Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 206 references

Rydberg-Mediated Nonlinear Quantum Optics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rydberg atoms give single photons real interactions

desk verdict A solid, honest review of Rydberg-mediated nonlinear quantum optics, marred only by an unsupported self-cited routing proposal that should be cut or clearly labeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02992 v1 pith:XBWKYHCG submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Yun-Hui He , Chang-Cheng Li , Xu Shen , Jing-Xu Bai , Xiao-Feng Shi , Lin Li , Yue-Chun Jiao , Jian-Ming Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph MSC 81V8081P6878A6081P45 PACS 32.80.Ee42.50.-p42.65.-k73.20.Mf
keywords Rydbergatomsblockadeelectromagneticallyinducedtransparencydark-statepolaritonssingle-photonsourcesphotonicquantumgatesnonlinearopticsphotonentanglement
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

Rydberg atoms have such strong, long-range interactions that a single excited atom can block excitation of its neighbors. This review argues that by coupling light to these states through electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT), the atomic interaction is transferred to the light itself, so individual photons acquire effective interactions—something conventional optical materials cannot do. A sympathetic reader would care because these effective photon–photon interactions underpin deterministic single-photon sources, single-photon transistors, photonic quantum gates, contactless coupling between separated light channels, and deterministic photonic entanglement, all of which are building blocks for scalable optical quantum information processing. The review stakes its case on a sequence of experimental results, from two-photon bound states to a 70%-fidelity deterministic CNOT gate, rather than on a single new measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Rydberg dark-state polariton, the hybrid photon–collective-excitation mode of Rydberg-EIT whose mixing angle satisfies $\tan\theta(t) = g\sqrt{N}/\Omega_c(t)$ (equation 4). Turning off the control field $\Omega_c$ freezes the polariton as a collective Rydberg spin wave; the stored excitation retains the photon's quantum state, and its Rydberg component feels the full dipole–dipole or van der Waals interaction with other excitations. Two further pieces carry the argument: the blockade radius $R_b$ defined by $|V(R_b)| = \hbar\sqrt{2}\,\Omega$, which gives the length and energy scale on which two excitations repel, and the superatom picture in which $N$ atoms inside a blockade volume behave as one two-level system with enhanced coupling $\sqrt{N}\,\Omega$. Together they turn the atomic interaction into an effective photon–photon interaction whose strength is set by the optical depth per blockade volume, $\mathrm{OD}_b$.

What would settle it

Measure the fidelity of the deterministic photonic CNOT gate described in Sec. 3.2 as a function of storage time and temperature, with the control pulse averaging one photon. The single-collective-mode model predicts the fidelity stays near 70(8)% until the spin-wave coherence time; a fidelity that decays noticeably faster—due to motion-induced or many-body dephasing—would falsify the collective-mode picture underlying the review's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that strong, long-range Rydberg–Rydberg interactions can be transferred to propagating light through electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT). A weak probe photon is converted into a dark-state polariton—a coherent mixture of a photon and a collective Rydberg excitation—and the interaction between two Rydberg excitations then acts as an effective interaction between the two photons. This is stated as overcoming the intrinsic weakness of conventional optical nonlinearities, where single-photon-level effects are negligible. As evidence, the review compiles experimental milestones: deterministic single-photon sources with $g^{(2)}(0)$ as low as $5.0 \times 10^{-4}$, single-photon switches and transistors with optical gain up to 200, two-photon and triphoton bound states, a deterministic CNOT gate with 70(8)% fidelity, a cavity-enhanced CNOT with 41.7(5)% efficiency, contactless coupling between separated channels with $g^{(2)}_{AB} = 0.40 \pm 0.03$, and deterministic multiphoton GHZ entanglement for up to six photons.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that light storage and retrieval are faithfully described by a single collective dark-state polariton mode that follows the control field adiabatically, and that an optical depth of order one per blockade radius suffices to make photon–photon interactions strong despite motion-induced and many-body dephasing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-photon nonlinearity becomes a practical resource: deterministic sources with $g^{(2)}(0)$ as low as $5.0 \times 10^{-4}$ and indistinguishable single photons become available for photonic quantum computing and quantum repeater nodes.
  • Few-photon all-optical control becomes feasible: one stored photon can switch or amplify the transmission of many target photons, with demonstrated transistor gains from 20 to 200.
  • Deterministic two-qubit photonic gates replace post-selected ones: the reviewed CNOT and CZ protocols offer a path to scalable optical quantum computing without the resource overhead of linear-optical schemes.
  • Nonlocal photon–photon interactions become possible without mode overlap: contactless coupling between spatially separated channels enables modular quantum networks and distributed architectures.
  • Deterministic multiphoton entanglement is reachable: Rydberg superatoms can emit time-bin entangled states up to six-photon GHZ states with fidelities above the classical threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dephasing bottleneck flagged in the review's outlook is overcome, the same platform could synthesize many-body states of light such as photonic Wigner crystals or fractional quantum Hall states—the review names these as prospects but does not establish them.
  • The contactless-coupling results imply a testable scaling law: the cross-correlation $g^{(2)}_{AB}$ between two channels should decrease with the ratio of blockade radius to channel separation; a systematic study across $n$ and $d$ would refine the model.
  • The gap between the post-selected CNOT fidelity of 99.84(3)% and the deterministic gate fidelity of 70(8)% suggests a potential hybrid direction: use Rydberg nonlinearity to herald successful gates rather than to implement them directly—an extension the review does not explore.
  • Raman-pulse refocusing in the direction-switchable emitter suggests that motion-induced dephasing, not fundamental interaction strength, is the near-term limit; a direct comparison of gate fidelity with and without such refocusing would test whether the bottleneck is practical or fundamental.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of Rydberg-mediated nonlinear quantum optics. It opens with the central claim that mapping Rydberg-atom interactions onto photons via electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) realizes effective photon-photon interactions at the single-photon level, thereby overcoming the weakness of conventional optical nonlinearities. Section 2 presents the fundamentals: Rydberg scaling laws, the blockade radius condition, the superatom picture, EIT dark-state polaritons, and photon storage. Section 3 surveys four application areas: single-photon sources and microwave control, photonic quantum gates, contactless nonlinear optics, and quantum entanglement (atom-photon, photon-photon, and atom-atom). Section 4 gives an outlook and lists current limitations. The paper includes several summary tables of experimental milestones and performance metrics.

Significance. If appropriately qualified, this review would be a useful and comprehensive synthesis of a rapidly developing experimental field. The standard formulas in Section 2, including the group-index expression and the blockade-radius condition, are consistent with textbook Rydberg physics, and the cited experimental numbers (for example, g(2)(0)=0.040(14) in Section 3.1.1, the CNOT fidelity of 70(8)% in Section 3.2, and the transistor gains in Table 3) agree with the sources as far as can be checked. The review draws on work from many independent groups rather than relying on the authors' own papers, and it includes detailed tables that will be useful to newcomers. Its main weakness is that the central claim in the abstract and Section 1 is stated more categorically than the limitations acknowledged later in Section 4; the paper would be significantly strengthened by an explicit statement of the parameter regimes in which the mapping is coherent and deterministic.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The central claim that Rydberg-EIT mapping enables effective photon-photon interactions at the single-photon level 'thereby overcoming the intrinsic weakness of conventional optical nonlinearities' is too strong as stated. Section 4 itself concedes 'rapid many-body dephasing with multiple-photon polaritons' and 'motion-induced dephasing,' and Section 3.3 states that inhomogeneous interactions 'can induce a strong erasing process of the quantum nature of the polaritons.' These caveats are not reflected in the abstract or the introductory statement. Please temper the central claim to something like 'enabling strong few-photon nonlinearity within limits set by optical depth, coherence, and dephasing,' and add a short quantitative discussion of ODb > 1 and dephasing constraints in Section 2.3 or Section 4.
  2. [Section 3.1.1 and Table 2] The repeated use of 'deterministic' for free-space single-photon sources conflicts with the admitted low photon production efficiency ('the photon production efficiency is low in free space') and with the values in Table 2, several of which are far from the ideal g(2)(0)=0 (for example, 0.42(2) in 2021 and 0.34(8) in 2026). Please define what 'deterministic' means in this context (for example, no post-selection versus unit efficiency) and explicitly report efficiencies for the cited sources; without this, the abstract's 'deterministic single-photon sources' claim is misleading.
  3. [Section 3.3] The claim that the measured cross-correlation g(2)_AB = 0.40 ± 0.03 provides 'unambiguous evidence of long-range interactions between spatially isolated photons' needs qualification. The same section notes that the inhomogeneous interaction induces phase gradients that distort the photonic modes and can erase the quantum nature of the polaritons, and the measured anti-correlation may be dominated by classical mode distortion rather than genuine quantum entanglement between the two photons. Please state explicitly whether the contactless interaction has been verified as quantum-mechanical (for example, via an entanglement witness or Bell inequality) or whether the observation is evidence of classical nonlocal correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and encoding errors, including the repeated '⚶' symbol where an en-dash or multiplication sign is intended, 'efficiency' for 'efficiency', 'itypically' in Section 3.3, and 'ia' in Section 3.3. The manuscript should be carefully proofread.
  2. [Table 5] The 'Fidelity' and 'Determinism' columns are not uniformly defined: some entries report raw fidelity, some post-selected fidelity, some SPAM-corrected values, and the 2025 'Remote Bell states' row has no values at all even though the text reports nonzero concurrence. Please define each column and fill in or mark 'not reported' all cells.
  3. [Section 2.2] The condition |V(Rb)| = ħ√2Ω is justified by equating the interaction shift to the excitation linewidth, but the factor √2 is introduced without derivation; a sentence explaining the two-atom dressed-state origin of this factor would improve the presentation.
  4. [Section 3.2] In the paragraph describing the 2019 CNOT gate, 'Optimization near a Förster resonance (between 67S1/2 and 69S1/2)' should specify which state belongs to the control and which to the target, since the level scheme in Figure 9(b) is not fully described in the text.
  5. [References] Reference [152] is cited as an arXiv preprint with category 'atom-ph', which appears to be a typo for 'physics.atom-ph' or similar; also, several 2025 and 2026 references are cited as journal articles without volume/page numbers or 'to be published' markers, and these should be checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: central Rydberg-EIT mapping rests on independent theory and external experiments; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is a review whose central claim—that Rydberg-EIT dark-state polaritons convert strong Rydberg-Rydberg interactions into effective photon-photon interactions at the single-photon level—is traced to the independent dark-state polariton formalism of Fleischhauer and Lukin ([28-30]), the blockade mechanism of Lukin et al. ([35-38]), and experimental demonstrations by Dudin and Kuzmich, Peyronel et al., Firstenberg et al., Tiarks et al., Busche et al., and others ([55-73]). The blockade radius condition |V(Rb)| = hbar*sqrt(2)*Omega and the ODb ≳ 1 criterion are standard definitions used to analyze those experiments, not parameters fitted here and then relabeled as predictions. The authors' own work appears in [60], [96], [153], [189-191], and [195-198], but in each case it is presented as one more experiment or proposal (e.g., the direction-switchable single-photon emitter and the N-channel routing idea) rather than as the proof of the core mapping; removing these citations would not collapse the review's argument. The N-channel routing 'identical routing efficiency' claim is self-referential in origin and not yet independently validated, but the text labels it a proposal and does not use it to derive any central result. The review also explicitly concedes limiting factors—inhomogeneous polariton interactions in Section 3.3, and 'rapid many-body dephasing' and 'motion-induced dephasing' in Section 4—so the narrative is not insulated from counter-evidence. No equation is equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted input is renamed a prediction. Hence the paper shows no significant circularity; score 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing author self-citations.

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

The review introduces no new fitted parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard Rydberg-physics and EIT assumptions from the prior literature. The flagged quantum-routing proposal is an unsupported claim rather than an axiom with independent evidence.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Two-atom Rydberg interaction is governed by dipole-dipole or van der Waals potentials with C3 scaling as n^4 and C6 scaling as n^11 (Table 1).
    Stated in Section 2.1; standard in Rydberg physics but used without derivation.
  • domain assumption EIT dark-state polariton theory with a single collective mode and adiabatic following describes light storage and retrieval (Eqs. (2)-(4)).
    Section 2.3 assumes homogeneous coupling and ignores multimode and inhomogeneous interaction effects, which the review later notes cause dephasing.
  • domain assumption Blockade radius is defined by |V(R_b)| = hbar*sqrt(2)*Omega with collective enhancement sqrt(N).
    Section 2.2 links interaction strength to optical nonlinearity and assumes a two-level collective subspace.
  • domain assumption Experimental results cited in Tables 2-5 and in the text are accurately reported with their quoted error bars.
    Because this is a review, the central claim relies on the fidelity of the cited primary literature; no independent verification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rydberg-Mediated Nonlinear Quantum Optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBWKYHCG

@misc{pith2026260802992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rydberg-Mediated Nonlinear Quantum Optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBWKYHCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02992}
}
read the original abstract

Rydberg atoms have emerged as a versatile platform for quantum optics due to their exaggerated properties, particularly their strong long-range interactions, which enable a new regime of light-matter interaction. By mapping the interactions between Rydberg atoms onto photons, effective photon-photon interactions can be realized at the single-photon level, thereby overcoming the intrinsic weakness of conventional optical nonlinearities. In this review, we first introduce the fundamental physical principles of Rydberg-mediated quantum optics, and then discuss some key developments, including single-photon engineering, photonic quantum gates, contactless nonlinear optics, and quantum entanglement, providing a comprehensive overview of the current state and prospects of this rapidly developing field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Position of Rydberg-mediated nonlinear quantum optics within the broader landscape of quantum nonlinear optical platforms. Representative platforms, including cavity QED, quantum dots, trapped ions, NV centers, and superconducting circuits, are illustrated on the left. The right panel summarizes representative milestones in the development of Rydberg-mediated nonlinear quantum optics over the past two decades, highl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the energy level diagrams of the theoretically calculated Cesium atom (left panel) and hydrogen atom (right panel), where the principal quantum number is n ∈ [6, 60]. These calculations are based on alkali Rydberg calculator (ARC) toolbox [74] . A crucial practical distinction arises when considering alkali atoms, such as the Cesium atom illus￾trated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the interactions between Rydberg states. (a) Dipole–dipole and (b) van der Waals interactions. Top panels: energy-level schemes for the two regimes. Bottom panels: Feynman diagrams representing the virtual photon exchange processes, highlighting the physical origins of the different scaling laws. The most defining feature of quantum optics is the strong Rydberg–Rydberg interaction. The exag￾gera… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Schematic diagram of Rydberg blockade effect in the two-atom case. The blockade radius Rb is defined as the characteristic distance at which the interaction-induced energy shift exceeds the excitation linewidth. Double excitation is therefore suppressed for R < Rb,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Rydberg-EIT level scheme. A weak probe field (Ωp) and a strong coupling field (Ωc) dress the ground state |g⟩, intermediate state |e⟩, and Rydberg state |r⟩. ∆p(c) are the detunings of probe (coupling) laser. (b) Photon storage time sequence. As the control field Ω…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Generation of single-photon sources. (a) Rydberg EIT experimental setup and EIT spectra with different probe intensities (reproduced with permission from Ref. [38]). (b) Experimental scheme and en￾ergy level diagram for the generation of single photons within a cold at…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Interface between the optical and microwave photons via Rydberg atoms. (a) Schematic of the level scheme and experimental setup for storing optical photons as Rydberg polaritons, with state manipulation facilitated by an external microwave field (reproduced with permis…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: All-optical single-photon switches and transistors. (a) Demonstration of the single-photon switch, showing the reduction in transmitted target photons due to a stored gate excitation (reproduced with permission from Ref. [61]). (b) Schematic of the level scheme and set…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Schematic of the experimental setup and the measured nonlinear phase shift of the probe field as a function of frequency detuning (reproduced with permission from Ref. [70]). (b) Experimental setup and level schemes for the control and target qubits. The scheme ill…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Experimental realization of contactless nonlinear interactions between photons stored in spa￾tially separated atomic channels without physical overlap. The measured cross-correlations demonstrate a tunable long-range coupling between the isolated modes that depend…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) An ultracold atomic gas confined in a one-dimensional optical lattice is driven into a singly excited Rydberg state to generate and subsequently map atom-photon entanglement (reproduced with permission from Ref. [157]). (b) Rydberg blockade generates two momentum-…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) A Rydberg superatom sequentially generates time-bin multiphoton entangled states through iterative retrieve-and-patch operations. Measured fidelities confirm the generation of genuine GHZ states for up to six photons, with performance remaining well above the clas…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Experimental schematic of two independent setups separated by 3 m. Each setup utilizes a microscopic ensemble within a Rydberg blockade sphere to generate remote entanglement (reproduced with permission from Ref. [188]). (b) Entangling gates are executed by arrang…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

206 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mabuchi H and Doherty A C 2002 Science 298 1372–1377

    2002

  2. [2]

    Birnbaum K M, Boca A, Miller R, Boozer A D, Northup T E and Kimble H J 2005 Nature 436 87–90

    2005

  3. [3]

    Dayan B, Parkins A S, Aoki T, Ostby E P, Vahala K J and Kimble H J 2008 Science 319 1062–1065

    2008

  4. [4]

    Kimble H J 2008 Nature 453 1023–1030

    2008

  5. [5]

    Chen W, Beck K M, Bücker R, Gullans M, Lukin M D, Tanji-Suzuki H and Vuletić V 2013 Science 341 768–770

    2013

  6. [6]

    Reiserer A and Rempe G 2015 Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 1379–1418

    2015

  7. [7]

    Zwanenburg F A, Dzurak A S, Morello A, Simmons M Y, Hollenberg L C L, Klimeck G, Rogge S, Coppersmith S N and Eriksson M A 2013 Rev. Mod. Phys. 85(3) 961–1019

    2013

  8. [8]

    Nanotechnol

    Lu C Y and Pan J W 2021 Nat. Nanotechnol. 16 1294–1296

    2021

Show all 206 references
  1. [9]

    Lodahl P, Mahmoodian S and Stobbe S 2015 Rev. Mod. Phys. 87(2) 347–400

    2015

  2. [10]

    Nanotechnol

    Senellart P, Solomon G and White A 2017 Nat. Nanotechnol. 12 1026–1039

    2017

  3. [11]

    Blatt R and Wineland D 2008 Nature 453 1008–1015

    2008

  4. [12]

    Monroe C and Kim J 2013 Science 339 1164–1169

    2013

  5. [13]

    Bruzewicz C D, Chiaverini J, McConnell R and Sage J M 2019 Applied Physics Reviews 6 021314

    2019

  6. [14]

    Doherty M W, Manson N B, Delaney P, Jelezko F, Wrachtrup J and Hollenberg L C 2013 Physics Reports 528 1–45

    2013

  7. [15]

    Zhou J W, Wang P F, Shi F Z, Huang P, Kong X, Xu X K, Zhang Q, Wang Z X, Rong X and Du J F 2014 Front. Phys. 9 587–597

    2014

  8. [16]

    Awschalom D D, Hanson R, Wrachtrup J and Zhou B B 2018 Nature Photonics 12 516–527

    2018

  9. [17]

    Song C, Xu K, Li H, Zhang Y R, Zhang X, Liu W, Guo Q, Wang Z, Ren W, Hao J, Feng H, Fan H, Zheng D, Wang D W, Wang H and Zhu S Y 2019 Science 365 574–577

    2019

  10. [18]

    Ruf M, Wan N H, Choi H, Englund D and Hanson R 2021 Journal of Applied Physics 130 070901

    2021

  11. [19]

    Devoret M H and Schoelkopf R J 2013 Science 339 1169–1174

    2013

  12. [20]

    Blais A, Grimsmo A L, Girvin S M and Wallraff A 2021 Reviews of Modern Physics 93 025005 32

    2021

  13. [21]

    Gu X, Kockum A F, Miranowicz A, Liu Y x and Nori F 2017 Physics Reports 718–719 1–102

    2017

  14. [22]

    Saffman M, Walker T G and Mølmer K 2010 Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 2313–2363

    2010

  15. [23]

    Firstenberg O, Adams C S and Hofferberth S 2016 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49 152003

    2016

  16. [24]

    Adams C S, Pritchard J D and Shaffer J P 2020 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53 012002

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gallagher T F 1994 Rydberg Atoms 1st ed Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chem- ical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    1994

  18. [26]

    Šibalić N and Adams C S 2018 Rydberg Physics (IOP Publishing)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Shao X Q, Su S L, Li L, Nath R, Wu J H and Li W 2024 Applied Physics Reviews 11 031320

    2024

  20. [28]

    Fleischhauer M and Lukin M D 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 5094–5097

    2000

  21. [29]

    Fleischhauer M and Lukin M D 2002 Phys. Rev. A 65 022314

    2002

  22. [30]

    Fleischhauer M, Imamoglu A and Marangos J P 2005 Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 633–673

    2005

  23. [31]

    Friedler I, Petrosyan D, Fleischhauer M and Kurizki G 2005 Phys. Rev. A 72 043803

    2005

  24. [32]

    Gorshkov A V, Otterbach J, Fleischhauer M, Pohl T and Lukin M D 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 133602

    2011

  25. [33]

    Chang D E, Vuletić V and Lukin M D 2014 Nat. Photon. 8 685–694

    2014

  26. [34]

    Boyd R W 2020 Nonlinear Optics 4th ed (San Diego: Elsevier Science & Technology)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Lukin M D, Fleischhauer M, Cote R, Duan L M, Jaksch D, Cirac J I and Zoller P 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 037901

    2001

  28. [36]

    Tong D, Farooqi S M, Stanojevic J, Krishnan S, Zhang Y P, Côté R, Eyler E E and Gould P L 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 063001

    2004

  29. [37]

    Gaëtan A, Miroshnychenko Y, Wilk T, Chotia A, Viteau M, Comparat D, Pillet P, Browaeys A and Grangier P 2009 Nat. Phys. 5 115–118

    2009

  30. [38]

    Pritchard J D, Maxwell D, Gauguet A, Weatherill K J, Jones M P A and Adams C S 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 193603

    2010

  31. [39]

    Kazemi J and Weimer H 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 163601

    2023

  32. [40]

    Vuletic V 2006 Nat. Phys. 2 801–802

    2006

  33. [41]

    Heidemann R, Raitzsch U, Bendkowsky V, Butscher B, Löw R, Santos L and Pfau T 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 163601 33

    2007

  34. [42]

    Paris-Mandoki A, Braun C, Kumlin J, Tresp C, Mirgorodskiy I, Christaller F, Büchler H P and Hofferberth S 2017 Phys. Rev. X 7 041010

    2017

  35. [43]

    kumlin J, Braun C, Tresp C, Stiesdal N, Hofferberth S and Paris-Mandoki A 2023 J. Phys. Commun. 7 052001

    2023

  36. [44]

    Dudin Y O, Li L, Bariani F and Kuzmich A 2012 Nat. Phys. 8 790–794

    2012

  37. [46]

    Saffman M 2016 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49 202001

    2016

  38. [47]

    Zeng Y, Xu P, He X, Liu Y, Liu M, Wang J, Papoular D J, Shlyapnikov G V and Zhan M 2017 Physical Review Letters 119 160502

    2017

  39. [48]

    Madjarov I S, Covey J P, Shaw A L, Choi J, Kale A, Cooper A, Pichler H, Schkolnik V, Williams J R and Endres M 2020 Nat. Phys. 16 857–861

    2020

  40. [49]

    Levine H, Keesling A, Omran A, Bernien H, Schwartz S, Zibrov A S, Endres M, Greiner M, Vuletić V and Lukin M D 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 123603

    2018

  41. [50]

    Levine H, Keesling A, Semeghini G, Omran A, Wang T T, Ebadi S, Bernien H, Greiner M, Vuletić V, Pichler H and Lukin M D 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 170503

    2019

  42. [51]

    Anand S, Bradley C E, White R, Ramesh V, Singh K and Bernien H 2024 Nat. Phys. 20 1744–1750

    2024

  43. [52]

    Graham T M, Song Y, Scott J and et al 2022 Nature 604 457–462

    2022

  44. [53]

    Evered S J, Bluvstein D, Kalinowski M, Ebadi S, Manovitz T, Zhou H, Li S H, Geim A A, Wang T T, Maskara N, Levine H, Semeghini G, Greiner M, Vuletić V and Lukin M D 2023 Nature 622 268–272

    2023

  45. [54]

    Bluvstein D, Evered S J, Geim A A and et al 2024 Nature 626 58–65

    2024

  46. [55]

    Dudin Y O and Kuzmich A 2012 Science 336 887–889

    2012

  47. [56]

    Peyronel T, Firstenberg O, Liang Q Y, Hofferberth S, Gorshkov A V, Pohl T, Lukin M D and Vuletić V 2012 Nature 488 57–60

    2012

  48. [57]

    Li L and Kuzmich A 2016 Nat. Commun. 7 13618

    2016

  49. [58]

    Petrosyan D and Mølmer K 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 123605

    2018

  50. [59]

    Ornelas-Huerta D P, Craddock A N, Goldschmidt E A, Hachtel A J, Wang Y, Bienias P, Gorshkov A V, Rolston S L and Porto J V 2020 Optica 7 813

    2020

  51. [60]

    Li C, Shi X F, Jiao Y, Shen X, Yang J, Bai J, Adams C, Jia S and Zhao J 2026 Optica 13 914–919 34

    2026

  52. [61]

    Baur S, Tiarks D, Rempe G and Dürr S 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 073901

    2014

  53. [62]

    Gorniaczyk H, Tresp C, Schmidt J, Fedder H and Hofferberth S 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 053601

    2014

  54. [63]

    Tiarks D, Baur S, Schneider K, Dürr S and Rempe G 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 053602

    2014

  55. [64]

    Gorniaczyk H, Tresp C, Bienias P, Paris-Mandoki A, Li W, Mirgorodskiy I, Büchler H P, Lesanovsky I and Hofferberth S 2016 Nat. Commun. 7 12480

    2016

  56. [65]

    Liao R, Song Z R, Ye G S, Yu J H, Chang Y and Li L 2025 Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 260803

    2025

  57. [66]

    Tiarks D, Schmidt S, Rempe G and Dürr S 2016 Sci. Adv. 2 e1600036

    2016

  58. [67]

    Tiarks D, Schmidt-Eberle S, Stolz T, Rempe G and Dürr S 2019 Nat. Phys. 15 124–126

    2019

  59. [68]

    Stolz T, Hegels H, Winter M, Röhr B, Hsiao Y F, Husel L, Rempe G and Dürr S 2022 Phys. Rev. X 12 021035

    2022

  60. [69]

    An Z Y, Lu B W, Li J, Yang C W, Li L, Bao X H and Pan J W 2025 Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 230803

    2025

  61. [70]

    Firstenberg O, Peyronel T, Liang Q Y, Gorshkov A V, Lukin M D and Vuletić V 2013 Nature 502 71–75

    2013

  62. [71]

    Liang Q Y, Venkatramani A V, Cantu S H, Nicholson T L, Gullans M J, Gorshkov A V, Thompson J D, Chin C, Lukin M D and Vuletić V 2018 Science 359 783–786

    2018

  63. [72]

    Otterbach J, Moos M, Muth D and Fleischhauer M 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 113001

    2013

  64. [73]

    Busche H, Huillery P, Ball S W, Ilieva T, Jones M P A and Adams C S 2017 Nat. Phys. 13 655–658

    2017

  65. [74]

    Robertson E, Šibalić N, Potvliege R and Jones M 2021 Comput. Phys. Commun. 261 107814

    2021

  66. [75]

    Löw R, Weimer H, Nipper J, Balewski J B, Butscher B, Büchler H P and Pfau T 2012 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 45 113001

    2012

  67. [76]

    Walker T G and Saffman M 2008 Phys. Rev. A 77(3) 032723

    2008

  68. [77]

    Shi X F 2022 Quantum Sci. Technol. 7 023002

    2022

  69. [78]

    Barredo D, Labuhn H, Ravets S, Lahaye T, Browaeys A and Adams C S 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 113002

    2015

  70. [79]

    Labuhn H, Barredo D, Ravets S, De Léséleuc S, Macrì T, Lahaye T and Browaeys A 2016 Nature 534 667–670

    2016

  71. [81]

    Urban E, Johnson T A, Henage T, Isenhower L, Yavuz D D, Walker T G and Saffman M 2009 Nat. Phys. 5 110–114 35

    2009

  72. [82]

    Honer J, Weimer H, Pfau T and Büchler H P 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 160404

    2010

  73. [83]

    Pohl T, Demler E and Lukin M D 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 043002

    2010

  74. [84]

    Weimer H, Müller M, Lesanovsky I, Zoller P and Büchler H P 2010 Nat. Phys. 6 382–388

    2010

  75. [85]

    B 30 020305

    Wu X, Liang X, Tian Y, Yang F, Chen C, Liu Y C, Tey M K and You L 2021 Chinese Phys. B 30 020305

    2021

  76. [86]

    Jiao Y, Spong N L R, Hughes O D W, So C, Ilieva T, Weatherill K J and Adams C S 2020 Opt. Lett. 45 5888

    2020

  77. [87]

    Honer J, Löw R, Weimer H, Pfau T and Büchler H P 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 093601

    2011

  78. [88]

    Mohapatra A K, Jackson T R and Adams C S 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 113003

    2007

  79. [89]

    Weatherill K J, Pritchard J D, Abel R P, Bason M G, Mohapatra A K and Adams C S 2008 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 41 201002

    2008

  80. [90]

    Petrosyan D, Otterbach J and Fleischhauer M 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 213601

    2011

  81. [91]

    Budker D, Kimball D F, Rochester S M and Yashchuk V V 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 1767–1770

    1999

  82. [92]

    Novikova I, Walsworth R and Xiao Y 2012 Laser & Photonics Reviews 6 333–353

    2012

  83. [93]

    Kash M M, Sautenkov V A, Zibrov A S, Hollberg L, Welch G R, Lukin M D, Rostovtsev Y, Fry E S and Scully M O 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 5229–5232

    1999

  84. [94]

    Hau L V, Harris S E, Dutton Z and Behroozi C H 1999 Nature 397 594–598

    1999

  85. [95]

    Distante E, Farrera P, Padrón-Brito A, Paredes-Barato D, Heinze G and De Riedmatten H 2017 Nat. Commun. 8 14072

    2017

  86. [96]

    Jiao Y, Li C, Shi X F, Fan J, Bai J, Jia S, Zhao J and Adams C S 2025 Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 053604

    2025

  87. [97]

    Distante E, Padrón-Brito A, Cristiani M, Paredes-Barato D and De Riedmatten H 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 113001

    2016

  88. [98]

    Schmidt-Eberle S, Stolz T, Rempe G and Dürr S 2020 Phys. Rev. A 101 013421

    2020

  89. [99]

    Maring N, Fyrillas A, Pont M and et al 2024 Nat. Photon. 18 603–609

    2024

  90. [100]

    O’Brien J L 2007 Science 318 1567–1570

    2007

  91. [101]

    Couteau C, Barz S, Durt T, Gerrits T, Huwer J, Prevedel R, Rarity J, Shields A and Weihs G 2023 Nat. Rev. Phys. 5 326–338

    2023

  92. [102]

    Aspuru-Guzik A and Walther P 2012 Nat. Phys. 8 285–291

    2012

  93. [103]

    Hartmann M J 2016 J. Opt. 18 104005 36

    2016

  94. [104]

    Hu J Y, Yu B, Jing M Y, Xiao L T, Jia S T, Qin G Q and Long G L 2016 Light Sci. Appl. 5 e16144–e16144

    2016

  95. [105]

    Li T and Long G L 2020 New J. Phys. 22 063017

    2020

  96. [106]

    Qi R, Sun Z, Lin Z, Niu P, Hao W, Song L, Huang Q, Gao J, Yin L and Long G L 2019 Light Sci. Appl. 8 22

    2019

  97. [107]

    Pan J W, Chen Z B, Lu C Y, Weinfurter H, Zeilinger A and Żukowski M 2012 Rev. Mod. Phys. 84(2) 777–838

    2012

  98. [108]

    Guo Q, Qi X Z, Zhang L and et al 2023 Nature 613 53–59

    2023

  99. [109]

    Express 24 10733

    Kaneda F, Garay-Palmett K, U’Ren A B and Kwiat P G 2016 Opt. Express 24 10733

    2016

  100. [110]

    Gallagher T F and Pillet P 2008 Dipole–Dipole Interactions of Rydberg Atoms Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics vol 56) (Aca- demic Press) pp 161–218

    2008

  101. [111]

    Browaeys A, Barredo D and Lahaye T 2016 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys

    2016

  102. [112]

    Giudici G, Veroni S, Giudice G, Pichler H and Zeiher J 2025 PRX Quantum 6 030308

    2025

  103. [113]

    De Léséleuc S, Barredo D, Lienhard V, Browaeys A and Lahaye T 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 053202

    2017

  104. [114]

    Bariani F and Kennedy T A B 2012 Phys. Rev. A 85(3) 033811

    2012

  105. [115]

    Bariani F, Goldbart P M and Kennedy T A B 2012 Phys. Rev. A 86(4) 041802(R)

    2012

  106. [116]

    Bariani F, Dudin Y O, Kennedy T A B and Kuzmich A 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 030501

    2012

  107. [117]

    Maxwell D, Szwer D J, Paredes-Barato D, Busche H, Pritchard J D, Gauguet A, Weatherill K J, Jones M P A and Adams C S 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110(10) 103001

    2013

  108. [118]

    Maxwell D, Szwer D J, Paredes-Barato D, Busche H, Pritchard J D, Gauguet A, Jones M P A and Adams C S 2014 Phys. Rev. A 89 043827

    2014

  109. [119]

    Spong N L R, Jiao Y, Hughes O D W, Weatherill K J, Lesanovsky I and Adams C S 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 063604

    2021

  110. [120]

    Magro V, Vaneecloo J, Garcia S and Ourjoumtsev A 2023 Nat. Photon. 17 688–693

    2023

  111. [121]

    Xu B, Ye G S, Chang Y, Shi T and Li L 2024 Rep. Prog. Phys. 87 110502

    2024

  112. [122]

    Express 31 20641

    Fan J, Zhang H, Jiao Y, Li C, Bai J, Wu J, Zhao J and Jia S 2023 Opt. Express 31 20641

    2023

  113. [123]

    Express 31 31654

    Fan J, Jiao Y, Li C, Bai J, Zhao J and Jia S 2023 Opt. Express 31 31654

    2023

  114. [124]

    Xu W, Venkatramani A V, Cantú S H, Šumarac T, Klüsener V, Lukin M D and Vuletić V 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 050501 37

    2021

  115. [125]

    Chen C, Yang F, Wu X, Shen C, Tey M K and You L 2021 Phys. Rev. A 103 053303

    2021

  116. [126]

    Hao Y M, Lin G W, Lin X M, Niu Y P and Gong S Q 2019 Sci. Rep. 9 4723

    2019

  117. [127]

    Ding Y, Bai Z, Huang G and Li W 2023 Phys. Rev. Appl. 19 014017

    2023

  118. [128]

    Wehner S, Elkouss D and Hanson R 2018 Science 362 eaam9288

    2018

  119. [129]

    Azuma K, Economou S E, Elkouss D, Hilaire P, Jiang L, Lo H K and Tzitrin I 2023 Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 045006

    2023

  120. [130]

    Lloyd S 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 346–349

    1995

  121. [131]

    Sleator T and Weinfurter H 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 4087–4090

    1995

  122. [132]

    Monroe C, Meekhof D M, King B E, Itano W M and Wineland D J 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 4714–4717

    1995

  123. [133]

    Bravyi S and Kitaev A 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71 022316

    2005

  124. [134]

    O’Brien J L, Pryde G J, White A G, Ralph T C and Branning D 2003 Nature 426 264–267

    2003

  125. [135]

    Knill E, Laflamme R and Milburn G J 2001 Nature 409 46–52

    2001

  126. [136]

    Kieling K, O’Brien J L and Eisert J 2010 New J. Phys. 12 013003

    2010

  127. [137]

    Franson J D, Donegan M M, Fitch M J, Jacobs B C and Pittman T B 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 137901

    2002

  128. [138]

    Aharonovich I, Englund D and Toth M 2016 Nat. Photon. 10 631–641

    2016

  129. [139]

    Pelucchi E, Fagas G, Aharonovich I, Englund D, Figueroa E, Gong Q, Hannes H, Liu J, Lu C Y, Matsuda N, Pan J W, Schreck F, Sciarrino F, Silberhorn C, Wang J and Jöns K D 2022 Nat. Rev. Phys. 4 194–208

    2022

  130. [140]

    Wang J, Sciarrino F, Laing A and Thompson M G 2020 Nat. Photon. 14 273–284

    2020

  131. [141]

    Gea-Banacloche J 2010 Phys. Rev. A 81 043823

    2010

  132. [142]

    Imoto N, Haus H A and Yamamoto Y 1985 Phys. Rev. A 32 2287–2292

    1985

  133. [143]

    Matsuda N, Shimizu R, Mitsumori Y, Kosaka H and Edamatsu K 2009 Nat. Photon. 3 95–98

    2009

  134. [144]

    Fushman I, Englund D, Faraon A, Stoltz N, Petroff P and Vuckovic J 2008 science 320 769–772

    2008

  135. [145]

    Turchette Q A, Hood C J, Lange W, Mabuchi H and Kimble H J 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 4710–4713

    1995

  136. [146]

    Parigi V, Bimbard E, Stanojevic J, Hilliard A J, Nogrette F, Tualle-Brouri R, Ourjoumtsev A and Grangier P 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 233602 38

    2012

  137. [147]

    Shi S, Xu B, Zhang K, Ye G S, Xiang D S, Liu Y, Wang J, Su D and Li L 2022 Nat. Commun. 13 4454

    2022

  138. [148]

    Thompson J D, Nicholson T L, Liang Q Y, Cantu S H, Venkatramani A V, Choi S, Fedorov I A, Viscor D, Pohl T, Lukin M D and Vuletić V 2017 Nature 542 206–209

    2017

  139. [149]

    Khazali M, Murray C R and Pohl T 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 113605

    2019

  140. [150]

    Browaeys A and Lahaye T 2020 Nat. Phys. 16 132–142

    2020

  141. [151]

    Ravets S, Labuhn H, Barredo D, Béguin L, Lahaye T and Browaeys A 2014 Nat. Phys. 10 914–917

    2014

  142. [152]

    Šumarac T, Qiu E H, Tsesses S, Niu P, Menssen A J, Xu W, Walther V, Delić U, Choi S, Lukin M D and Vuletić V 2026 arXiv: 2601.06345 [atom-ph]

    2026

  143. [153]

    Shi X F and Lu Y 2021 Phys. Rev. A 104 012615

    2021

  144. [154]

    Volz J, Weber M, Schlenk D, Rosenfeld W, Vrana J, Saucke K, Kurtsiefer C and Weinfurter H 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 030404

    2006

  145. [155]

    Simon J, Tanji H, Ghosh S and Vuletić V 2007 Nat. Phys. 3 765–769

    2007

  146. [156]

    Ritter S, Nölleke C, Hahn C, Reiserer A, Neuzner A, Uphoff M, Mücke M, Figueroa E, Bochmann J and Rempe G 2012 Nature 484 195–200

    2012

  147. [157]

    Li L, Dudin Y O and Kuzmich A 2013 Nature 498 466–469

    2013

  148. [158]

    Li J, Zhou M T, Yang C W, Sun P F, Liu J L, Bao X H and Pan J W 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 140504

    2019

  149. [159]

    Sun P F, Yu Y, An Z Y, Li J, Yang C W, Bao X H and Pan J W 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 060502

    2022

  150. [160]

    Yang F, Liu Y C and You L 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 143601

    2020

  151. [161]

    Ghosh S, Rivera N, Eisenstein G and Kaminer I 2021 Light Sci. Appl. 10 100

    2021

  152. [162]

    Yang C W, Yu Y, Li J, Jing B, Bao X H and Pan J W 2022 Nat. Photon. 16 658–661

    2022

  153. [163]

    Ye G S, Xu B, Chang Y, Shi S, Shi T and Li L 2023 Nat. Photon. 17 538–543

    2023

  154. [164]

    Wilk T, Gaëtan A, Evellin C, Wolters J, Miroshnychenko Y, Grangier P and Browaeys A 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 010502

    2010

  155. [165]

    Isenhower L, Urban E, Zhang X L, Gill A T, Henage T, Johnson T A, Walker T G and Saffman M 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 010503

    2010

  156. [166]

    Theis L S, Motzoi F, Wilhelm F K and Saffman M 2016 Phys. Rev. A 94 032306

    2016

  157. [167]

    Han R, Ng H K and Englert B G 2016 EPL (Europhysics Letters) 113 40001 39

    2016

  158. [168]

    Müller M M, Haakh H R, Calarco T, Koch C P and Henkel C 2011 Quantum Information Processing 10 771–792

    2011

  159. [169]

    Goerz M H, Halperin E J, Aytac J M, Koch C P and Whaley K B 2014 Phys. Rev. A 90 032329

    2014

  160. [170]

    Saffman M, Beterov I I, Dalal A, Páez E J and Sanders B C 2020 Phys. Rev. A 101 062309

    2020

  161. [171]

    Tian X D, Liu Y M, Cui C L and Wu J H 2015 Phys. Rev. A 92 063411

    2015

  162. [172]

    Su S L, Tian Y, Shen H Z, Zang H, Liang E and Zhang S 2017 Phys. Rev. A 96 042335

    2017

  163. [173]

    Express 26 2292

    Li D X, Shao X Q, Wu J H, Yi X X and Zheng T Y 2018 Opt. Express 26 2292

    2018

  164. [174]

    Beterov I I, Saffman M, Yakshina E A, Tretyakov D B, Entin V M, Bergamini S, Kuznetsova E A and Ryabtsev I I 2016 Phys. Rev. A 94 062307

    2016

  165. [175]

    Beterov I I, Hamzina G N, Yakshina E A, Tretyakov D B, Entin V M and Ryabtsev I I 2018 Phys. Rev. A 97 032701

    2018

  166. [176]

    Idlas S, Domenzain L, Spreeuw R and Byrnes T 2016 Phys. Rev. A 93 022319

    2016

  167. [177]

    Zhao Y J, Liu B, Ji Y Q, Tang S Q and Shao X Q 2017 Sci. Rep. 7 16489

    2017

  168. [178]

    Zhang C, Pokorny F, Li W, Higgins G, Pöschl A, Lesanovsky I and Hennrich M 2020 Nature 580 345–349

    2020

  169. [179]

    Beterov I I, Ashkarin I N, Yakshina E A, Tretyakov D B, Entin V M, Ryabtsev I I, Cheinet P, Pillet P and Saffman M 2018 Phys. Rev. A 98 042704

    2018

  170. [180]

    Su S L, Guo Q, Wang H F and Zhang S 2015 Phys. Rev. A 92 022328

    2015

  171. [181]

    Reiter F, Reeb D and Sørensen A S 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 040501

    2016

  172. [182]

    B 30 023201

    Yang C, Li D X and Shao X Q 2021 Chinese Phys. B 30 023201

    2021

  173. [183]

    Carr A W and Saffman M 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 033607

    2013

  174. [184]

    Li R, Yu D, Su S L and Qian J 2020 Phys. Rev. A 101 042328

    2020

  175. [185]

    Rao D D B and Mølmer K 2014 Phys. Rev. A 90 062319

    2014

  176. [186]

    Jau Y Y, Hankin A M, Keating T, Deutsch I H and Biedermann G W 2016 Nat. Phys. 12 71–74

    2016

  177. [187]

    Young J T, Bienias P, Belyansky R, Kaufman A M and Gorshkov A V 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 120501

    2021

  178. [188]

    Yang C W, Li J, Sun P F, An Z Y, Bao X H and Pan J W 2025 Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 110802

    2025

  179. [189]

    Shi X F and Kennedy T A B 2017 Phys. Rev. A 95(4) 043429

    2017

  180. [190]

    Shi X F and Kennedy T A B 2018 Phys. Rev. A 97(3) 033414 40

    2018

  181. [191]

    Shi X F, Svetlichnyy P and Kennedy T A B 2016 J. Phys. B 49 074005

    2016

  182. [192]

    Lampen J, Nguyen H, Li L, Berman P R and Kuzmich A 2018 Phys. Rev. A 98 033411

    2018

  183. [193]

    Zhang S, Robicheaux F and Saffman M 2011 Phys. Rev. A 84 043408

    2011

  184. [194]

    Wilson J T, Saskin S, Meng Y, Ma S, Dilip R, Burgers A P and Thompson J D 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 033201

    2022

  185. [195]

    Jiao Y, Li C, Shi X F, Fan J, Bai J, Jia S, Zhao J and Adams C S 2025 Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(5) 053604

    2025

  186. [196]

    Shi X F, Lu Y, Jiao Y and Zhao J 2025 Phys. Rev. Appl. 24 044028

    2025

  187. [197]

    Shi X F 2020 Phys. Rev. Appl. 13 024008

    2020

  188. [198]

    Shi X F 2025 Phys. Rev. A 112(4) 042401

    2025

  189. [199]

    Sheng J, Chao Y, Kumar S, Fan H, Sedlacek J and Shaffer J P 2017 Phys. Rev. A 96 033813

    2017

  190. [200]

    Guerlin C, Brion E, Esslinger T and Mølmer K 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 053832

    2010

  191. [201]

    Manetsch H J, Nomura G, Bataille E, Lv X, Leung K H and Endres M 2025 Nature 647 60–67

    2025

  192. [202]

    Pichard G, Lim D, Bloch É, Vaneecloo J, Bourachot L, Both G J, Mériaux G, Dutartre S, Hostein R, Paris J, Ximenez B, Signoles A, Browaeys A, Lahaye T and Dreon D 2024 Phys. Rev. Appl. 22 024073

    2024

  193. [203]

    Radnaev A, Chung W, Cole D and et al 2025 PRX Quantum 6 030334

    2025

  194. [204]

    Kaufman A M and Ni K K 2021 Nat. Phys. 17 1324–1333

    2021

  195. [205]

    Han J, Vogt T, Gross C, Jaksch D, Kiffner M and Li W 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 093201

    2018

  196. [206]

    Tu H T, Liao K Y, Zhang Z X, Liu X H, Zheng S Y, Yang S Z, Zhang X D, Yan H and Zhu S L 2022 Nat. Photon. 16 291–296

    2022

  197. [207]

    Borówka S, Pylypenko U, Mazelanik M and Parniak M 2024 Nat. Photon. 18 32–38

    2024

  198. [208]

    Petrosyan D, Mølmer K, Fortágh J and Saffman M 2019 New J. Phys. 21 073033 41

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.