order of magnitude below the observed values. The circularity is confined to the positive identification with ionization-induced Stark shifts. Equation (5) defines n_ions from each measured Δcomp by inverting the quadratic Stark relation with a median Holtsmark field; hence Fig. 4(b) is a relabeling of the measured shifts under the assumed mechanism, not an independent test. The conclusion that 'ionization-induced Stark shifts can' explain the data is therefore partially guaranteed by construction, although the threshold/linear trend in n_ions vs n_Rydberg retains some empirical content. An independent ion-density measurement or a DC-field calibration of the Δcomp-to-shift mapping would be needed to break this circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central method requires only standard quantum-optics modeling with hand-set calibration parameters (six of them listed). No new particles or forces are introduced. The physical interpretation (ionization-induced Stark) relies on a model-derived ion density, which is a derived quantity rather than an invented entity, but it carries a model-dependence that affects the quantitative claim.

free parameters (6)
  • Common Rabi scaling factor = 0.67
    Scales all calculated Rabi frequencies to match peak/trough widths in calibration scans (Sec. III). Not derived from first principles.
  • Transit time broadening = 2π × 1.45 MHz
    Set to match widths in calibration scans (Sec. III).
  • Atomic densities n|0> and n≠|0> for EIT scan = 1.40e16 m^-3 and 1.99e16 m^-3
    'set to match the transmission values at the sides of the transmission scans and the amplitude of the peaks and troughs' (Sec. III).
  • Atomic densities n|0> and n≠|0> for split-EIA scan = 8.46e15 m^-3 and 2.22e16 m^-3
    Same fitting procedure; the n|0> value directly sets the Rydberg density n|3> = n|0> ρ33, which is the x-axis of the main result Fig. 4(b).
  • Holtsmark median coefficient 0.333 = 0.333 (from literature)
    Taken from the Holtsmark distribution as the representative field; choosing the mean instead would change n_ions by ~30%, so the quantitative n_ions result is model-dependent.
  • Quadratic Stark polarizability α_s = 2π × 0.606 MHz m^2 V^-2 (ARC)
    Used in Eq. (5) to convert Δcomp into ion density; a 10% error in α_s propagates into the n_ions-vs-n_Rydberg slope.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The semi-classical Lindblad master equation with velocity-dependent detunings, plus transit-time broadening jump operators, is an adequate model of the vapor cell response.
    Invoked in Sec. II; used for all spectra and for the ρ33 values that set the Rydberg density axis of Fig. 4(b).
  • domain assumption Linear-response approximation ρ01 ∝ Ω01 holds.
    Sec. II, Eq. (4); Probe powers up to 3.91 μW with quoted Rabi frequencies 2π×2.75 MHz put the system in a weak-probe regime, but no saturation check at the highest power is given.
  • domain assumption The interaction-induced energy shift of level |3> is equivalent to a global coupling-laser detuning Δ23 shift.
    Sec. II: 'A change in the Rydberg level energy E3 ... equivalent to changing the coupling laser detuning Δ23'. This is the core mechanism of the method; it neglects position/velocity-dependent fields and coherences between Rydberg atoms.
  • domain assumption Ion fields are quasi-static and described by a Holtsmark distribution whose median sets the observed shift.
    Sec. V.A; the paper argues that minima are set by the most probable field, but the actual inhomogeneous broadening of a thermal vapor with moving ions is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Nearest-neighbor distance-distribution and ARC pair-state calculations are the correct way to estimate vdW shifts.
    Sec. V.B; the calculation neglects orientation averaging, level splitting, and d23 modification (the text admits the calculation 'overestimates' the magnitude), so it is a bound, not a full prediction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11983 in / 9053 out tokens · 79509 ms · 2026-08-04T04:13:11.125857+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We demonstrate a method to measure energy shifts of the top level in a four-level ladder setup induced by atom interactions in thermal vapors. It utilizes the observation of two transmission minima corresponding to a split electromagnetically induced absorption (EIA) effect. We apply this method to measure mean Rydberg atom interactions in a hot vapor. We believe this approach could provide a valuable tool for accurately modeling mean-field Rydberg atom interactions, as well as sensing the occurrence of strong interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15221 by Bartosz Kasza, Micha{\l} Parniak, Tomasz Prokop, Wojciech Wasilewski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Balancing the split EIA in a four-level ladder. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) The experimental setup. APD - avalanche photodiode, DM - dichroic mirror. Probe transmission is measured via APD. The probe laser beam (780 nm) is aligned counter-propagating to the dressing (776 nm) and coupling (1258 nm) laser beams and the beams are combined on DMs. (b) and (c) Comparison of calibrated simulation with experimental data for calibration: (b) three-level resonance - without the 1258 nm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a). The 87Rb medium in the cell is 7.5 mm long and has its temperature stabilized by a heater. The probe laser beam is counter-propagating with respect to the dressing and coupling laser beams, in order to reduce the Doppler shift. Probe transmission is measured on the avalanche photodiode APD (Thorlabs APD410A/M). All three laser beams are focused in the middle of the cell to a waist of (405 ± 10) µm. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Examples of observed probe transmission scans in Δ12 for different probe Rabi frequencies Ω01 after recovering the minima balance by tuning the coupling laser frequency by Δcomp, as indicated in the legend. (b) Coupling laser compensation tuning Δcomp for set probe Rabi frequencies Ω01 (bottom x-axis). For each Ω01, the Rydberg population 𝜌¯33 around the EIA minima (top x-axis) was calculated with the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Stark shift Δ𝑆 (𝐸) curves for the |55𝑃3/2 𝑚 𝑗 = 3/2⟩ state (orange, solid) and additionally for the |55𝑃3/2 𝑚 𝑗 = 1/2⟩ state (blue, dashed). Electric field distribution (red, right y-axis) for 𝑛ions = 6.34 × 1013 m−3 . For such an ion density, the Stark shift value for the median electric field is 2𝜋 × 7 MHz - the highest one in the results in Fig. 3b. (b) The ion number density 𝑛ions causing the |55𝑃3… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. Fan, S. Kumar, J. Sedlacek, H. K¨ ubler, S. Karimkashi, and J. P. Shaffer, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecu- lar and Optical Physics48, 202001 (2015). 8

    2015

  2. [2]

    M. T. Simons, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, A. K. Robinson, N. Prajapati, and C. L. Holloway, Measurement: Sensors 18, 100273 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    J. Yuan, W. Yang, M. Jing, H. Zhang, Y. Jiao, W. Li, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, and S. Jia, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 106001 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Zhang, Y

    H. Zhang, Y. Ma, K. Liao, W. Yang, Z. Liu, D. Ding, H. Yan, W. Li, and L. Zhang, Science Bulletin69, 1515–1535 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Schlossberger, N

    N. Schlossberger, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, A. P. Ro- tunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, M. T. Simons, A. A. Sheikh, E. B. Norrgard, S. P. Eckel, and C. L. Holloway, Nature Reviews Physics6, 606–620 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Bor´ owka, U

    S. Bor´ owka, U. Pylypenko, M. Mazelanik, and M. Par- niak, Nature Photonics18, 32–38 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    M. Jing, Y. Hu, J. Ma, H. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, and S. Jia, Nature Physics16, 911–915 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Bor´ owka, M

    S. Bor´ owka, M. Mazelanik, W. Wasilewski, and M. Par- niak, Nature Communications16, 10.1038/s41467-025- 63951-9 (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025- 2025

  9. [9]

    Kumar, H

    S. Kumar, H. Fan, H. K¨ ubler, J. Sheng, and J. P. Shaffer, Scientific Reports7, 42981 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    W. J. Watterson, N. Prajapati, R. Castillo-Garza, S. Berweger, N. Schlossberger, A. Artusio-Glimpse, C. L. Holloway, and M. T. Simons, Applied Physics Letters 127, 10.1063/5.0287757 (2025)

    doi:10.1063/5.0287757 2025

  11. [11]

    Allinson, M

    G. Allinson, M. Bason, A. Bonnin, S. Bor´ owka, P. Martin-Iglesias, M. M. Neira, M. Mazelanik, R. Murchie, M. Parniak, S. Pataraia, T. Ruelle, S. Schwartz, and A. Strangfeld, Rydberg receivers for space applications (2026), arXiv:2601.20631 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Y.-J. Wang, J. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhang, S.-Y. Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, Y. Ma, T.-Y. Han, Q.-F. Wang, J.-D. Nan, Y.-M. Yin, D.-Y. Zhu, Q.-Q. Fang, C. Yu, X. Liu, G.- C. Guo, B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, D.-S. Ding, and B.-S. Shi, Nature Communications17, 1160 (2026)

    2026

  13. [13]

    Y. Xue, Z. Bai, and Y.-Q. Ma, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy69, 10.1007/s11433-025-2903-5 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2903-5 2026

  14. [14]

    Ding, Z.-K

    D.-S. Ding, Z.-K. Liu, B.-S. Shi, G.-C. Guo, K. Mølmer, and C. S. Adams, Nature Physics18, 1447–1452 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    K.-D. Wu, C. Xie, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, and G.-Y. Xiang, Science Advances10, 10.1126/sci- adv.ado8130 (2024)

    doi:10.1126/sci- 2024

  16. [16]

    Q. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, S. Guan, J. He, C.-L. Zou, P. Zhang, G. Li, and T. Zhang, Optics Letters48, 2865 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    C. G. Wade, M. Marcuzzi, E. Levi, J. M. Kondo, I. Lesanovsky, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Na- ture Communications9, 3567 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    P. B. Weichman, Physical Review A112, 10.1103/k2n6- 1xm3 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/k2n6- 2025

  19. [19]

    X. Wu, Z. Wang, F. Yang, R. Gao, C. Liang, M. K. Tey, X. Li, T. Pohl, and L. You, Nature Physics20, 1389–1394 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    L. Wu, M. Xiao, Y. Xu, H. Chen, and D. Wei, Physical Review A113, 10.1103/yb4y-lwzm (2026)

    work page doi:10.1103/yb4y-lwzm 2026

  21. [21]

    Y. Jiao, W. Jiang, Y. Zhang, J. Bai, Y. He, H. Shen, J. Zhao, and S. Jia, Nature Communications16, 10.1038/s41467-025-64488-7 (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-64488-7 2025

  22. [22]

    Wadenpfuhl and C

    K. Wadenpfuhl and C. S. Adams, Physical Review Let- ters131, 10.1103/physrevlett.131.143002 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.143002 2023

  23. [23]

    Liu, L.-H

    B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Y. Ma, Q.-F. Wang, T.-Y. Han, J. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhang, S.-Y. Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, G.-C. Guo, D.-S. Ding, and B.-S. Shi, Nature Communi- cations16, 10.1038/s41467-025-56712-1 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56712-1 2025

  24. [24]

    Liu, L.-H

    B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Q.-F. Wang, Y. Ma, T.-Y. Han, J. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhang, S.-Y. Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, B.-S. Shi, and D.-S. Ding, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-53712-5 (2024)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53712-5 2024

  25. [25]

    Gambetta, F

    F. Gambetta, F. Carollo, M. Marcuzzi, J. Garra- han, and I. Lesanovsky, Physical Review Letters122, 10.1103/physrevlett.122.015701 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.015701 2019

  26. [26]

    Arumugam, Communications Physics 10.1038/s42005-026-02585-9 (2026)

    D. Arumugam, Communications Physics 10.1038/s42005-026-02585-9 (2026)

    doi:10.1038/s42005-026-02585-9 2026

  27. [27]

    J. He, X. Wang, X. Wen, and J. Wang, Optics Express 28, 33682 (2020)

    2020

  28. [29]

    Zhang, L.-H

    J. Zhang, L.-H. Zhang, B. Liu, Z.-Y. Zhang, S.-Y. Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, Z.-K. Liu, Y. Ma, T.-Y. Han, Q.-F. Wang, C. S. Adams, B.-S. Shi, and D.-S. Ding, Physi- cal Review Letters133, 10.1103/physrevlett.133.243601 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.243601 2024

  29. [30]

    D. Ding, Z. Bai, Z. Liu, B. Shi, G. Guo, W. Li, and C. S. Adams, Science Advances10, 10.1126/sciadv.adl5893 (2024)

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adl5893 2024

  30. [32]

    Liu, K.-H

    Z.-K. Liu, K.-H. Sun, A. Cabot, F. Carollo, J. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhang, L.-H. Zhang, B. Liu, T.-Y. Han, Q. Li, Y. Ma, H.-C. Chen, I. Lesanovsky, D.-S. Ding, and B.- S. Shi, Physical Review Research6, 10.1103/physrevre- search.6.l032069 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/physrevre- 2024

  31. [33]

    Z. Liu, Q. Ren, C. Nill, A. Cabot, W. Xia, Y. Tong, H. Wang, W. Yang, J. Xie, M. Jing, H. Zhang, L. Xiao, S. Jia, I. Lesanovsky, and L. Zhang, Time series learning in a many-body Rydberg system with emergent collective amplification (2026), arXiv:2511.15047 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [34]

    N. R. de Melo, C. G. Wade, N. ˇSibali´ c, J. M. Kondo, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Physical Review A 93, 10.1103/physreva.93.063863 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.93.063863 2016

  33. [35]

    ˇSibali´ c, C

    N. ˇSibali´ c, C. G. Wade, C. S. Adams, K. J. Weather- ill, and T. Pohl, Physical Review A94, 10.1103/phys- reva.94.011401 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2016

  34. [36]

    Marcuzzi, E

    M. Marcuzzi, E. Levi, S. Diehl, J. P. Garrahan, and I. Lesanovsky, Physical Review Letters113, 10.1103/physrevlett.113.210401 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.210401 2014

  35. [37]

    Zhang, Z

    Z. Zhang, Z. Zhang, S. Han, Y. Zhang, G. Zhang, J. Wu, V. B. Sovkov, W. Liu, Y. Li, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, S. Jia, W. Li, and J. Ma, npj Quantum Information11, 10.1038/s41534-025-00997-z (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00997-z 2025

  36. [38]

    Y. Ma, B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Y.-J. Wang, Z.-Y. Zhang, S.-Y. Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, J. Zhang, T.-Y. Han, Q.- F. Wang, J.-D. Nan, Y.-M. Yin, D.-Y. Zhu, B.-S. Shi, and D.-S. Ding, Folded multistability and hidden crit- ical point in microwave-driven Rydberg atoms (2024), arXiv:2408.10514 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [39]

    T. E. Lee, H. H¨ affner, and M. C. Cross, Physical Review Letters108, 10.1103/physrevlett.108.023602 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.023602 2012

  38. [40]

    Weller, J

    D. Weller, J. P. Shaffer, T. Pfau, R. L¨ ow, and H. K¨ ubler, Physical Review A99, 10.1103/physreva.99.043418 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.99.043418 2019

  39. [41]

    Weller, A

    D. Weller, A. Urvoy, A. Rico, R. L¨ ow, and H. K¨ ubler, Physical Review A94, 10.1103/physreva.94.063820 (2016). 9

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.063820 2016

  40. [42]

    Y. Wang, T. Gao, Y. Niu, Y. Hu, L. Zhang, S. Jia, M. Jing, and Y. Xiao, Optics Express33, 20829 (2025)

    2025

  41. [43]

    Krokosz, J

    W. Krokosz, J. Nowosielski, B. Kasza, S. Bor´ owka, M. Mazelanik, W. Wasilewski, and M. Parniak, Optica 12, 1854 (2025)

    2025

  42. [44]

    Kasza, S

    B. Kasza, S. Bor´ owka, W. Wasilewski, and M. Parniak, Physical Review A111, 10.1103/physreva.111.053718 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.111.053718 2025

  43. [45]

    ˇSibali´ c, J

    N. ˇSibali´ c, J. Pritchard, C. Adams, and K. Weath- erill, Computer Physics Communications220, 319–331 (2017)

    2017

  44. [46]

    Pain, The European Physical Journal Plus135, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00248-4 (2020)

    J.-C. Pain, The European Physical Journal Plus135, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00248-4 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00248-4 2020

  45. [47]

    Chandrasekhar, Reviews of Modern Physics15, 86 (1943)

    S. Chandrasekhar, Reviews of Modern Physics15, 86 (1943)

    1943

  46. [48]

    Prokop, B

    T. Prokop, B. Kasza, W. Wasilewski, and M. Parniak, Replication data for measuring interaction-induced en- ergy shifts of Rydberg atoms in hot vapor (2026), avail- able at:https://doi.org/10.58132/4K8KAJ

    doi:10.58132/4k8kaj 2026