Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Robust Atom Interferometry with Super-Gaussian Pulses against Thermal Velocity Spread

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Shaped super-Gaussian pulses nearly double cold-atom interferometer fringe contrast by suppressing off-resonant excitation of Doppler-shifted atoms.

desk verdict Plausible pulse-shaping idea undermined by a load-bearing temperature–velocity mapping error that the authors need to fix before the 90% claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15552 v4 pith:IDVVVUGO submitted 2025-05-21 physics.atom-ph

Yujuan Liu , Ziwen Song , Tingting Lin , Biao Tang , Aoxing Hao This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 37.25.+k
keywords atominterferometrysuper-GaussianpulsespulseshapingDopplerdetuningfringecontrastthermalvelocityspreadMach-ZehnderinterferometerRamantransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that replacing the rectangular Raman pulses of a Mach-Zehnder cold-atom interferometer with super-Gaussian pulses makes the interferometer markedly more robust to the Doppler detuning caused by thermal velocity spread. Using numerical simulations of a two-level atom, the authors compare rectangular, Gaussian, and 2nd- through 10th-order super-Gaussian pulse sequences in a $\pi/2$-$\pi$-$\pi/2$ configuration, conserving pulse area. They find that a 4th-order super-Gaussian sequence lifts fringe contrast from 0.0895 to 0.1709 at a 5 microkelvin cloud temperature, a 90.9% relative improvement over rectangular pulses and a 12.2% improvement over Gaussian pulses. The practical upshot is that shaped pulses could let atom interferometers operate on warmer, denser atomic clouds without velocity selection, or improve the stability of existing instruments.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the super-Gaussian pulse envelope, a one-parameter family of temporal profiles $\exp[-(t^2/2\zeta^2)^n]$ that interpolates between a Gaussian ($n=1$) and a flat-top pulse with steep but smooth edges (large $n$). Each pulse is digitized into $N=128$ piecewise-constant segments, multiplied as ordered propagators $U=\prod_k U_k(\Delta t)$, with the peak Rabi frequency adjusted so the integrated Rabi area remains $\pi/2$ or $\pi$. Robustness is quantified by detuning tolerance, the range of $\delta/\Omega$ over which transition fidelity stays above 0.5 or 0.9, and by the area of the high-fidelity region in the two-parameter plane of detuning and pulse-length error. The smooth edges are the operative mechanism: they avoid the high-frequency spectral side lobes of rectangular pulses that drive off-resonant transitions in a Doppler-broadened ensemble.

What would settle it

Run a Mach-Zehnder interferometer on an $^{87}$Rb cloud at 5 $\mu$K without velocity selection, with 10 $\mu$s $\pi$ pulses and 5 $\mu$s $\pi/2$ pulses whose Rabi area is conserved, comparing rectangular and 4th-order super-Gaussian envelopes generated by an AWG-driven AOM. If the measured contrast ratio is not near 0.171 versus 0.090, the predicted 90% improvement, then the central claim is falsified; a much smaller improvement would implicate three-level Raman effects or intensity inhomogeneity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that smooth-edged pulse envelopes outperform both abrupt rectangular pulses and standard Gaussian pulses when atoms see a spread of two-photon detunings. For an $n$th-order super-Gaussian envelope $\exp[-(t^2/2\zeta^2)^n]$, orders $n=2$ to $10$ all give wider detuning tolerances than Gaussian pulses, with $n=4$ maximal: in Table 1, the $\pi$-pulse fidelity stays above 0.5 out to $1.74520\,\delta/\Omega$ and the $\pi/2$ pulse to $3.79894$, versus $0.80691$ and $1.73225$ for rectangular pulses. At 5 $\mu$K without velocity selection, the SG4 Mach-Zehnder sequence produces fringe contrast 0.1709, compared with 0.0895 for rectangular and 0.1523 for Gaussian pulses. The authors attribute the improvement to the suppression of spectral side lobes: smooth temporal edges concentrate pulse energy near resonance, so off-resonant, Doppler-shifted atoms are less perturbed. They also report that the fidelity saturates beyond $n=4$, so higher orders add little.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations use a two-level model of the Raman transition, and the paper acknowledges that the real $^{87}$Rb Raman transition is three-level; if adiabatic elimination of the intermediate state changes the relative robustness of the pulse shapes, the ordering SG4 $>$ Gaussian $>$ rectangular could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Atom interferometers could run with thermal clouds at several microkelvin without velocity selection, gaining atomic flux and signal strength while keeping contrast, instead of requiring near-zero temperatures or post-selecting slow atoms.
  • An experimental pulse shaper, an arbitrary waveform generator driving an acousto-optic modulator, can implement the super-Gaussian envelope directly, since the simulation's piecewise-constant segments mirror the AWG's discrete output.
  • The SG4 pulse gives a high-fidelity operating region about 1.5 times larger than rectangular and 1.1 times larger than Gaussian in the combined detuning-versus-pulse-length error plane, so instruments become more tolerant of laser frequency drift and intensity fluctuations.
  • Order $n=4$ is a practical optimum; going to $n=10$ gives essentially no additional contrast, so implementations can target SG4 specifically.
  • At very low temperatures, below about 4 $\mu$K, Gaussian pulses are slightly better than super-Gaussian, so the envelope choice can be tailored to the operating temperature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same envelope argument should apply to other interferometer geometries, such as gravimeters, gyroscopes, and equivalence-principle tests, wherever Doppler detuning dominates, because the mechanism is not tied to the specific beam-splitter sequence.
  • Editorial extension: a direct experimental test at 5 $\mu$K with an $^{87}$Rb source, comparing fringe contrast for rectangular versus SG4 envelopes, would verify the predicted 90% improvement; a much smaller improvement would point to three-level Raman dynamics that the two-level model omits.
  • Editorial extension: the predicted saturation at $n=4$ suggests that further gains could come from jointly shaping the three pulses differently or optimizing pulse shape together with phase, directions the authors flag for future work.
  • Editorial extension: the non-monotonic contrast peak near 4 $\mu$K implies a practical operating-temperature sweet spot, and treating the spatial beam profile as a second control parameter could trade intensity inhomogeneity against Doppler robustness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper numerically compares rectangular, Gaussian, and super-Gaussian (orders 2-10) pulse shapes in a Mach-Zehnder light-pulse atom interferometer, using a two-level model with the Stoner transition-probability formula. The authors study how the fringe contrast degrades with atomic temperature, through a Doppler-shifted detuning distribution, and how the contrast is affected by pulse-length and detuning errors. They report that 4th-order super-Gaussian pulses give a 90.9% contrast improvement over rectangular pulses at 5 µK (0.1709 vs 0.0895) and a 12.2% improvement over Gaussian pulses, and that SG4 has a larger high-fidelity robustness region than rectangular or Gaussian pulses.

Significance. The paper addresses a practical problem in cold-atom interferometry and proposes a simple pulse-shape modification with a clear, systematic comparison over pulse order and temperature. If the numerical results are correct and the parameters are fully specified, the main finding—that moderate-order super-Gaussian pulses outperform both rectangular and Gaussian pulses for thermal clouds—would be useful guidance for experimental design. The explicit acknowledgment of the two-level approximation is commendable, though it leaves the quantitative reliability of the 90% claim open. The study is reproducible in principle, but the manuscript currently omits several details needed for the reader to verify the reported numbers.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (18), Table 2, Fig. 8] The text states that 'the initial temperature T was set to 5 µK, corresponding to an initial velocity of 7 mm/s for Rb atoms.' For 87Rb, the one-dimensional rms thermal velocity is sqrt(k_B T / m) ≈ 22 mm/s at 5 µK; 7 mm/s corresponds to about 0.5 µK. The manuscript does not specify how the velocity distribution in Eq. (21) is related to T, so the reader cannot determine whether the '5 µK' entries in Table 2 and Fig. 8 were computed with σ_v = 7 mm/s or σ_v ≈ 22 mm/s. This is load-bearing because the central 90.9% improvement claim (0.0895 → 0.1709 at '5 µK') depends on that temperature. Please state the exact relation and correct the inconsistency; if the simulation actually used σ_v = 7 mm/s for the '5 µK' points, the claim is not demonstrated at 5 µK.
  2. [Table 2 and §3.2] Table 2 reports contrast values as 'averages of 50 measurements' but provides no standard deviation or standard error. The simulation includes a finite atomic ensemble (5 × 10^4 atoms) and random sampling, so the reported contrasts carry statistical uncertainty. Without error bars or a convergence test, the headline 90.9% relative improvement could be within noise if the sampling is insufficient. Please add statistical uncertainties or demonstrate that 50 samples suffice for the quoted precision.
  3. [§3.1 and Fig. 6] The non-monotonic temperature dependence in Fig. 6 (peak near 4 µK) is attributed to competition between thermal Doppler spread and 'spatial intensity inhomogeneity' of the Raman beams, but the spatial model is not specified. The text mentions a beam radius of 10 mm and an initial cloud radius of 1.5 mm but does not define the transverse intensity profile (e.g., Gaussian, with which radius convention), how the cloud's spatial distribution is sampled, or how the local Rabi frequency scales with position. Without this information, the low-temperature branch of Fig. 6 and the claim that Gaussian pulses are slightly better there cannot be reproduced or assessed.
  4. [§3.1 and Fig. 7] The claim that SG4 'can maintain transition fidelity above 90% in a parameter region that is about 1.5 times larger than that of rectangular pulse sequences and 1.1 times larger than that of Gaussian pulse sequences' is not supported by a precise definition of the region or the fidelity measure. For π/2 pulses, a transition probability of 0.5 does not uniquely define the target superposition fidelity because the relative phase is also relevant. Please specify the exact threshold and the parameter ranges in Fig. 7, and report the actual region areas for Rec, Gaussian, and SG4 so the 1.5× and 1.1× ratios can be checked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'Mach Zender' should be 'Mach-Zehnder' in the caption of Fig. 1; 'Gaussion' in Table 1 should be 'Gaussian'; the abstract contains '4th-order pulses achieving up to a 90% improvement...', which should read 'can achieve up to a 90% improvement'.
  2. [Eq. (21)] In Eq. (21), the symbol g(v) is not defined; it appears to denote the one-dimensional thermal velocity distribution from Eq. (18), but this should be stated explicitly at the point of use.
  3. [§3.2] The notation for the hyperfine states is garbled: '|S2S1/2, F=1⟩' should be written as e.g. |5^2S_{1/2}, F=1⟩.
  4. [Introduction and Conclusion] The two-level approximation is appropriately acknowledged, but the paper does not estimate the magnitude of three-level effects on the specific contrast values. Given the quantitative nature of the headline claim, a brief discussion of why the two-level model is expected to give the correct ordering of pulse shapes would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the contrast improvements are forward-simulated outputs, with no fitted parameter later called a prediction; the two-level approximation and the 5 µK/7 mm/s mapping are correctness caveats, not derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a 4th-order super-Gaussian pulse sequence raises fringe contrast from 0.0895 to 0.1709 at 5 µK (Table 2)—is obtained by forward integration of the two-level Bloch propagator (Eqs. 3–6, 9, 15) over a thermal velocity distribution (Eqs. 18, 21). No parameter is fitted to the target contrast and then reported as a prediction. The pulse shapes (Eq. 13), pulse-area conservation (Eq. 16), 'detuning tolerance' (§3.1), and contrast definition (§3.2) are openly stated metrics, not hidden inputs. The choice n=4 is a transparent scan over n=2..10; Tables 1–2 show all super-Gaussian orders behave nearly identically, so the headline is not an artifact of cherry-picking a fitted order. The only overlapping-author reference, [30] (Wang, Cheng, Liu, Lin), supports a motivational statement about rectangular-pulse Doppler limits alongside external refs [26,29], and the same point is re-derived in Fig. 4, so it is not load-bearing. The explicitly acknowledged two-level/three-level limitation is a modeling caveat, and the §3.3 statement that '5 µK, corresponding to an initial velocity of 7 mm/s for Rb atoms' is a numerical consistency concern (the 1D rms width at 5 µK is about 22 mm/s for 87Rb, while 7 mm/s corresponds to roughly 0.5 µK), but neither of these makes the derivation circular. The comparison is self-contained and externally checkable.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on a two-level model, a Gaussian thermal velocity distribution, and a specific beam and cloud geometry. These are realistic assumptions but they are not derived in the paper and are partly acknowledged as limitations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Super-Gaussian order n = 4 (selected post hoc)
    The paper scans n=2..10 and then selects n=4 as the focus because it achieves the maximum contrast in Table 2, but differences among orders are below 0.3%, so this is a post-hoc choice rather than a fitted parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Raman transition can be described by a two-level model after adiabatic elimination of the intermediate state.
    The authors state this in the Introduction: 'The necessary adiabatic elimination of the intermediate state introduces additional complexities and velocity-selective effects not captured by our model.' This is load-bearing because real 87Rb Raman transitions are three-level.
  • domain assumption Pulse area is conserved: the integral of the effective Rabi frequency over time equals pi/2 or pi.
    Equation (16); this normalization determines the Rabi amplitudes for each pulse shape.
  • domain assumption The atomic velocity distribution is Gaussian with standard deviation sqrt(k_B T / m) in one dimension, and the full cloud temperature is used without velocity selection.
    Equation (18) and the subsequent text; the results depend on this thermal width.
  • domain assumption The Raman laser has a finite transverse profile with 10 mm radius, and the atomic cloud has a 1.5 mm radius with a Gaussian spatial distribution.
    Section 3.2 and Table 1; the intensity inhomogeneity model produces the low-temperature contrast limit.
  • standard math Propagators can be accurately computed with a piecewise-constant approximation using N=128 time steps.
    Section 3, Equation (15); this is a standard numerical technique.
  • standard math The Stoner et al. formula (Equation 10) for the Mach-Zehnder sequence transition probability is valid.
    Cited to references [32,37]; this is the base propagator formula used for all pulses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Atom Interferometry with Super-Gaussian Pulses against Thermal Velocity Spread." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDVVVUGO

@misc{pith2026250515552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Atom Interferometry with Super-Gaussian Pulses against Thermal Velocity Spread},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDVVVUGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15552}
}
read the original abstract

Laser frequency fluctuation and atomic thermal motion can lead to errors in pulse duration and detuning in cold atom interferometry, thereby reducing measurement stability and fringe contrast. To address this issue, we investigate the use of super-Gaussian pulses, which are characterized by smooth temporal profiles and centralized energy distribution, in the beam-splitting and reflection stages of an atom interferometer. Through numerical simulations, we compare the performance of rectangular, Gaussian, and 2nd- to 10th-order super-Gaussian pulses subject to deviations in pulse duration and detuning. Our results show that both Gaussian and super-Gaussian pulses offer a significant advantage over traditional rectangular pulses, particularly under thermal conditions where velocity spread is prominent. We find that 4th-order pulses achieving up to a 90\% improvement in contrast over rectangular pulses under realistic conditions, and while their peak performance at very low temperatures is comparable to that of Gaussian pulses, they demonstrate enhanced robustness against combined detuning and pulse-length errors. These findings demonstrate that super-Gaussian pulse shaping is an effective method for enhancing the robustness of atom interferometers against errors induced by thermal motion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15552 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Principle of Atom Interferometry in MZ configuration. Top: The initial state of the atomic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The system of interaction between the optical field and atoms during the double-photon Raman process. (b) Bloch sphere representation of the atomic interference process. Based on the above description, the propagator can be expressed in the form U(θ, ϕ, α), which represents a general unitary rotation on the Bloch sphere, where ϕ represents the instantaneous phase of the Raman laser field, and α denotes the field… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Temporal evolution comparison of effective Rabi frequencies for rectangular, Gaussian, and super-Gaussian (n = 5, 10) pulses. (b) Normalized pulse intensity profiles, with each pulse nor￾malized to its peak amplitude. The super-Gaussian pulse, as a typical shaped pulse, exhibits a time-domain intensity profile in￾termediate between standard Gaussian pulses and pure flat-top pulses. Its defining characteristic is… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The detuning-dependent transfer probability as a function of temporal pulse profiles. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Quantum state evolution trajectories on the Bloch sphere under rectangular, Gaussian, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contrast versus temperature for different pulse-shape MZ sequences. All three pulses in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Final excited-state population distributions of different pulse profiles under detuning and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Interference fringes of rectangular, Gaussian, and 4th-order super-Gaussian pulses obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Berman P R 1997Atom interferometry(Academic press)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Baudon J, Mathevet R and Robert J 1999Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics32R173–R195 ISSN 1361-6455 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/32/15/ 201

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/32/15/

  3. [3]

    Giovannetti V, Lloyd S and Maccone L 2004Science3061330–1336 ISSN 1095-9203 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1104149

    doi:10.1126/science.1104149

  4. [4]

    Rakholia A V, McGuinness H J and Biedermann G W 2014Physical Review Applied2ISSN 2331-7019 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.2.054012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.2.054012

  5. [5]

    Canuel B, Leduc F, Holleville D, Gauguet A, Fils J, Virdis A, Clairon A, Dimarcq N, Bord´ e C J, Landragin A and Bouyer P 2006Physical Review Letters97ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.010402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.010402

  6. [6]

    Dutta I, Savoie D, Fang B, Venon B, Garrido Alzar C, Geiger R and Landragin A 2016Physical Re- view Letters116ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.183003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.183003

  7. [7]

    Gustavson T L, Landragin A and Kasevich M A 2000Classical and Quantum Gravity17 2385–2398 ISSN 1361-6382 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/17/12/311

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/12/311

  8. [8]

    Louchet-Chauvet A, Farah T, Bodart Q, Clairon A, Landragin A, Merlet S and Santos F P D 2011New Journal of Physics13065025 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/13/6/065025

    work page

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    McGuirk J M, Foster G T, Fixler J B, Snadden M J and Kasevich M A 2002Physical Review A 65ISSN 1094-1622 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033608

    doi

  2. [10]

    Rosi G, Cacciapuoti L, Sorrentino F, Menchetti M, Prevedelli M and Tino G 2015Physical Review Letters114ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.013001

    doi

  3. [11]

    Rosi G, Sorrentino F, Cacciapuoti L, Prevedelli M and Tino G M 2014Nature510518–521 ISSN 1476-4687 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13433 15

    doi

  4. [12]

    Lamporesi G, Bertoldi A, Cacciapuoti L, Prevedelli M and Tino G M 2008Physical Review Letters 100ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.050801

    doi

  5. [13]

    Asenbaum P, Overstreet C, Kim M, Curti J and Kasevich M A 2020Physical Review Letters125 ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.191101

    doi

  6. [14]

    Wu X, Pagel Z, Malek B S, Nguyen T H, Zi F, Scheirer D S and M¨ uller H 2019Science Advances 5ISSN 2375-2548 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0800

    doi

  7. [15]

    Bidel Y, Carraz O, Charri` ere R, Cadoret M, Zahzam N and Bresson A 2013Applied Physics Letters102ISSN 1077-3118 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4801756

    doi

  8. [16]

    org/10.1038/ncomms5009

    van Frank S, Negretti A, Berrada T, B¨ ucker R, Montangero S, Schaff J F, Schumm T, Calarco T and Schmiedmayer J 2014Nature Communications5ISSN 2041-1723 URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1038/ncomms5009

    doi

  9. [17]

    J¨ ager G, Reich D M, Goerz M H, Koch C P and Hohenester U 2014Physical Review A90ISSN 1094-1622 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.033628

    doi

  10. [18]

    Daems D, Ruschhaupt A, Sugny D and Gu´ erin S 2013Physical Review Letters111ISSN 1079- 7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.050404

    doi

  11. [19]

    Szigeti S S, Debs J E, Hope J J, Robins N P and Close J D 2012New Journal of Physics14 023009 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/2/023009

    doi

  12. [20]

    doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.023609

    M¨ uller H, Chiow S w and Chu S 2008Physical Review A77ISSN 1094-1622 URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.023609

    doi

  13. [21]

    Luo Y, Yan S, Hu Q, Jia A, Wei C and Yang J 2016The European Physical Journal D70ISSN 1434-6079 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2016-70428-6

    doi

  14. [22]

    Peterson J P, Sarthour R S and Laflamme R 2020Physical Review Applied13ISSN 2331-7019 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.13.054060

    doi

  15. [23]

    doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.032325

    Cross A W and Gambetta J M 2015Physical Review A91ISSN 1094-1622 URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.032325

    doi

  16. [24]

    Vandersypen L M K and Chuang I L 2005Reviews of Modern Physics761037–1069 ISSN 1539- 0756 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1037

    doi

  17. [25]

    Cummins H K, Llewellyn G and Jones J A 2003Physical Review A67ISSN 1094-1622 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.67.042308

    doi

  18. [26]

    Fang B, Mielec N, Savoie D, Altorio M, Landragin A and Geiger R 2018New Journal of Physics 20023020 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aaa37c

    doi

  19. [27]

    Kovachy T, Chiow S w and Kasevich M A 2012Physical Review A86ISSN 1094-1622 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.011606

    doi

  20. [28]

    Cummins H K and Jones J A 2000New Journal of Physics2006 ISSN 1367-2630 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/2/1/006

    doi

  21. [29]

    L´ opez-Monjaraz C, Pe˜ na Vega H, Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa K, L´ opez Romero J M and Corzo N V 2024Phys- ica Scripta99125414 ISSN 1402-4896 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ad92b2

    doi

  22. [30]

    Wang Y, Cheng J, Liu Y and Lin T 2024Physical Review A109ISSN 2469-9934 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.053501

    doi

  23. [31]

    Saywell J C, Kuprov I, Goodwin D, Carey M and Freegarde T 2018Physical Review A98ISSN 2469-9934 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023625

    doi

  24. [32]

    Stoner R, Butts D, Kinast J and Timmons B 2011Journal of the Optical Society of America B 282418 ISSN 1520-8540 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAB.28.002418 16

    doi

  25. [33]

    Dunning A, Gregory R, Bateman J, Cooper N, Himsworth M, Jones J A and Freegarde T 2014 Physical Review A90ISSN 1094-1622 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.033608

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.013402

    Torosov B T and Vitanov N V 2019Physical Review A99ISSN 2469-9934 URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.013402

    doi

  27. [35]

    Shore B W 2011Manipulating quantum structures using laser pulses(Cambridge University Press)

  28. [36]

    doi.org/10.1038/23655

    Peters A, Chung K Y and Chu S 1999Nature400849–852 ISSN 1476-4687 URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1038/23655

    doi

  29. [37]

    Butts D L, Kinast J M, Timmons B P and Stoner R E 2011Journal of the Optical Society of America B28416 ISSN 1520-8540 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAB.28.000416

    doi

  30. [38]

    1038/s41467-023-43374-0

    Saywell J C, Carey M S, Light P S, Szigeti S S, Milne A R, Gill K S, Goh M L, Perunicic V S, Wilson N M, Macrae C D, Rischka A, Everitt P J, Robins N P, Anderson R P, Hush M R and Biercuk M J 2023Nature Communications14ISSN 2041-1723 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-023-43374-0

  31. [39]

    Zhao X, Liu X, Sun J, Xu Z, Hu Z and Yang X 2022The European Physical Journal D76ISSN 1434-6079 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjd/s10053-022-00368-9

    doi

  32. [40]

    Dedes N, Saywell J, Carey M, Kuprov I and Freegarde T 2023Physical Review A108ISSN 2469-9934 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.053319

    doi

  33. [41]

    2019.163072

    Karar A S 2019Optik194163072 ISSN 0030-4026 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo. 2019.163072

    2019

  34. [42]

    doi.org/10.3390/photonics7020032

    Zhao Y, Wang S, Zhuang W and Li T 2020Photonics732 ISSN 2304-6732 URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.3390/photonics7020032

    doi

  35. [43]

    Beirle S, Lampel J, Lerot C, Sihler H and Wagner T 2017Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 10581–598 ISSN 1867-8548 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-581-2017

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    1088/1464-4266/4/1/310

    Brzozowski T M, Maczynska M, Zawada M, Zachorowski J and Gawlik W 2002Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics462–66 ISSN 1741-3575 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1464-4266/4/1/310

  37. [45]

    Gillen-Christandl K, Gillen G D, Piotrowicz M J and Saffman M 2016Applied Physics B122 ISSN 1432-0649 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00340-016-6407-y

    doi

  38. [46]

    Cheinet P, Canuel B, Pereira Dos Santos F, Gauguet A, Yver-Leduc F and Landragin A 2008 IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement571141–1148 URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1109/TIM.2007.915148

    2008

  39. [47]

    org/10.3390/photonics2010164

    Masoudnia L and Bleiner D 2015Photonics2164–183 ISSN 2304-6732 URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.3390/photonics2010164

    doi

  40. [48]

    Chuang Y H, Zheng L and Meyerhofer D 1993IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics29270–280 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/3.199268

    doi

  41. [49]

    Saywell J, Carey M, Kuprov I and Freegarde T 2020Physical Review A101ISSN 2469-9934 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.063625 17

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.