Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Single-qubit detection by collective phase imprinting

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a single Rydberg-encoded qubit can be detected without destroying it by imprinting a collective phase on a Rydberg-dressed neighboring ensemble, with per-atom phase independent of ensemble size and a demonstrated…

desk verdict A genuinely new collective phase-imprinting readout for Rydberg states with solid experimental backing, but the 99.81% 'state-assignment fidelity' is really a positive predictive value; per-shot assignment accuracy is about 81%. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06970 v1 pith:CCSHAABC submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Kritsana Srakaew , Pascal Weckesser , Daniel Adler , Suchita Agrawal , David Gröters , Immanuel Bloch , Johannes Zeiher This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords Rydbergdressingcollectivephasesingle-qubitdetectionnon-destructivereadoutopticallatticeRamseyinterferometryatom-numberrobustnessqubit
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

The paper establishes a method to read out the state of a single qubit by mapping it onto a small ensemble of neighboring atoms in an optical lattice. A control atom in a Rydberg state suppresses an AC-Stark shift that its ground-state counterpart would otherwise impose on each target atom, so a Ramsey measurement on the targets reveals which control state was present. Because the target atoms are Rydberg-dressed, the phase imprinted per atom is insensitive to how many target atoms are there, making the scheme robust to atom loss and number fluctuations. The experiment demonstrates detection of a single Rydberg excitation with state-assignment fidelity $\mathcal{F} = 99.81^{+0.17}_{-1.47}\%$, which would offer non-destructive mid-circuit readout for Rydberg-atom quantum processors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a qubit-controlled collective phase: each of $N$ Rydberg-dressed target atoms acquires the same phase $\phi = \delta_g t_T$ when the control qubit is in its ground state and essentially no phase when the control is in its Rydberg state. The per-atom dressing shift $\delta_g = \Omega_P^2/4\Delta$ is produced by off-resonant coupling of the target to a Rydberg $|P\rangle$ state, with admixture $\beta = \Omega_P/2\Delta$; fourth-order interactions among targets scale as $\beta^4\Delta$ and are suppressed, which is what makes the imprinted phase per target independent of $N$. A Ramsey interferometer converts the collective phase into a measurable population difference, and a final $3\pi/2$ pulse makes the detection background-free by mapping preparation errors onto the same low-count events as the ground-state signal.

What would settle it

Measure the per-target Ramsey oscillation frequency for $N = 8$ and for larger ensembles at fixed nearest-neighbor spacing and identical dressing parameters. The paper reports essentially equal rates for $N=8$ and $N=4$; a statistically significant drift of $\delta_g$ with $N$, or a histogram of detected $|0\rangle$ atoms showing multi-atom correlations that violate independent Bernoulli trials, would falsify the robustness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a control qubit encoded in the ground-to-Rydberg transition can be coherently mapped onto a mesoscopic target ensemble by a qubit-controlled collective phase. With the control in $|g\rangle$, each dressed target spin in $|0\rangle$ accumulates a phase $\phi = \delta_g t_T$ with $\delta_g = \Omega_P^2/4\Delta$; with the control in the Rydberg state $|S\rangle$, the control-target interaction shifts the dressing transition out of resonance and reduces the shift to $\delta_S \ll \delta_g$. A Ramsey sequence converts the accumulated phase into a population difference, and a threshold on the number of target atoms found in $|0\rangle$ assigns the control state. The per-atom phase is independent of the number $N$ of target atoms because residual intra-ensemble Rydberg interactions scale as $\beta^4\Delta$ at small dressing admixture $\beta = \Omega_P/2\Delta$, so the collective signal grows with $\sqrt{N}$ while remaining insensitive to atom loss. The demonstrated single-Rydberg-excitation detection fidelity is $\mathcal{F} = 99.81^{+0.17}_{-1.47}\%$ with a threshold of at least three detected target spins.

Load-bearing premise

The target atoms must behave as independent spectators during the dressing pulse, so each one accumulates the same phase no matter how many neighbors are present; if correlated interactions or correlated losses among the targets become significant, the per-atom phase and the binomial fidelity estimate break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-destructive mid-circuit readout of Rydberg excitations in neutral-atom quantum simulators becomes practical without requiring a second atomic species.
  • Adding more target atoms increases the signal-to-noise ratio as $\sqrt{N}$ while leaving the per-atom phase unchanged, so detection fidelity can be improved simply by enlarging the ensemble.
  • The coherent control-ensemble coupling can in principle prepare entangled states such as $(|g\rangle_C|0\rangle_T^{\otimes N} + |S\rangle_C|1\rangle_T^{\otimes N})/\sqrt{2}$, subject to a readout that preserves both subsystems.
  • Because number fluctuations do not alter the accumulated phase per atom, the interaction is a candidate building block for loss-tolerant multi-qubit phase gates and for faster Rydberg detection through increased photon-collection rates from the ensemble.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the eight-atom demonstration, the same threshold logic should work with a smaller ensemble at lower fidelity but with much simpler optical access; the scheme is effectively a deterministic, tunable amplifier for a single qubit's state.
  • An implicit consequence is that the protocol could be used for repeated interrogation: as long as the target ensemble can be re-prepared or refreshed, the control qubit's state can be checked multiple times without directly measuring it, which would suit feed-forward quantum computation.
  • A testable extension for other platforms is to replace the final push-out readout with a cavity-enhanced or non-destructive collective measurement; the binomial fidelity model in the paper predicts that the detection threshold should then shift with the improved readout noise.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental scheme in which a single control qubit, encoded in a ground-to-Rydberg transition, imprints a collective phase onto a Rydberg-dressed ensemble of target atoms in a 3x3 optical-lattice array. The central mechanism is a state-dependent AC-Stark shift: when the control is in the Rydberg state, strong control-target interactions suppress the target dressing shift, changing the Ramsey fringe contrast. The authors measure the distance dependence of this shift, show that the per-target phase is nearly independent of target number by comparing N=8 and N=4 ensembles, and demonstrate coherent mapping of control-spin Rabi oscillations onto the ensemble. They then use the collective response as a non-destructive Rydberg-state detector, reporting a state-assignment fidelity of F = 99.81^{+0.17}_{-1.47}% based on a threshold of at least three target spins in the θ_R=3π/2 protocol. The supplementary material provides derivations of the interaction model and the statistical estimate.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work introduces a useful loss-resilient interface between a single Rydberg qubit and a mesoscopic spin ensemble, with potential applications in mid-circuit readout and quantum simulation. The experimental evidence for the mechanism is substantial: the distance-dependent phase shift follows the calculated pair potentials, the Rabi oscillation frequency seen on the target ensemble (2π × 4.48(5) MHz) matches the control-spin Rabi frequency (2π × 4.45(6) MHz), and the N=8 versus N=4 comparison supports the claimed insensitivity to target-atom number. The paper also provides a detailed SI with the interaction model, loss measurements, and statistical analysis. However, the headline fidelity number is mislabeled: the reported 99.81% is a positive predictive value conditioned on a threshold crossing, not a state-assignment fidelity in the usual balanced sense, and the paper's own numbers imply a substantially lower balanced assignment accuracy. This issue is load-bearing because the abstract and main text advertise the result as a state-assignment fidelity for non-destructive detection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, Fig. 4; SI, 'Deriving and estimating the detection fidelities F'] The quantity F = 99.81^{+0.17}_{-1.47}% is not a state-assignment fidelity. It is computed as P(S_c | ≥3 counts), the positive predictive value of crossing the threshold. By the paper's own numbers, P(≥3 | S_c) ≈ 61.5%, so 38.5% of Rydberg-prepared shots fall below threshold. If the complementary outcome (<3 counts) is assigned to the ground state, the full confusion matrix gives P(g_c | g_c) ≈ 99.88% and P(S_c | S_c) ≈ 61.5%, yielding a balanced assignment accuracy of roughly 80.7% for equal priors. The Youden's J statistic defined in Eq. S3 would be approximately 61.4%, not 99.81%. The manuscript should either report the 99.81% as the positive predictive value / conditional detection probability, or present the full confusion matrix and report the balanced state-assignment fidelity. The abstract's 'state-assignment fidelity' claim should be corrected accordingly.
  2. [SI, Eq. S5 and surrounding text] The low sensitivity P(≥3 | S_c) ≈ 61.5% is a central performance limitation for a readout protocol and cannot be hidden by quoting only the positive predictive value. For mid-circuit readout, missed detections (38.5% of true Rydberg events) are as important as false positives. The manuscript should explicitly discuss this detection efficiency, including how it would affect repeated or cascaded readout, and should report the full receiver-operating-characteristic information, not only the threshold-crossing conditioned probability.
  3. [SI, 'Deriving and estimating the detection fidelities F'; 'Atom loss from off-resonant coupling'] The statistical model underlying the 99.81% claim treats each target spin as an independent Bernoulli trial, and the Wilson interval in Eq. S4 sums over 'up to 208 independent events.' However, the SI also reports that loss in the Rydberg-control case is enhanced (0.07(1) atoms/µs versus 0.03(2) atoms/µs), and state-preparation errors of the control are global rather than per-target. These correlated error sources could violate the independence assumption in a way not captured by the binomial model. The manuscript should justify or test the per-target independence more directly, or quantify how correlated loss and control preparation errors affect the confidence interval and the fidelity number.
  4. [Main text, Fig. 2c] The measured AC-Stark shift, δ_g = 2π × 578(4) kHz, differs from the theoretical estimate δ_g^theory = 2π × 670 kHz by about 14%. This is described as 'reasonable agreement,' but the discrepancy is comparable to the systematic uncertainties in the dressing parameters. Since the quantitative phase-imprinting model is the basis of the protocol, the manuscript should provide a more detailed account of this mismatch, for example by including calibration of the dressing Rabi frequencies and detunings, or by identifying the missing correction terms.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that θ_R = 3π/2 'inverts the detection outcome compared to θ_R = π/2'; the relationship between the two histograms, especially why the θ_R = 3π/2 panel creates a background-free region, could be stated more explicitly.
  2. [SI, Eq. S4] The Wilson score interval is quoted as P(≥3 cts | g_c) ≈ 0.12^{+0.91}_{-0.11}% without giving the observed counts and total n; stating n = 208 and the number of observed threshold-crossing events would make the interval transparent.
  3. [SI, 'Deriving and estimating the detection fidelities F'] The entry P(S_c | S_c) ≲ 99% for the θ_R = π/2 scheme is described as 'conservatively estimated' without a derivation; because the control Rydberg preparation cannot be verified on a single shot, the basis for this estimate should be specified.
  4. [Fig. S3] The loss rates 0.03(2) and 0.07(1) atoms/µs are reported without stating the pulse duration or the number of repetitions used for the loss measurement; adding these details would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-imprinting model is a perturbative AC-Stark calculation validated against data, and the reported 99.81% is a Bayes-estimated conditional probability rather than a fitted input; the main caveat is a labeling issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The controlled phase shift is derived from a standard second-order AC-Stark calculation (SI Eq. S1, S2) using ab initio Rydberg pair potentials (Fig. S2a), with the higher-order corrections checked perturbatively and the N=8 versus N=4 comparison serving as an out-of-sample cross-check. The detection fidelity is not a fitted parameter: it is estimated from measured spin-number histograms via Bayes' theorem (SI Eqs. S4, S5), with P(≥3 cts|g_c)≈0.12% and P(≥3 cts|S_c)≈61.5% extracted from the data. While the quantity labeled 'state-assignment fidelity' in the abstract is actually the positive predictive value P(S_c|≥3 cts), and balanced assignment accuracy would be lower if the complementary outcome were assigned to ground, this is a statistical-reporting concern rather than a circular derivation. Self-citations to prior work by the same group are used for standard formulas and interaction potentials, but the underlying assumptions are stated and independently validated. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Rydberg-dressing physics plus three experimentally estimated quantities: the AC-Stark shift, the preparation fidelity, and the detection threshold. No new physical entities are introduced. The main auxiliary assumptions are the perturbative treatment of the dressing and the independence of target spins.

free parameters (4)
  • AC-Stark shift delta_g = 2*pi*578(4) kHz
    Extracted from sinusoidal fits to the Ramsey oscillations with free parameters delta_g, preparation fidelity P_init, and dephasing rate; used to characterize the controlled phase imprint. The independent theoretical estimate is 2*pi*670 kHz.
  • Target preparation fidelity P_init = 0.88(13) from fit; 0.82(3) independent estimate
    Fitted in the Ramsey oscillation model; used to correct histograms and interpret residual oscillation in the |S> control case.
  • Detection threshold (minimum number of target spins) = 3
    Chosen by hand from the observed histograms to separate ground-state and Rydberg-state outcomes; the reported 99.81% fidelity depends on this threshold.
  • Per-target detection probability p = 0.971 (+0.016, -0.033)
    Estimated from 26 shots with up to 8 target spins; used in the binomial (Wilson) analysis underlying the Bayes estimate of the Rydberg-assignment fidelity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Perturbative dressing regime: AC-Stark shift delta = Omega^2/(4*Delta) dominates and higher-order terms are small (about 2 percent).
    Invoked in the main text and SI Eq. S1 to justify independent pairwise interactions and the phase-imprinting model.
  • domain assumption The |S>-|P> Rydberg interaction is much stronger than |P>-|P> target-target interactions, making many-body target effects negligible.
    Used in SI Fig. S2 and Eq. S2; supports the independent-spectator picture and the atom-number-insensitivity claim.
  • domain assumption Rydberg pair potentials computed with the 'pair-interaction' package are correct.
    Used to model the distance dependence of the phase shift and to estimate delta_S.
  • domain assumption Preparation of the control in |S> succeeds with probability around 0.82 to 0.94, and all deviations from ideal histograms are due to this preparation infidelity and independent per-target errors.
    Underlies the confusion-matrix and Bayes estimates of the detection fidelity; no alternative background mechanism is modeled.
  • domain assumption Target detection events are independent Bernoulli trials.
    Used in the Wilson-score and binomial analysis in the SI to estimate the false-positive probability P(>=3|g) and the final fidelity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-qubit detection by collective phase imprinting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCSHAABC

@misc{pith2026260806970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-qubit detection by collective phase imprinting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCSHAABC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06970}
}
abstract

The amplification of quantum information carried by a single quantum excitation is a recurring challenge across diverse quantum platforms. The coupling between a single qubit and a mesoscopic ensemble of spins, for example, can be leveraged to realize non-destructive detection of the qubit state. However, realizing robust couplings between such systems is experimentally challenging and typically requires programmable quantum gates or native long-range interactions. Here, we introduce a platform that couples a single qubit, encoded in the ground-to-Rydberg transition of a control atom, to a Rydberg-dressed target ensemble of ground-state atoms trapped in an optical lattice. We show that the state of the control qubit can be coherently mapped onto the ensemble via a qubit-controlled collective phase shift. By Rydberg-dressing the ensemble, the controlled phase shift per target atom becomes independent of the number of target atoms, making the protocol intrinsically insensitive to atom-number fluctuations and atom loss, which are the dominant experimental imperfections in our system. Exploiting the collective response of up to eight target spins, we demonstrate the efficacy of the scheme by realizing non-destructive detection of a single Rydberg excitation with a state-assignment fidelity of $\mathcal{F} = 99.81^{+0.17}_{-1.47}\,\%$. Our approach demonstrates the key ingredients for high-fidelity transfer of quantum information from a single qubit to a mesoscopic ensemble, opening a route to non-destructive mid-circuit readout of Rydberg states and to efficient interfaces between single qubits and photonic modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Cappellaro, J

    P. Cappellaro, J. Emerson, N. Boulant, C. Ramanathan, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, Entanglement assisted metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 020502 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Cappellaro, J

    P. Cappellaro, J. Emerson, N. Boulant, C. Ramanathan, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, Spin amplifier for single spin measurement, inQuantum Computing in Solid State Sys- tems, edited by B. Ruggiero, P. Delsing, C. Granata, Y. Pashkin, and P. Silvestrini (Springer, New York, NY,

    work page

  4. [4]

    C. A. P´ erez-Delgado, M. Mosca, P. Cappellaro, and D. G. Cory, Single spin measurement using cellular automata techniques, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 100501 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Neumann, J

    P. Neumann, J. Beck, M. Steiner, F. Rempp, H. Fedder, P. R. Hemmer, J. Wrachtrup, and F. Jelezko, Single-shot readout of a single nuclear spin, Science329, 542 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    T. H. Taminiau, J. Cramer, T. van der Sar, V. V. Do- brovitski, and R. Hanson, Universal control and error correction in multi-qubit spin registers in diamond, Nat. Nanotechnol.9, 171 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Biswas, G

    S. Biswas, G. Scuri, N. Huffman, E. I. Rosenthal, R. Gong, T. Poirier, X. Gao, S. Vaidya, A. J. Stein, T. Weissman, J. H. Edgar, T. Li, C. Zu, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, and J. Choi, Quantum sensing with a spin ensemble in a two-dimensional material, arXiv:2509.08984 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with in- dividually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    A. J. Menssen, T. Wang, M. Gullans, T. Manovitz, J. M. Taylor, J. Cong, J. Sinclair, Z. Aqua, D. J. Blu- menthal, J. P. B. Ataides, J. Borregaard, A. Browaeys, P. Cappellaro, S. Choi, A. Cooper, R. Cˆ ot´ e, J. P. Covey, A. Dauphin, I. Dimitrova, M. Eichenfield, D. Englund, J....

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G¨ unter, M

    G. G¨ unter, M. Robert-de-Saint-Vincent, H. Schempp, C. S. Hofmann, S. Whitlock, and M. Weidem¨ uller, In- teraction enhanced imaging of individual Rydberg atoms in dense gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 013002 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Ferreira-Cao, V

    M. Ferreira-Cao, V. Gavryusev, T. Franz, R. F. Alves, A. Signoles, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Depletion imaging of Rydberg atoms in cold atomic gases, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.53, 084004 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    W. Xu, A. V. Venkatramani, S. H. Cant´ u, T. ˇSumarac, V. Kl¨ usener, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Fast prepa- ration and detection of a Rydberg qubit using atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 050501 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Y. O. Dudin and A. Kuzmich, Strongly interacting Ry- dberg excitations of a cold atomic gas, Science336, 887 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    S. Baur, D. Tiarks, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Single- Photon Switch Based on Rydberg Blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 073901 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Tiarks, S

    D. Tiarks, S. Baur, K. Schneider, S. D¨ urr, and G. Rempe, Single-Photon Transistor Using a F¨ orster Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 053602 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Gorniaczyk, C

    H. Gorniaczyk, C. Tresp, J. Schmidt, H. Fedder, and S. Hofferberth, Single-photon transistor mediated by interstate rydberg interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 053601 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Srakaew, P

    K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, A subwavelength atomic array switched by a single Rydberg atom, Nat. Phys.19, 714 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    ˇSumarac, E

    T. ˇSumarac, E. H. Qiu, S. Tsesses, P. Niu, A. J. Menssen, W. Xu, V. Walther, U. Deli´ c, S. Choi, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Controlling Rydberg atom-polariton in- teractions: from exceptional points to fast readout, arXiv:2601.06345 (2026). 7

    2026

  12. [20]

    E. A. Goldschmidt, T. Boulier, R. C. Brown, S. B. Koller, J. T. Young, A. V. Gorshkov, S. L. Rolston, and J. V. Porto, Anomalous broadening in driven dissipative Ryd- berg systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 113001 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Boulier, E

    T. Boulier, E. Magnan, C. Bracamontes, J. Maslek, E. A. Goldschmidt, J. T. Young, A. V. Gorshkov, S. L. Rol- ston, and J. V. Porto, Spontaneous avalanche dephasing in large Rydberg ensembles, Phys. Rev. A96, 053409 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Anand, C

    S. Anand, C. E. Bradley, R. White, V. Ramesh, K. Singh, and H. Bernien, A dual-species Rydberg array, Nat. Phys. 20, 1744 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Petrosyan, S

    D. Petrosyan, S. Norrell, C. Poole, and M. Saffman, Fast measurements and multiqubit gates in dual-species atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. A110, 042404 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Arunseangroj, and W. Xu, Dual-type dual- element atom arrays for quantum information processing, arXiv:2503.16896 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vaknin, R

    Y. Vaknin, R. Finkelstein, O. Firstenberg, and A. Ret- zker, Fast measurement of neutral atoms with a multi- atom gate, arXiv:2604.13158 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    See supplementary material

  19. [27]

    D. Wei, D. Adler, K. Srakaew, S. Agrawal, P. Weckesser, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Observation of brane parity or- der in programmable optical lattices, Phys. Rev. X13, 021042 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Weitenberg, M

    C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single- spin addressing in an atomic Mott insulator, Nature471, 319 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Levine, D

    H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, A. Keesling, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Dispersive optical systems for scalable Raman driving of hyperfine qubits, Phys. Rev. A105, 032618 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Srakaew, Rydberg interactions in subwavelength atomic arrays and Hubbard systems, Doctoral disserta- tion, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2024)

    K. Srakaew, Rydberg interactions in subwavelength atomic arrays and Hubbard systems, Doctoral disserta- tion, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Bouchoule and K

    I. Bouchoule and K. Mølmer, Spin squeezing of atoms by the dipole interaction in virtually excited Rydberg states, Phys. Rev. A65, 041803 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    Henkel, R

    N. Henkel, R. Nath, and T. Pohl, Three-dimensional roton excitations and supersolid formation in Rydberg- excited Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 195302 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Y.-Y. Jau, A. M. Hankin, T. Keating, I. H. Deutsch, and G. W. Biedermann, Entangling atomic spins with a Rydberg-dressed spin-flip blockade, Nat. Phys.12, 71 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Zeiher, R

    J. Zeiher, R. van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J. Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Many-body interferome- try of a Rydberg-dressed spin lattice, Nat. Phys.12, 1095 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    S. L. Su, H. Z. Shen, E. Liang, and S. Zhang, One-step construction of the multiple-qubit Rydberg controlled- phase gate, Phys. Rev. A98, 032306 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Han, J.-L

    J.-X. Han, J.-L. Wu, Y. Wang, Y.-Y. Jiang, Y. Xia, and J. Song, Multi-qubit phase gate on multiple resonators mediated by a superconducting bus, Opt. Express28, 1954 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    selective radiance

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Exponential improve- ment in photon storage fidelities using subradiance and “selective radiance” in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, A subradi- ant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer, Nature583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Deist, Y.-H

    E. Deist, Y.-H. Lu, J. Ho, M. K. Pasha, J. Zeiher, Z. Yan, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Mid-circuit cavity measure- ment in a neutral atom array, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 203602 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    B. Hu, J. Sinclair, E. Bytyqi, M. Chong, A. Rudelis, J. Ramette, Z. Vendeiro, and V. Vuleti´ c, Site-selective cavity readout and classical error correction of a 5-bit atomic register, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 120801 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    De Santis, B

    J. De Santis, B. Dura-Kov´ acs, M. ¨Onc¨ u, A. Bouscal, D. Vasileiadis, and J. Zeiher, Realization of a cavity- coupled Rydberg array, arXiv:2602.12152 (2026)

    2026

  34. [42]

    Isenhower, M

    L. Isenhower, M. Saffman, and K. Mølmer, Multibit CkNOT quantum gates via Rydberg blockade, Quantum Inf. Process.10, 755 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Delakouras, G

    A. Delakouras, G. Doultsinos, and D. Petrosyan, Multi-qubit Rydberg gates between distant atoms, arXiv:2507.16602 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Weber, C

    S. Weber, C. Tresp, H. Menke, A. Urvoy, O. Firstenberg, H. P. B¨ uchler, and S. Hofferberth, Tutorial: Calculation of Rydberg interaction potentials, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.50, 133001 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Zeiher, Realization of Rydberg-dressed quantum magnets, Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians- Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2017)

    J. Zeiher, Realization of Rydberg-dressed quantum magnets, Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians- Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Festa, N

    L. Festa, N. Lorenz, L.-M. Steinert, Z. Chen, P. Oster- holz, R. Eberhard, and C. Gross, Blackbody-radiation- induced facilitated excitation of Rydberg atoms in opti- cal tweezers, Phys. Rev. A105, 013109 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    W. J. Youden, Index for rating diagnostic tests, Cancer 3, 32 (1950)

    1950

  40. [48]

    pair- interaction

    E. B. Wilson, Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference, J. Am. Stat. Assoc22, 209 (1927). 8 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION INITIAL ST A TE PREP ARA TION AND ELECTRONIC LEVEL SCHEME Here we provide details of the initial state preparation, the relevant...

    1927

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.