Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Molecular tweezer arrays can be loaded to near-unity occupancy by shelving molecules in repulsive excited states and using microwave-assisted collisions to eject one partner at a time.

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

2026-08-03 01:41 UTC pith:XSJ67JYL

load-bearing objection A smart, internally consistent theoretical proposal for deterministic molecular tweezer loading; the 96% ro-vibrational number is an upper bound set by unmeasured in-house inputs, not a settled prediction. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25783 v2 pith:XSJ67JYL submitted 2026-07-28 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.chem-phquant-ph

Deterministic loading of molecular arrays by microwave-assisted collisions

Etienne F. Walraven , Kang Feng , Jonas Rodewald , Michael R. Tarbutt , Tijs Karman This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.chem-phquant-ph
keywords optical tweezer arraysmolecular arraysmicrowave-assisted collisionsvan der Waals repulsiondeterministic loadingultracold moleculesCaF moleculesiterative filling
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.

Loaded molecules in an optical tweezer currently repel a second molecule only through collisional loss, which for molecules destroys both particles instead of projecting to one. The paper proposes shelving an already-loaded molecule in a rotationally or ro-vibrationally excited state so that it repels a freshly loaded molecule through a repulsive van der Waals interaction, preventing the destructive short-range encounter. A microwave field then drives a microwave-assisted collision in which the pair transfers to a lower-energy state, releasing a well-defined kinetic energy equal to the microwave detuning. With the detuning and trap depth chosen correctly, one molecule leaves the trap and the other remains, after which the retained molecule is shelved and the cycle repeats. The iteration analysis predicts equilibrium filling fractions of 60–87% for the purely rotational scheme and up to 96% for the ro-vibrational scheme, the latter limited not by collisions but by the lifetime of the vibrationally excited state.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the collisional loss preventing atomic-style enhanced loading of molecules can be suppressed by shelving one molecule in a rotationally or ro-vibrationally excited state, so that it repels a freshly loaded molecule through a repulsive van der Waals interaction and never reaches short range. A microwave field then creates a dressed-state avoided crossing; crossing it once adiabatically and once diabatically transfers the pair to a lower-energy channel with kinetic energy exactly equal to the microwave detuning. Because the energy release is sharply defined, a single such microwave-assisted collision can eject one molecule and leave the other trapped, usin

What carries the argument

Microwave-assisted collision (MW AC): a microwave field with Rabi frequency Ω and red detuning Δ couples a repulsive van der Waals pair state (e.g., j+j′=1+3, or (v,j)+(v′,j′)=(2,0)+(0,1)) to a resonantly dipolar channel. The avoided crossing at the Condon point is traversed once adiabatically and once diabatically, releasing kinetic energy ℏΔ; the efficiency P_MWAC is the branching ratio of this desired inelastic rate to all loss rates, computed with coupled-channels scattering. The second load-bearing element is the repulsive van der Waals interaction itself, whose strength is set by the tiny energy gap to a lower-lying pair state—especially the ro-vibrational gap between (2,0)+(0,1) and (

Load-bearing premise

The 96% filling prediction depends on the assumption that a molecule shelved in the second vibrationally excited state repels a freshly loaded molecule strongly enough that the pair essentially never collides at short range, and that this shelved state survives for its full 120-millisecond radiative lifetime; if the true loss rate is higher or the lifetime is shortened by blackbody radiation or trap-induced effects, the filling fraction falls toward the 60–87% range of the ro

What would settle it

In a single optical tweezer containing CaF molecules, prepare one molecule in (v=2,j=0), load a second in (v=0,j=1), and measure the two-body loss rate at 5 µK; if the rate coefficient exceeds about 10^-14 cm3/s, the predicted 96% filling fraction is not achievable. Alternatively, cycle the full load–MWAC–eject–shelve sequence and record the distribution of zero, one, and two molecules after many cycles; a plateau below 1/(2−P) would indicate that one of the efficiencies P_MWAC, P_eject, P_bg, or P_spont is overestimated.

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

If this is right

  • Molecular tweezer arrays could reach about 96% single-site occupancy, comparable to the best atomic enhanced-loading demonstrations and well above the current stochastic 30–40% for molecules.
  • Because the microwave-assisted collision releases the full detuning as kinetic energy in one step, a single collision can eject one molecule; the scheme does not depend on repeated collisions the way atomic light-assisted loading does.
  • In the ro-vibrational scheme the bottleneck moves from collisions to the 120 ms lifetime of the v=2 shelving state, so deeper tweezers and larger detunings than the 5 MHz / 5 µK baseline should remain workable.
  • The continuous-mode version of the rotational scheme reaches 87% filling at 20 molecules/s loading without waiting for sequential cycles, and its performance improves at lower loading rates.
  • All required operations—laser cooling, gray molasses, optical pumping, microwave dressing, and state transfer—are already demonstrated for laser-coolable molecules such as CaF, so the scheme is realistic with current tools.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the ro-vibrational repulsion is as strong as computed, the protected pair configuration could double as a low-loss storage state during array rearrangement, removing the need for a separate idle state.
  • Editorial inference: the anti-magic tweezer suggestion implies a general design rule—choose a wavelength that maximizes the differential tensor Stark shift between collision partners—so thermal ejection remains deterministic at temperatures where equal-depth traps would fail; this could be tested in a single tweezer.
  • Editorial inference: the microwave-assisted collision is an energy-release actuator, not just a loading tool; the same dressed-state crossing could eject a targeted rotational state or perform controlled two-molecule state transfers in quantum simulation experiments.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's recursion assumes Poissonian loading and a fixed cycle; a feedback-optimized variant that adapts the loading rate after each shelving outcome could push the equilibrium above 96% in the ro-vibrational scheme.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a deterministic loading protocol for molecular tweezer arrays. A laser-cooled molecule in j=1 is co-trapped with a shelved molecule in a higher rotational or ro-vibrational state whose long-range interaction is repulsive. A microwave field dresses the pair and induces an inelastic transition with controlled energy release; after this microwave-assisted collision (MWAC), a single molecule is ejected by thermal asymmetry, push beam, trap lowering, or tensor-Stark shifts. Iterating the load–MWAC–eject–shelve sequence yields a recurrence for the filling fraction, with asymptotic limit 1/(2−P). For CaF, coupled-channels calculations give P_MWAC up to ~99% for ro-vibrational shelving and predicted filling fractions up to 96% (ro-vibrational) or 87% (rotational with active ejection).

Significance. If correct, the scheme would be a practical route to near-unity molecular tweezer filling using demonstrated laser cooling, optical pumping, and microwave control, bringing molecular arrays to the level of atomic enhanced loading. The paper’s strengths are its explicit state assignments for CaF, coupled-channels rate coefficients that include hyperfine and tensor-Stark structure, closed-form recurrences for the filling fraction, and several independent ejection strategies. The results are internally consistent among the rate coefficients, the ejection Monte Carlo, and the recurrence. The main quantitative claim, however, is gated by theoretical inputs from companion work (loss rates) and an assumed v=2 lifetime, so the robustness of the 96% figure needs to be demonstrated before the paper can be taken as a firm prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VII, Eq. (5)] The asymptotic filling φ∞=1/(2−P) is essentially P for P near 1, so the headline 96% is gated by two unmeasured theoretical inputs. P_bg≈1 rests on ro-vibrational loss coefficients from the companion model (Fig. 5(b), Table I), with largest computed entries ~4×10^-15 cm^3/s; no experimental bound on non-adiabatic or hyperfine-changing loss channels is available. P_spont=exp(−5 ms/120 ms) rests on a zero-temperature v=2 radiative lifetime; blackbody and trap-induced vibrational transfer are not discussed. Please add a sensitivity analysis. For instance, τ_v=2=20 ms would give P_spont=0.78 and φ∞≈82% (for P_MWAC=P_eject≈1); a true loss coefficient of 10^-12 cm^3/s would reduce P_bg to ~0.94 and φ∞ to ~90%, and 10^-11 cm^3/s would bring the scheme near the rotational-scheme performance. The plausibility of such channels should be assessed.
  2. [Sec. VII / Table I] The sequential-rotational P_bg is not reproduced from the stated inputs. With n=2.4×10^13 cm^-3, t_cycle=5 ms, and k=1×10^-11 cm^3/s (the tabulated leading coefficient for (1,2)+(3,4)), τ_bg=(kn)^-1=4.2 ms and the formula P_bg=(τ/t)[1−exp(−t/τ)] gives 58%, not the quoted 37% (which corresponds to τ≈2 ms). This changes the sequential rotational limit from 60% to about 68% if the other factors are fixed. Please clarify whether an averaged hyperfine loss coefficient of ~2×10^-11 cm^3/s was used and how “density” is defined (peak vs overlap). This matters because Table I and Eq. (5) are the quantitative backbone of the rotational scheme.
  3. [Sec. V.A / Fig. 8] The ejection Monte Carlo makes two uncontrolled approximations. (i) The post-collision momentum direction is drawn uniformly, equivalent to an isotropic differential cross section, although the MWAC release ℏΔ∼h×10 MHz takes the pair beyond the s-wave regime and the dressed dipolar interaction is generally anisotropic. (ii) The post-MWAC m_f distribution is approximated as uniform for thermal ejection, despite Fig. 7 showing channel probabilities between 0 and 20%. Since P_eject enters the recurrence linearly, these assumptions directly affect the rotational-scheme filling fractions in Fig. 10. Please validate the MC sampling against coupled-channels angular distributions, or at least show that the shaded range in Fig. 8 covers the resulting uncertainty.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 10 caption] “equilibrium value of of 1/(2−P)” contains a duplicated “of”.
  2. [Sec. VII and elsewhere] Densities are written as “2.4×10^13 cm3”; the exponent should be cm^-3.
  3. [Sec. V.A] The notation “E/k_B = 5 µK” is confusing; the temperature should be denoted T to avoid conflict with the trap depth and energy release.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: the filling fraction is a closed-form recurrence over independently calculated rate coefficients and lifetimes, not a fit or a self-referential input.

full rationale

The central result φ∞ = 1/(2−P) comes from solving the recurrence in Eq. (4) algebraically (Eq. (5)). The only input is P = P_MWAC P_eject P_bg P_spont (Sec. VII). P_MWAC is a branching ratio of coupled-channels rates (Eq. 1); P_eject is obtained from Monte Carlo dynamics of the trap (Sec. V); P_bg is computed from loss-rate coefficients via the stated survival-time formula; P_spont uses the v=2 radiative lifetime. None of these factors is fitted to the final filling fraction, and the recurrence does not feed back into any of them. The paper does lean on same-group prior work for the repulsive van der Waals framework (Refs. 45, 56) and for the ro-vibrational interaction model (Ref. 46), with the ro-vibrational rates delegated to that companion paper; this is a self-citation dependency and an omitted detail, but not a circular one—the cited model's assumptions do not include the loading result, and the rates are in-principle falsifiable. The 96% estimate is conditional on the unmeasured ro-vibrational loss rates and the assumed 120 ms lifetime; that is a verification/robustness concern, not a by-construction equivalence. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on operational parameters (Δ, Ω, V0, λ, t_cycle, T) chosen by hand for optimal performance, on the standard coupled-channels scattering framework, on the group's own repulsive-vdW derivations (Refs 45, 46, 56), and on the assumption that a v=2 molecule survives with a 120 ms lifetime in the trap. No fundamentally new entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Loading rate λ = 20 molecules/s
    Chosen so that 5 ms cycles give average loading probability ~0.1; sets the Poissonian statistics in Eqs. (4)–(7).
  • Cycle time t_cycle = 5 ms
    Chosen long compared to cooling (~1 ms) and short compared to double-loading; determines P_bg and P_spont.
  • Microwave detuning Δ = 10×2π MHz
    Chosen ≈ twice the trap depth to enable efficient ejection; P_MWAC is computed for this value throughout.
  • Rabi frequency Ω = 1×2π MHz
    Chosen ≈ 0.1Δ to optimize MW AC efficiency (Fig. 3).
  • Tweezer depth V0 = 5 MHz
    Chosen as half the detuning; thermal ejection efficiency depends on the V0 window (Fig. 8).
  • Temperature T = 5 μK
    Assumed efficient loading temperature from deep cooling; affects ejection MC and rates.
  • v=2 lifetime τ = 120 ms
    Assumed spontaneous-emission lifetime; directly limits P_spont = exp(-t_cycle/τ) ≈ 96%, which sets the headline 96%.
  • Hyperfine state selection = (1,2,±1), (3,4,4), (2,0,1), (0,2,2-)
    Chosen as optimum states for MW AC efficiency and loss suppression; not derived from first principles.
  • Trap frequencies = ωx=ωy=50×2π kHz, ωz=5×2π kHz
    Used in the ejection Monte Carlo and density-overlap estimates.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Coupled-channels scattering theory with renormalized Numerov and absorbing boundary conditions correctly models ultracold molecular collisions.
    Invoked in Sec. IV.A to compute k_MWAC, k_short, k_inel; standard method, but unvalidated for this specific scheme.
  • domain assumption Short-range encounters between ground-state molecules lead to universal loss.
    Premise of the introduction (Refs [36–41]) that motivates the repulsive-vdW shelving; loss is treated via an absorbing boundary.
  • standard math Second-order dipole-dipole perturbation theory gives the repulsive van der Waals interactions, with a single dominant pair state.
    Sec. II; justifies repulsion for |j'−j| ≥ 2; follows from standard long-range interaction theory.
  • domain assumption The ro-vibrational van der Waals interaction and loss rates of the companion paper (Ref [46]) are correct.
    Fig. 5(b) loss rates <10^-14 cm3/s come from Ref [46]; the ro-vibrational scheme's P_bg = 1 relies entirely on this.
  • domain assumption The MW AC energy release equals the detuning ℏΔ.
    Sec. IV; deterministic ejection depends on a sharply defined energy release, unlike atomic LAC with spontaneous emission.
  • ad hoc to paper In the ejection Monte Carlo, the collision is isotropic and the post-MW AC m_f distribution is uniform.
    Sec. V.A; stated approximations used to compute P_eject; not justified by the scattering calculations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20909 in / 18285 out tokens · 185482 ms · 2026-08-03T01:41:53.555297+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Molecular tweezer arrays offer great prospects for quantum simulation, sensing, and computing, and would benefit from methods that enhance loading efficiency. Whereas light-assisted collisions underpin enhanced loading methods for atomic tweezer arrays, this approach cannot be directly extended to molecular arrays due to collisional loss. We show how this collisional loss can be suppressed by shelving molecules in rotationally or vibrationally excited states, so that a shelved molecule interacts with a newly loaded molecule through a repulsive van der Waals interaction. By introducing microwave assisted collisions, we show how to control the final states and the energy released in a collision between a pair of molecules. Following this controlled collision, one of the two molecules can be ejected, and we explore several strategies for ensuring deterministic ejection. Our schemes rely on currently available techniques for laser-coolable molecules, and we predict achievable filling fractions up to 96%, paving the way for scalable molecular arrays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25783 by Etienne F. Walraven, Jonas Rodewald, Kang Feng, Michael R. Tarbutt, Tijs Karman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: the new molecule loaded in (v, j) = (0, 1) is first transferred to (0, 2) using a short microwave pulse, and then the same microwave field induces a MWAC by dress￾ing between (2, 0) + (0, 1) (ro-vibrational van der Waals) and (2, 0) + (0, 2) (rotational van der Waals). This pro￾duces molecules in the pair state (2, 0) + (0, 1) with a tuneable energy release. To illustrate this, we show adi￾abatic interacti… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows how the overlap density evolves for four different values of the push force, determined by the scat￾tering rate of the push beam. The overlap density first drops rapidly due to the energy released by the colli￾sion, then oscillates due to the radial oscillations in the tweezer, and continues to drop due to the push. When the push is strong (red line) it overwhelms the confining force of the trap and … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: summarizes our recommended scheme us￾ing purely rotational states, where ejection is achieved by pushing out the j = 2 molecule. The figure gives in￾dicative timescales for these steps and shows the states of the molecules at the end of each step for the three cases where, after the loading step, the tweezer contains one molecule in j = 3 (shelved from previous iteration), one molecule in j = 1 (loaded in… 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.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Ro-vibrational van der Waals interaction between ultracold polar molecules

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Molecules in (v,j)=(0,1) and (1,0) feel a strong ro-vibrational van der Waals repulsion, C6=d_e^4/(9α_e), that can cut collisional loss by orders of magnitude.

  2. Ro-vibrational van der Waals interaction between ultracold polar molecules

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Molecules in a (v=0,j=1)+(v=1,j=0) pair feel a giant, repulsive van der Waals interaction that strongly suppresses collisional loss.

  3. Tunable two-component ultracold molecular gases with vibrational shielding

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Vibrational-state-dependent repulsive shielding can stabilize and independently tune two-component ultracold molecular mixtures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    After a rotational MW AC, we havej+j ′ = 1 + 2 and the collisional loss rate coefficient will be high due to resonant dipolar interactions

    Push-beam ejection in the purely rotational scheme Consider the case where the detuning is less than twice the trap depth so that both molecules remain trapped, albeit at a higher energy. After a rotational MW AC, we havej+j ′ = 1 + 2 and the collisional loss rate coefficient will be high due to resonant dipolar interactions. How- ever, the energy release...

  2. [2]

    Instead of re-cooling thej= 1 11 molecule, we eject it using a push beam resonant with the optical cycling transitionB 2Σ+(j= 0)←X 2Σ+(j= 1)

    Push-beam ejection in the ro-vibrational scheme In the ro-vibrational scheme, shelved molecules are in (v, j) = (2,0), while after the MW AC a pair of molecules is in (2,0) + (0,1). Instead of re-cooling thej= 1 11 molecule, we eject it using a push beam resonant with the optical cycling transitionB 2Σ+(j= 0)←X 2Σ+(j= 1). Note that the pair (v, j) + (v ′,...

  3. [3]

    de-shelved

    Trap-lowering ejection in the ro-vibrational scheme Consider the case where the detuning is less than twice the trap depth so that after a MW AC both molecules re- main trapped. In either scheme, one of the molecules is inj= 1 and can be re-cooled on a 1 ms timescale. After this, the tweezer trap depth can be temporarily lowered, resulting in the ejection...

  4. [4]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Nature Phys.17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho,et al., Nature595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Gyger, M

    F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Sni- girev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033104 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Norcia, H

    M. Norcia, H. Kim, W. Cairncross, M. Stone, A. Ryou, M. Jaffe, M. Brown, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. Bo- hdanowicz,et al., PRX Quantum5, 030316 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Pichard, D

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, ´E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. M´ eriaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris,et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 024073 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Lin, H.-S

    R. Lin, H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, Z.-R. Zhao, L.-T. Zheng, T.- R. Hu, H.-M. Wu, Z. Wu, W.-J. Ma, Y. Gao,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 060602 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered,et al., Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Anderegg, L

    L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science365, 1156 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    C. M. Holland, Y. Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, Science382, 1143 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science382, 1138 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    N. B. Vilas, P. Robichaud, C. Hallas, G. K. Li, L. An- deregg, and J. M. Doyle, Nature628, 282 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Schlosser, G

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, I. Protsenko, and P. Grangier, Nature411, 1024 (2001)

    2001

  19. [19]

    Schlosser, G

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 023005 (2002)

    2002

  20. [20]

    A. L. Shaw, P. Scholl, R. Finklestein, I. S. Madjarov, B. Grinkemeyer, and M. Endres, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 193402 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    A. C. Baldock, A. J. Matthies, L. Caldwell, and H. J. Williams, Near-deterministic loading of optical tweezer arrays via repulsive barricade potentials (2026), arXiv:2604.22406 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Pause, T

    L. Pause, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L032009 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Gr¨ unzweig, A

    T. Gr¨ unzweig, A. Hilliard, M. McGovern, and M. Ander- sen, Nature Phys.6, 951 (2010)

    2010

  24. [24]

    Fuhrmanek, R

    A. Fuhrmanek, R. Bourgain, Y. R. Sortais, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. A85, 062708 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Sompet, A

    P. Sompet, A. V. Carpentier, Y. H. Fung, M. McGovern, and M. F. Andersen, Phys. Rev. A88, 051401 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    Fung and M

    Y. Fung and M. Andersen, New J. Phys.17, 073011 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    B. J. Lester, N. Luick, A. M. Kaufman, C. M. Reynolds, and C. A. Regal, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 073003 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    Brown, T

    M. Brown, T. Thiele, C. Kiehl, T.-W. Hsu, and C. Regal, Phys. Rev. X9, 011057 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    M. M. Aliyu, L. Zhao, X. Q. Quek, K. C. Yellapragada, and H. Loh, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043059 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Ang’Ong’A, C

    J. Ang’Ong’A, C. Huang, J. P. Covey, and B. Gadway, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013240 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Jenkins, J

    A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Phys. Rev. X12, 021027 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    S. K. Pampel, M. Marinelli, M. O. Brown, J. P. D’Incao, and C. A. Regal, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 013202 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Muzi Falconi, R

    A. Muzi Falconi, R. Panza, S. Sbernardori, R. Forti, R. Klemt, O. Abdel Karim, M. Marinelli, and F. Scazza, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 203402 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    P. D. Gregory, L. M. Fernley, A. L. Tao, S. L. Bromley, J. Stepp, Z. Zhang, S. Kotochigova, K. R. Hazzard, and S. L. Cornish, Nat. Phys.20, 415 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    D. K. Ruttley, T. R. Hepworth, A. Guttridge, and S. L. Cornish, Nature637, 827 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    L. R. Picard, A. J. Park, G. E. Patenotte, S. Gebretsad- kan, D. Wellnitz, A. M. Rey, and K.-K. Ni, Nature637, 821 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    E. F. Walraven, M. R. Tarbutt, and T. Karman, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 183401 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    S. Bali, D. Hoffmann, and T. Walker, Europhys. Lett. 27, 273 (1994)

    1994

  39. [39]

    Takekoshi, L

    T. Takekoshi, L. Reichs¨ ollner, A. Schindewolf, J. M. Hut- son, C. R. Le Sueur, O. Dulieu, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, and H. C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 205301 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    K. K. Voges, P. Gersema, M. M. zum Alten Borgloh, T. A. Schulze, T. Hartmann, A. Zenesini, and S. Os- pelkaus, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 083401 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    M. Guo, X. Ye, J. He, M. L. Gonz´ alez-Mart ´ ınez, R. Vex- iau, G. Qu´ em´ ener, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. X8, 041044 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    X. Ye, M. Guo, M. L. Gonz´ alez-Mart ´ ınez, G. Qu´ em´ ener, and D. Wang, Sci. Adv.4, eaaq0083 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    P. D. Gregory, M. D. Frye, J. A. Blackmore, E. M. Bridge, R. Sawant, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Nat. Com- mun.10, 3104 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    L. W. Cheuk, L. Anderegg, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, S. Y. Scarlett, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 043401 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    Karman and J

    T. Karman and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163401 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    Lassabli` ere and G

    L. Lassabli` ere and G. Qu´ em´ ener, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 16 163402 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    Anderegg, S

    L. Anderegg, S. Burchesky, Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, T. Karman, E. Chae, K.-K. Ni, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Science 373, 779 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    E. F. Walraven and T. Karman, Phys. Rev. A109, 043310 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    K. Feng, H. Yang, H. J. J´ o´ zwiak, and T. Karman, Ro-vibrational van der waals interaction between ul- tracold polar molecules (2026), arXiv:2607.25774 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Y. Lu, S. J. Li, C. M. Holland, and L. W. Cheuk, Nat. Phys.20, 389 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    C. M. Holland, Y. Lu, S. J. Li, C. L. Welsh, and L. W. Cheuk, Phys. Rev. X15, 031018 (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Y. Lu, C. M. Holland, C. L. Welsh, X.-Y. Chen, and L. W. Cheuk, Probing coherent many-body spin dy- namics in a molecular tweezer array quantum simulator (2026), arXiv:2603.19090 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    C. M. Holland, C. L. Welsh, Y. Lu, D. Wellnitz, X.- Y. Chen, A. M. Rey, and L. W. Cheuk, Creating and probing spin-squeezed states of molecules (2026), arXiv:2606.02500 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    N. J. Fitch and M. R. Tarbutt, inAdv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys., Vol. 70 (Elsevier, 2021) pp. 157–262

    2021

  55. [55]

    Caldwell, J

    L. Caldwell, J. Devlin, H. Williams, N. Fitch, E. Hinds, B. Sauer, and M. Tarbutt, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 033202 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    J. J. Burau, K. Mehling, M. D. Frye, M. Chen, P. Aggar- wal, J. M. Hutson, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. A110, L041306 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    B. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys.69, 4678 (1978)

    1978

  58. [58]

    L. M. Janssen, A. van der Avoird, and G. C. Groenen- boom, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 063201 (2013)

    2013

  59. [59]

    E. F. Walraven and T. Karman, Phys. Rev. A112, 032810 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    M. A. Anderson, M. D. Allen, and L. M. Ziurys, Astro- phys. J.424, 503 (1994)

    1994

  61. [61]

    Q. Guan, S. L. Cornish, and S. Kotochigova, Phys. Rev. A103, 043311 (2021)

    2021