Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Singlet Pathway to the Ground State of Ultracold Polar Molecules

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that a stretched hyperfine component of a Feshbach molecule, addressed with $\sigma^-$ light, creates an ideal three-level system for transferring ultracold molecules to their ground state.

desk verdict A clean singlet-only two-photon route to the 6Li40K ground state, demonstrated spectroscopically, with the caveat that no STIRAP transfer is shown and the 'ideal three-level' claim rests on a resolution-limited null hyperfine result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02703 v1 pith:IPLWYMYO submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Anbang Yang , Sofia Botsi , Sunil Kumar , Sambit B. Pal , Mark M. Lam , Ieva Čepaitė , Andrew Laugharn , Kai Dieckmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords ultracoldpolarmoleculesFeshbachSTIRAPsingletpathwayhyperfinestructure6Li40KFranck-Condonfactorstwo-photonspectroscopy
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 establishes a simpler way to bring ultracold polar molecules into their dipolar ground state. Instead of searching for an excited intermediate state with mixed singlet-triplet character and resolved hyperfine structure, the authors use only singlet-to-singlet transitions. The trick is to start from a Feshbach molecule whose singlet admixture is a single stretched hyperfine component, and to drive the transitions with $\sigma^-$ polarized light; then only one hyperfine component of the $A{}^1\Sigma^+$ intermediate and one of the $X{}^1\Sigma^+$ ground state can couple, even if the excited-state hyperfine structure is unresolved. They demonstrate this in $^6\mathrm{Li}^{40}\mathrm{K}$ and show that deeply bound $A{}^1\Sigma^+$ levels provide strong, balanced Rabi frequencies, which is what a fast STIRAP transfer needs.

What carries the argument

The central object is a stretched hyperfine component: a molecular state in which all nuclear spin projections take their maximum value, so that dipole selection rules permit only one hyperfine component to be reached. For the Feshbach state at 21.56 mT, the only singlet closed-channel component is $|0,0,-1,-4\rangle$, fully stretched in the $^{40}$K and $^{6}$Li projections; with $\sigma^-$ light the only addressable excited hyperfine component is $|F'=6, m'_F=-6\rangle$, and similarly only one ground-state component is reached. The authors combine this selection with deeply bound $A{}^1\Sigma^+$ vibrational states, whose Franck-Condon factors give large and balanced Rabi frequencies for both pump and Stokes transitions, making a fast STIRAP transfer possible.

What would settle it

A high-resolution scan of the $A{}^1\Sigma^+|v'=23\rangle$ transition with linewidth well below 5 MHz would settle the matter: if hyperfine components beyond the single stretched line appear, or a line splitting close to the estimated 590 kHz quadrupole span is resolved, the singlet-only premise is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports a two-photon route to the $X{}^1\Sigma^+$ rovibrational ground state of $^6\mathrm{Li}^{40}\mathrm{K}$ that uses only singlet-to-singlet transitions. Starting from a Feshbach resonance at 21.56 mT whose closed channel contains a single stretched singlet hyperfine component, the authors apply $\sigma^-$ polarized light so that, even with unresolved hyperfine structure, only the stretched state $|F'=6, m'_F=-6\rangle$ of the $A{}^1\Sigma^+$ intermediate potential is addressed. They identify seven deeply bound $A{}^1\Sigma^+$ vibrational levels ($v'=23$ to 29), find no hyperfine structure over a 160 MHz scan at 5 MHz linewidth, and use two-photon spectroscopy through $v'=23$ to reach $X{}^1\Sigma^+$ $v''=0$, with an Autler-Townes splitting indicating a Stokes Rabi frequency around $2\pi\times 8$ MHz. The measured rotational spacing gives $B_0 = h\times 8.742(3)$ GHz, confirming the ground-state assignment. The paper concludes that this establishes an ideal three-level system, robust against off-resonant hyperfine coupling, and that the method can be extended to other molecular species.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the deeply bound $A{}^1\Sigma^+$ levels used here are effectively free of $b{}^3\Pi$ spin-orbit mixing, so the intermediate state really is singlet-only and the stretched-state selection argument holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • STIRAP to the $v''=0$ ground state no longer requires a spectroscopically resolved hyperfine structure or an intermediate state with large singlet-triplet mixing.
  • Because only one hyperfine component of the ground state is addressed, off-resonant coupling to other hyperfine components, and the resulting incoherent superpositions, is suppressed.
  • Deeply bound $A{}^1\Sigma^+$ states give pump and Stokes Rabi frequencies of the same order ($\sim 2\pi\times 8$ MHz for the Stokes beam) with moderate power, making a fast two-photon transfer feasible.
  • The measured ground-state rotational constant $B_0 = h\times 8.742(3)$ GHz provides a benchmark for the $X{}^1\Sigma^+$ potential of $^6\mathrm{Li}^{40}\mathrm{K}$.
  • The extension to other species follows where a Feshbach state with a stretched singlet component exists, such as LiCs or KCs, and possibly to doublet molecules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the scheme's pump strength scales with the singlet admixture of the chosen Feshbach state, a natural extension is to search for resonances with larger singlet admixture than the 52% modeled here, which would directly increase the transfer speed.
  • The stretched-state selection rule should be transferable to molecules with doublet electronic structure; a concrete test would be to compute whether proposed Feshbach resonances in LiYb, RbSr, or CsYb have a closed-channel component that is fully stretched in the nuclear-spin projections.
  • If the intermediate state is indeed a pure singlet, the two-photon coherence should be limited mainly by laser linewidth and spontaneous emission rather than unresolved hyperfine channels; measuring STIRAP transfer efficiency as a function of Stokes detuning would test this prediction.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-photon optical pathway from weakly bound Feshbach molecules to the rovibrational ground state of 6Li40K using only singlet-to-singlet transitions. Starting from a Feshbach state at 21.56 mT identified with a 52% singlet admixture, the authors use σ− polarized light to address the unique stretched hyperfine component of both the A1Σ+ intermediate state and the X1Σ+ ground state, thereby bypassing the usual need to resolve the hyperfine structure of a mixed singlet-triplet intermediate state. They report one-photon spectra of seven deeply bound A1Σ+ vibrational levels (v′ = 23–29), two-photon spectra connecting A1Σ+ to low-lying X1Σ+ levels including v′′ = 0, Autler-Townes measurements, polarization control, and a rotational constant B0 = h × 8.742(3) GHz. The paper concludes that an ideal three-level system is established and that the measured Rabi frequencies are favorable for a fast STIRAP transfer.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful and timely alternative to the mixed-state STIRAP routes used for KRb and other bi-alkali molecules. The demonstration that a stretched singlet Feshbach component plus polarization selection can address a single hyperfine component without resolving the excited-state hyperfine structure is conceptually clean and may simplify ground-state production for species with unfavorable singlet-triplet mixing. The paper is strong on experimental specifics: transition frequencies are measured with 1 MHz accuracy, normalized Rabi frequencies are quoted for both pump and Stokes legs, polarization dependence is shown, and the rotational constant is independently inferred. The mass-scaled Dunham assignment and the Franck-Condon/TDM calculations provide testable predictions for the relative strengths. The main limitations are that no actual STIRAP transfer or ground-state molecule production is demonstrated, and the evidence that the A1Σ+ levels are free of b3Π perturbation is resolution-limited.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text, 'An important feature of all observed lines...' and Supplemental Material, 'Spin-orbit coupling'] The exclusion of b3Π perturbation of the A1Σ+ levels rests on a null hyperfine-structure observation at a 5 MHz linewidth over a 160 MHz scan (Fig. 3(a)), while the same paragraph states that the A-state quadrupole hyperfine span is only 590 kHz. A small triplet admixture producing hyperfine splittings below 5 MHz would therefore be invisible in the data, and the supplement explicitly acknowledges that ab initio potentials cannot predict which A1Σ+ levels mix with b3Π. Because the paper's central claim of an 'ideal three-level system' depends on the intermediate state being effectively a pure singlet with a single M' = -6 channel, this evidence is not sufficient as stated. Please provide a quantitative upper bound on the spin-orbit admixture for v' = 23–29 (for example from the MOLPRO spin-orbit curve and the computed energy separations to b3Π levels), or alternatively rephrase the claim and quantify how a small unresolved admixture would affect the STIRAP efficiency.
  2. [Entire manuscript, esp. Figs. 3–4 and concluding paragraph] The paper reports two-photon spectroscopy and Autler-Townes splitting but does not demonstrate an actual STIRAP transfer or the production of ground-state molecules. The abstract's phrase 'demonstrate a two-photon pathway to the dipolar ground state' and the conclusion's 'we demonstrated a pathway to access the rovibrational ground state' go beyond what is shown if they are read as claiming a population transfer. I ask the authors to either add a STIRAP transfer result or explicitly state that the demonstrated milestone is the spectroscopic identification and characterization of the two-photon transition, and to indicate the expected transfer efficiency based on the measured ΩP and ΩS.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental Material, 'Asymptotic-Bound-State Model'] The phrase 'using the binding energies of the weakest bound states determined by this work' should make explicit that the weakest-level energy is a fitted parameter adjusted to match the resonance position, rather than an independently measured quantity.
  2. [Table II heading] There is a typographical error in the heading: 'normalized Rabi freqencies' should be 'normalized Rabi frequencies.'
  3. [Main text, discussion of rotational selection] The sentence 'the quantum number N for molecular rotation is not conserved' is confusing; for 1Σ states J = N, so the intended point is simply that the J'' = 0 to J' = 0 transition is forbidden and thus only N' = 1 levels are accessible. Consider clarifying the wording.
  4. [Main text, footnote [44]] The footnote states 'mass scaling of spectroscopic data of [22]', but reference [22] is a laser-cooling paper, not the heat-pipe polarization labeling spectroscopy used for the Dunham coefficients; the correct citation appears to be [45] (Grochola et al.).
  5. [Figure 2 and Tables I–II] The agreement between measured normalized Rabi frequencies and the FCF predictions is asserted but not quantified. Including a plot or a table of measured Ω̄ versus predicted FCF with uncertainties would make the comparison more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization-selection argument is angular-momentum algebra, and quantitative predictions are checked against independent external data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that starting from a stretched Feshbach singlet component and using σ− light addresses only the |F′=6,m′F=−6⟩ component of A1Σ+, is derived from angular momentum selection rules in the main text. The same argument restricts the Stokes step to the stretched X1Σ+ hyperfine component; this is a Wigner-Eckart consequence, not an input. The only fitted model input, the ABM binding energy, is used to estimate a 52% singlet admixture, but the stretched-state selection does not require that value: the unique singlet |0,0,−1,−4⟩ exists by conservation of M=−5 and the nuclear spins, and the paper states this before invoking the ABM. The measured A1Σ+ line positions are compared with independent mass-scaled Dunham predictions from heat-pipe spectroscopy and with Tiemann et al., with deviations within stated uncertainties; the measured Rabi frequencies are compared with independently computed Franck-Condon factors and ab initio transition dipole moments, not with values fitted to those same measurements. The exclusion of b3Π perturbation rests on a resolution-limited empirical null result (160 MHz scan at 5 MHz linewidth) and the supplement explicitly notes that ab initio PECs are not accurate enough to predict where mixed states occur; this is a limitation in evidence strength, not a circular step. Self-citations [40,41,47] concern apparatus, molecule association, and laser frequency stabilization, and are not load-bearing for the derivation of the three-level selection or the ground-state energy.

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

The central measurements are spectroscopic and mostly self-contained. The supporting theory imports a fitted ABM binding energy, literature Dunham coefficients, and ab initio PECs and TDMs, none of which are fit to the paper's final ground-state transition frequencies. No new particles or interactions are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • ABM weakest-bound-level energy = not stated; adjusted to reproduce the 21.56 mT Feshbach resonance
    The supplemental material says the weakest-bound-level energy is a free parameter and is varied to fit the empirical resonant magnetic field. This fitted model is used to assign the spin-singlet admixture of 52% to the starting state; the stretched-state selection itself does not depend on the numerical admixture.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Narrow-resonance approximation: coupling between closed molecular channel and entrance channel is negligible for 6Li-40K Feshbach resonances.
    Supplemental ABM section; used to justify diagonalizing the hyperfine/Zeeman Hamiltonian without open channel coupling. If wrong, the starting state composition could differ.
  • domain assumption Mass-scaled Dunham expansion from 7Li39K predicts 6Li40K A1Σ+ vibrational energies within the stated 6-10 GHz uncertainty.
    Supplemental 'Mass scaling of spectroscopic data'; used to assign vibrational quantum numbers v'=23-29 unambiguously.
  • domain assumption The A1Σ+ transition dipole moment is nearly constant over the relevant internuclear separation range.
    Main text and supplemental Fig. 2; used to convert measured Rabi frequencies into Franck-Condon factor comparisons. The ab initio MRCI result supports a weak variation.
  • domain assumption Nuclear quadrupole interaction dominates A1Σ+ hyperfine structure, with 40K quadrupole constant about 2.97 MHz, giving an unresolved hyperfine span below the 5 MHz linewidth.
    Supplemental hyperfine section; supports the absence of resolved hyperfine structure in Fig. 3(a).
  • standard math Angular momentum selection rules for σ− polarized light from a stretched F''=5, m''=-5 state allow only F'=6, m'=-6 in the excited state.
    Quantum mechanics of stretched states; this is the core argument for the three-level system and does not rely on fitted parameters.
  • domain assumption Deeply bound A1Σ+ levels are not significantly mixed with b3Π levels at the measured wavelengths.
    Inferred from the absence of hyperfine structure over 160 MHz; load-bearing for the singlet-only claim. See weakness field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Singlet Pathway to the Ground State of Ultracold Polar Molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPLWYMYO

@misc{pith2026190802703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Singlet Pathway to the Ground State of Ultracold Polar Molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPLWYMYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02703}
}
abstract

Starting from weakly bound Feshbach molecules, we demonstrate a two-photon pathway to the dipolar ground state of bi-alkali molecules that involves only singlet-to-singlet optical transitions. This pathway eliminates the search for a suitable intermediate state with sufficient singlet-triplet mixing and the exploration of its hyperfine structure, as is typical for pathways starting from triplet dominated Feshbach molecules. By selecting a Feshbach state with a stretched singlet hyperfine component and controlling the polarization of the excitation laser, we assure coupling to only a single hyperfine component of the $\textrm{A}^{1}\Sigma^{+}$ excited potential, even if the hyperfine structure is not resolved. Similarly, we address a stretched hyperfine component of the $\textrm{X}^{1}\Sigma^{+}$ rovibrational ground state, and therefore an ideal three level system is established. We demonstrate this pathway with ${}^{6}\textrm{Li}{}^{40}\textrm{K}$ molecules. By exploring deeply bound states of the $\textrm{A}^{1}\Sigma^{+}$ potential, we are able to obtain large and balanced Rabi frequencies for both transitions. This method can be applied to other molecular species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Potential energy curves of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Franck-Condon overlap factors (FCF) of the vibra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectroscopy of the A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spectroscopy of X [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Composition of the resonant molecular eigenstate in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Electronic transition dipole matrix elements (TDM) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Spin-orbit coupling energies between various elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For addressing the X1Σ + rovibrational ground state of the molecules, the A1Σ + potential is explored to search for a suitable in- termediate state. Here, we demonstrate that by making use of deeply bound vibrational states in this potential, we are able to achieve sufficient Franck-Condon factors (FCF) to the ground state with moderate laser powers. The us...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Trefzger, C

    C. Trefzger, C. Menotti, B. Capogrosso-Sansone, and M. Lewenstein, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44, 193001 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    M. A. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Chem. Rev. 112, 5012 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Schauss, J

    P. Schauss, J. Zeiher, T. Fukuhara, S. Hild, M. Cheneau, T. Macri, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Science 347, 1455 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de Leseleuc, T. Macri, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Nature 534, 667+ (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    B¨ ottcher, J.-N

    F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011051 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Chomaz, D

    L. Chomaz, D. Petter, P. Ilzh¨ ofer, G. Natale, A. Traut- mann, C. Politi, G. Durastante, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patscheider, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021012 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Micheli, G

    A. Micheli, G. K. Brennen, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys. 2, 341 (2006)

    2006

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Gadway and B

    B. Gadway and B. Yan, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 152002 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    DeMille, Phys

    D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 067901 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    S. F. Yelin, K. Kirby, and R. Cˆ ot´ e, Phys. Rev. A 74, 050301(R) (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Andr´ e, D

    A. Andr´ e, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, M. D. Lukin, S. E. Maxwell, P. Rabl, R. J. Schoelkopf, and P. Zoller, Nature Phys. 2, 636 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Kozlov and L

    M. Kozlov and L. Labzowsky, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 28, 1933 (1995)

    1995

  6. [14]

    E. R. Hudson, H. J. Lewandowski, B. C. Sawyer, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 143004 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    Andreev, D

    V. Andreev, D. G. Ang, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, J. Haefner, N. R. Hutzler, Z. Lasner, C. Meisenhelder, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, A. D. West, E. P. West, X. Wu, and A. Collaboration, Nature 562, 355 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    L. D. Carr, D. DeMille, R. V. Krems, and J. Ye, New J. Phys. 11, 055049 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    M. T. Bell and T. P. Softley, Mol. Phys. 107, 99 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Qu´ em´ ener and P

    G. Qu´ em´ ener and P. S. Julienne,Chem. Rev. 112, 4949 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    D. S. Jin and J. Ye, Chem. Rev. 112, 4801 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Wynar, R

    R. Wynar, R. Freeland, D. Han, C. Ryu, and D. Heinzen, Science 287, 1016 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Bethlem, G

    H. Bethlem, G. Berden, F. Crompvoets, R. Jongma, A. van Roij, and G. Meijer, Nature 406, 491 (2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    S. D. Kraft, P. Staanum, J. Lange, L. Vogel, R. Wester, 6 and M. Weidemueller, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, S993 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    E. S. Shuman, J. F. Barry, and D. DeMille, Nature 467, 820 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, L. W. Cheuk, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Nat. Phys. 14, 890 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    K¨ ohler, K

    T. K¨ ohler, K. G´ oral, and P. S. Julienne,Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 1311 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    K. K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Pe’er, B. Neyenhuis, J. J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. S. Julienne, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Science 322, 231 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Takekoshi, L

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

    2014

  21. [29]

    P. K. Molony, P. D. Gregory, Z. Ji, B. Lu, M. P. K¨ oppinger, C. R. Le Sueur, C. L. Blackley, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 255301 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    J. W. Park, S. A. Will, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 205302 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    M. Guo, B. Zhu, B. Lu, X. Ye, F. Wang, R. Vex- iau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, G. Qu´ em´ ener, O. Dulieu, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 205303 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    De Marco, G

    L. De Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J. P. Covey, and J. Ye, Science 363, 853 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    N. V. Vitanov and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3820 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    Kotochigova, E

    S. Kotochigova, E. Tiesinga, and P. S. Julienne, New J. Phys. 11, 055043 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Debatin, T

    M. Debatin, T. Takekoshi, R. Rameshan, L. Reichsoell- ner, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, R. Vexiau, N. Bouloufa, O. Dulieu, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 18926 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Zabawa, A

    P. Zabawa, A. Wakim, M. Haruza, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A 84, 061401(R) (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    J. W. Park, S. A. Will, and M. W. Zwierlein, New J. Phys. 17, 075016 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    M. Guo, R. Vexiau, B. Zhu, B. Lu, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, O. Dulieu, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 96, 052505 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    T. M. Rvachov, H. Son, J. J. Park, S. Ebadi, M. W. Zwierlein, W. Ketterle, and A. O. Jamison, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 4739 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Liu, D.-C

    L. Liu, D.-C. Zhang, H. Yang, Y.-X. Liu, J. Nan, J. Rui, B. Zhao, and J.-W. Pan, Phys Rev. Lett. 122, 253201 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Taglieber, A.-C

    M. Taglieber, A.-C. Voigt, T. Aoki, T. W. H¨ ansch, and K. Dieckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 010401 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Voigt, M

    A.-C. Voigt, M. Taglieber, L. Costa, T. Aoki, W. Wieser, T. W. H¨ ansch, and K. Dieckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 020405 (2009)

    2009

  35. [44]

    T. G. Tiecke, M. R. Goosen, J. T. M. Walraven, and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042712 (2010)

    2010

  36. [45]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for details on our asymptotic bound state cal- culation, mass scaling of spectroscopic data of [22], and calculations of the Franck-Condon factors, hyperfine cou- pling constants, spin-orbit coupling constants, an...

  37. [48]

    J. F. S. Brachmann, T. Kinder, and K. Dieckmann, Appl. Opt. 51, 5517 (2012) . arXiv:1908.02703v1 [cond-mat.quant-gas] 7 Aug 2019 Supplemental Material: Singlet Pathway to the Ground State of Ultracold Polar Molecules A. Yang,1 S. Botsi, 1 S. Kumar, 1 S. B. Pal, 1 M. M. Lam, 1 ...

    2012 arXiv

  38. [49]

    This represents a favorable condition for a strong transition to excited electronic states of singlet character, in particular the A 1Σ + state

    While at zero magnetic field the state has only triplet character, at the location of the resonance the admixture of the singlet state is 52%. This represents a favorable condition for a strong transition to excited electronic states of singlet character, in particular the A 1Σ...

  39. [50]

    A. J. Moerdijk, B. J. Verhaar, and A. Axelsson, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4852 (1995)

    1995

  40. [51]

    Wille, F

    E. Wille, F. M. Spiegelhalder, G. Kerner, D. Naik, A. Trenkwalder, G. Hendl, F. Schreck, R. Grimm, T. G. Tiecke, J. T. M. Walraven, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, E. Tiesinga, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 053201 (2008)

    2008

  41. [52]

    T. G. Tiecke, M. R. Goosen, J. T. M. Walraven, and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042712 (2010) . 4

    2010

  42. [53]

    T. G. Tiecke, M. R. Goosen, A. Ludewig, S. D. Gense- mer, S. Kraft, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 053202 (2010)

    2010

  43. [54]

    Pires, M

    R. Pires, M. Repp, J. Ulmanis, E. D. Kuhnle, M. Wei- dem¨ uller, T. G. Tiecke, C. H. Greene, B. P. Ruzic, J. L. Bohn, and E. Tiemann, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012710 (2014)

    2014

  44. [55]

    Z. Li, S. Singh, T. V. Tscherbul, and K. W. Madison, Phys. Rev. A 78, 022710 (2008)

    2008

  45. [56]

    J. W. Park, C.-H. Wu, I. Santiago, T. G. Tiecke, S. Will, P. Ahmadi, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. A 85, 051602 (2012)

    2012

  46. [57]

    Grochola, J

    A. Grochola, J. Szczepkowski, W. Jastrzebski, and P. Ko- walczyk, Chem. Phys. Lett. 535, 17 (2012)

    2012

  47. [58]

    J. L. Dunham, Phys. Rev. 41, 721 (1932)

    1932

  48. [59]

    Martin, P

    F. Martin, P. Crozet, A. J. Ross, M. Aubert-Frecon, P. Kowalczyk, W. Jastrzebski, and A. Pashov, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 4118 (2001)

    2001

  49. [60]

    Tiemann, H

    E. Tiemann, H. Kn¨ ockel, P. Kowalczyk, W. Jastrzebski, A. Pashov, H. Salami, and A. J. Ross, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042716 (2009)

    2009

  50. [61]

    Allouche, https://sites.google.com/site/allouchear/Home/diatomic

    Website of A.R. Allouche, https://sites.google.com/site/allouchear/Home/diatomic

  51. [62]

    Marston and G

    C. Marston and G. Balinkurti, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 3571 (1989)

    1989

  52. [63]

    Werner, P

    H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, and M. Schuetz, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2, 242 (2012)

    2012

  53. [64]

    Werner, P

    MOLPRO, version 2015.1, a package of ab initio pro- grams, H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, M. Sch¨ utz, and others, see, www.molpro.net/

    2015

  54. [65]

    Werner and P

    H.-J. Werner and P. J. Knowles, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 5803 (1988)

    1988

  55. [66]

    P. J. Knowles and H.-J. Werner, Chem. Phys. Letters 145, 514 (1988)

    1988

  56. [67]

    P. J. Knowles and H.-J. Werner, Theor. Chim. Acta. 84, 95 (1992)

    1992

  57. [68]

    I. Lim, H. Stoll, and P. Schwerdtfeger, J. Chem. Phys 124, 2148945 (2006)

    2006

  58. [69]

    Widmark, P

    P. Widmark, P. Malmqvist, and B. Roos, Theor. Chim. Acta. 77, 291 (1990)

    1990

  59. [70]

    Falke, E

    S. Falke, E. Tiemann, C. Lisdat, H. Schnatz, and G. Grosche, Phys. Rev. A 74, 032503 (2006)

    2006

  60. [71]

    Manaa, Int

    M. Manaa, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 75, 693 (1999) , in- ternational Symposium on Atomic Molecular and Con- densed Matter Theory, ST AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, FEB 27-MAR 05, 1999

    1999

  61. [72]

    Manaa, A

    M. Manaa, A. Ross, F. Martin, P. Crozet, A. Lyyra, L. Li, C. Amiot, and T. Bergeman, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 11208 (2002)

    2002

  62. [73]

    Bruna and F

    P. Bruna and F. Grein, Mol. Phys. 104, 429 (2006)

    2006

  63. [74]

    Wharton, W

    L. Wharton, W. Klemperer, and L. Gold, Phys. Rev. B 133, B270 (1964)

    1964

  64. [75]

    T. Q. Teodoro, R. L. Andrade Haiduke, and L. Visscher, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032516 (2015)

    2015

  65. [76]

    Aidas, C

    K. Aidas, C. Angeli, K. L. Bak, V. Bakken, R. Bast, L. Boman, O. Christiansen, R. Cimiraglia, S. Coriani, P. Dahle, E. K. Dalskov, U. Ekstrom, T. Enevoldsen, J. J. Eriksen, P. Ettenhuber, B. Fernandez, L. Ferrighi, H. Fliegl, L. Frediani, K. Hald, A. Halkier, C. Hattig, H. Hei...

    2014

  66. [77]

    Dalton, a molecular electronic structure program, Re- lease v2018.1 (2018), see, http://daltonprogram.org/

    2018

  67. [78]

    Aldegunde and J

    J. Aldegunde and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A 96, 042506 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.