Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 49 references

Extended Single-Atom Tweezer Arrays in High-Cooperativity Cavity-QED

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This work demonstrates that tens of single atoms in an optical tweezer array can be trapped inside a high-cooperativity fiber microcavity, imaged with background-free fluorescence, and collectively coupled to a common cavity mode, establish

desk verdict High-cooperativity fiber-cavity tweezers with site-resolved imaging is a genuine advance, but the array-level C values don't close with the paper's own formula. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21515 v1 pith:JU65ZZCC submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph

Thomas Picot , Clément Raphin , Marcel Kern , Pierre-Antoine Bourdel , Théo Ahamdach , Jakob Reichel , Romain Long This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Pq
keywords cavityquantumelectrodynamicsopticaltweezerarraysfiberFabry-PerotmicrocavityvacuumRabisplittingcooperativitybackground-freefluorescenceimaging87Rbatomscollectivecoupling
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 work reports a platform that combines the two ingredients needed for many-body cavity-QED with microscopic control: strong coupling of individual atoms to a common cavity mode, and site-resolved fluorescence imaging of tens of atoms at once. The authors demonstrate single-atom cooperativity of about 90 in a fiber Fabry-Perot microcavity, then show that an array of up to 36 atoms positioned inside the same cavity collectively couples to the mode, with a measured collective vacuum Rabi splitting that matches the expected √N enhancement. They also develop a background-free two-photon fluorescence imaging scheme that works close to the cavity mirrors, achieving about 99% detection fidelity and 96% survival per site. If correct, this establishes a route to cavity-mediated entangling gates, mid-circuit measurements, and quantum simulation with programmable atom arrays.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a hybrid trap: an 808-nm tweezer array positions atoms inside the cavity, and a co-located 1559-nm intracavity lattice, commensurate with the 780-nm probe standing wave, confines each atom at an antinode, reducing the effect of position jitter. The collective signal is interpreted through the identity Ω = √N̄ g, which converts the measured vacuum Rabi splitting into a mean single-atom cooperativity C = g²/(κγ). The background-free imaging relies on a two-photon 'diamond' excitation (780 + 1529 nm) with decay through the 5P1/2 state and photon collection at 795 nm, which filters out the excitation light and eliminates the fluctuating background scattered from the

What would settle it

Measure how the collective vacuum Rabi splitting changes as single atoms are removed from known sites (e.g., by moving a row to a node or emptying sites with a blast beam), and compare the incremental change to the single-atom coupling measured at that site. If the splitting does not follow the expected √N scaling with site-specific couplings, or if the per-atom contribution drops with array size, the coherent-coupling assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the combination of two capabilities in one apparatus: single-atom strong coupling to a fiber Fabry-Perot microcavity (cooperativity C≈88, measured via vacuum Rabi splitting) and high-fidelity site-resolved fluorescence imaging of up to 20×4-site tweezer arrays (mean atom number up to N̄≈36). Using an intracavity 1559-nm lattice to pin atoms at antinodes of the probe field, the authors observe collective vacuum Rabi splittings for 1D chains and 2D arrays, and extract a mean single-atom cooperativity from Ω/√N̄ that matches the expected Gaussian mode profile. They also implement a background-free two-photon imaging scheme on the D1 line that suppresses scattered light from th

Load-bearing premise

The extraction of per-atom cooperativity assumes that every atom seen in the fluorescence image is coherently coupled to the cavity mode, remains near an antinode, and is prepared in the stretched state; if a notable fraction of imaged atoms are dark or out of phase, the inferred cooperativity for the largest arrays is too high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cavity-based hyperfine-state detection remains above 98.8% fidelity even at the edges of a 20×5-site geometry, so cavity readout can be extended to hundred-site arrays.
  • The background-free fluorescence scheme works in immediate proximity to macroscopic surfaces, making site-resolved imaging possible inside microcavities where it previously failed.
  • Collective coupling of about 36 atoms with per-site cooperativity above 5 everywhere is demonstrated, enabling cavity-mediated interactions across a programmable array.
  • The scaling of the extracted cooperativity with transverse position matches the Gaussian mode profile, confirming that detected atoms are pinned near antinodes.
  • Based on the measured mode profile, about 60 atoms could be coupled nearly homogeneously with cooperativity above 60, and up to about 150 atoms with controlled inhomogeneity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If combined with deterministic rearrangement, the same platform would allow error-corrected cavity-mediated entangling gates and mid-circuit measurements on registers of tens of qubits, not just two.
  • The two-photon background-free imaging scheme is likely transferable to other photonic interfaces, such as nanophotonic cavities or waveguides, where surface scattering limits imaging.
  • Site-resolved imaging during collective coupling could directly probe how cavity-mediated interactions modify local observables, e.g., by imaging correlations after a quench.
  • A direct test of the coherent-coupling assumption would be to measure the collective splitting while blocking individual rows or moving one row to a node; a discrepancy from the predicted change would reveal the fraction of dark atoms.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports the combination of optical tweezer arrays of single 87Rb atoms with a high-cooperativity fiber Fabry–Perot microcavity. The authors characterize the single-atom interface, measuring a vacuum Rabi splitting that yields g/2π = 62.1(5) MHz and C = 88(4), and demonstrate cavity-based hyperfine-state readout with ~99% fidelity. They then implement a background-free two-photon fluorescence imaging scheme, achieving single-site detection fidelities of 99(1)% and survival probabilities of 96(1)% across a 20×3 array. Finally, they couple 20×1, 20×2, 20×3, and 20×4 arrays to the cavity and, from collective vacuum Rabi spectra, report mean single-atom cooperativities of C = 92(3), 63(2), and 39(1) for the largest configurations, with a mean atom number up to N̄ ≃ 36. The central claim is that this establishes a high-cooperativity platform for many-body cavity-QED with site-resolved detection and control.

Significance. If the array-level cooperativity claims are correct, the paper represents a substantial advance: it brings high-cooperativity cavity-QED (C ~ 90) together with tens of individually resolved and controlled atoms, enabling studies of collective light-matter interactions, cavity-mediated spin models, and quantum-network nodes with site-resolved readout. The single-atom result (C = 88(4)) is supported by a standard vacuum Rabi measurement, and the fluorescence-imaging and cavity-readout demonstrations are independently valuable, with high fidelities and low loss. The machine-checked internal consistency of the numbers, however, is currently incomplete, and the central array-level quantitative claims need clarification before the significance can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4b, 4c] The displayed numbers are internally inconsistent as written. In Fig. 4b the caption states that the separation between the two polaritonic peaks is 2Ω, and Fig. 4c defines the measured single-atom coupling as g = Ω/√N̄. Using the quoted values and (κ,γ)/2π = (14.2,3.0) MHz, the 20×1 case (Ω/2π = 249(2) MHz, N̄ = 9.41(6)) gives g/2π = 81.2 MHz and C = g²/κγ ≈ 155, not C = 92(3). For the 20×4 case (Ω/2π = 194(1) MHz, N̄ = 36.5(1)) the formula gives g/2π = 32.1 MHz and C ≈ 24, not C = 39(1). Either Ω is not the half-splitting used in the conversion, or the extraction uses additional corrections (state-preparation efficiency, inhomogeneous coupling, atom-number statistics) that are not described. This point is load-bearing for the central claim of high-cooperativity arrays; please clarify the exact definition of Ω, the fitting model, and the relationship between Ω and the quoted C values.
  2. [Fig. 4b] The vacuum Rabi spectra are averaged over ~30 experimental cycles with stochastic atom number (loading probability ~56%). Because the cavity transmission depends nonlinearly on the atom number, the averaged spectrum is not the spectrum of N̄ atoms, and a simple double-Lorentzian fit to the averaged data can systematically bias the extracted splitting. The paper does not state that the fit accounts for the atom-number distribution, nor does it provide per-shot conditioning of the spectra on the fluorescence-measured atom number. Please either include a model for the number statistics in the fit, show simulated averaged spectra with the claimed parameters, or present a conditional analysis. This is necessary to validate the quantitative C values for the arrays.
  3. [Fig. 4c, final paragraph] The text mentions that 'the observed asymmetry between the two polariton peaks may arise from imperfect preparation in the stretched state and/or from a small impurity of the probe polarization.' Such effects can also shift the fitted peak positions and alter the inferred splitting. Since the authors themselves identify these imperfections as non-negligible, the analysis should quantify how the extracted C values change under plausible amounts of state-preparation error and polarization impurity, or justify that the effect is small compared to the reported uncertainties.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The notation for Ω is used inconsistently: the text sometimes refers to 'collective vacuum Rabi splitting' and the figure caption defines 2Ω as the peak separation, but the formula g=Ω/√N̄ uses Ω as a half-splitting. Please define Ω explicitly in one place and keep the same convention throughout.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3] The labels 'Fluorescence 1' and 'Fluorescence 2' in Fig. 3a are helpful, but the color scale in Fig. 2b is in photons/pixel and the right panels are not fully described; a scale bar or axis label would improve readability.
  3. [Introduction, first paragraph] Reference [48] is cited only in a 'Note added'; if the independent work is directly relevant, consider citing it in the introduction alongside [17-26].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims combine independent cavity-transmission and fluorescence-imaging measurements, and self-citations support apparatus details rather than the main result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain for the headline result is not circular. The single-atom cooperativity is obtained from a measured vacuum Rabi splitting (g/2pi = 62.1(5) MHz) and the independently stated decay rates (kappa/2pi = 14.2 MHz, gamma/2pi = 3.0 MHz), giving C = g^2/(kappa gamma) = 88(4). For the arrays, the collective splitting Omega is fitted from cavity transmission spectra, the mean atom number Nbar is measured from fluorescence images, and the quoted mean single-atom coupling is extracted using g = Omega/sqrt(Nbar). These are independent observables combined by a standard collective-coupling relation; none of the target claims is defined in terms of a fitted quantity or of another claimed result. The comparison in Fig. 4c between the expected coupling profile and the measured g is a consistency check, not a prediction of the fitted input. Self-citations ([27], [32], [34]) are used for previously constructed apparatus and established readout methods, not as load-bearing proof of the new array-level claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming pattern is present. The skeptical observation that the displayed Omega and Nbar values do not arithmetically reproduce the quoted array C values is an internal-consistency or reporting concern, not a circularity: the discrepancy does not show that the derivation reduces to its own inputs. The manuscript's own caveat about imperfect stretched-state preparation is an acknowledged limitation, not a circular step. I therefore find no significant circularity.

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

The central claim is an experimental platform demonstration. No free parameters enter a derivation: g, κ, γ, C, and N̄ are extracted from independent measurements. The main modeling assumptions are the effective two-level atom model, the collective-coupling formula Ω²=Σgᵢ², and the Gaussian cavity-mode profile used for per-site and extrapolated estimates. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The σ+-polarized probe realizes an effective two-level system via optical pumping into the stretched state |F=2,mF=2⟩ of 87Rb.
    This is used to interpret the vacuum Rabi splitting as a two-level spectrum and to extract g, κ, γ. Imperfect pumping is later invoked to explain polariton asymmetry, so the assumption is load-bearing for the fitted parameters.
  • domain assumption The collective vacuum Rabi splitting obeys Ω = sqrt(Σᵢ gᵢ²) ≈ g√N̄ for atoms at identical coupling.
    Used in Fig. 4c to convert the measured splitting and the fluorescence-derived N̄ into a mean single-atom cooperativity. Assumes all counted atoms are coherently coupled and in the same internal state.
  • domain assumption Atoms are pinned at antinodes of the 1559-nm intracavity lattice, so residual position jitter only reduces the effective coupling from the theoretical maximum C=132 to the measured C=88.
    This is the stated explanation for the discrepancy between theoretical and measured single-atom cooperativity, and it underlies the chain result C=92(3) being interpreted as near-optimal coupling.
  • domain assumption The cavity's transverse Gaussian mode profile with waist w0=5.6 μm describes the per-site coupling of all rows in the extended arrays.
    Used to conclude that cooperativity remains above 5 at every site in the 20×4 array and to extrapolate future capability to 60–150 atoms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended Single-Atom Tweezer Arrays in High-Cooperativity Cavity-QED." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JU65ZZCC

@misc{pith2026260721515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended Single-Atom Tweezer Arrays in High-Cooperativity Cavity-QED},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JU65ZZCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21515}
}
abstract

A central challenge for cavity-QED-based quantum technologies is to make high-cooperativity optical interfaces compatible with site-resolved arrays of single atoms. Here, we demonstrate optical tweezer arrays of individual $^{87}$Rb atoms inside a fiber Fabry-Perot microcavity with single-atom cooperativity $\mathcal{C} \sim 90$. We combine background-free site-resolved fluorescence imaging of extended arrays with collective coupling to a common cavity mode for arrays with a mean atom number up to $\bar{N} \simeq 36$. These results establish a high-cooperativity platform for many-body cavity-QED with site-resolved detection and control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single atom strongly coupled to the cavity. a. Simplified sketch of the experiment. Atoms are trapped inside a fiber Fabry-Perot microcavity by an array of optical tweezers generated by a pair of acousto-optic deflectors (2D AOD) along the cavity axis, and focused with a high N.A. lens. b. Mapping of the cavity mode by moving the single-atom tweezer along the z axis and measuring cavity transmission while measuring … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Background-free fluorescence scheme. a. Relevant level scheme. The atoms are excited via the D2 transition at 780 nm (blue), followed by a second excitation at 1529 nm (green). The atom subsequently decays to an intermediate state at 1476 nm (yellow), before emitting a photon on the 795 nm imaging transition. b. Comparison between standard fluorescence imaging and the background-free scheme with 50 ms exposure time.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fluorescence characterization. a. Two successive single-shot fluorescence images of a 20 × 3 tweezer array taken with 50 ms exposure time. The upper image and the lower image are separated by a 25 ms cooling phase. Red rectangle indicates a 3×3 pixel ROI. b. A histogram of the summed photon counts in the ROI over 1000 experimental cycles, with a double gaussian fit (solid line) and computed optimal threshold (dashed… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vacuum Rabi-splitting measurement for different configurations of single-atom array. a. Averaged fluorescence image of the tweezers configurations. Gaussian shape on the right indicates spatial extension of the cavity mode of waist w0 = 5.6 µm. The indicated number N¯ …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H. J. Kimble, Strong interactions of single atoms and photons in cavity QED, Phys. Scr.1998, 127 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Haroche and J.-M

    S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond,Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons(Oxford University Press, 2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum net- works with single atoms and optical photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Brekenfeld, D

    M. Brekenfeld, D. Niemietz, J. D. Christesen, and G. Rempe, A quantum network node with crossed op- tical fibre cavities, Nat. Phys.16, 647 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, and V. Vuletić, Im- plementation of Cavity Squeezing of a Collective Atomic Spin, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 073602 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    E. J. Davis, G. Bentsen, L. Homeier, T. Li, and M. H. Schleier-Smith, Photon-Mediated Spin-Exchange Dynamics of Spin-1 Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 010405 7 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macrì, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Sauerwein, F

    N. Sauerwein, F. Orsi, P. Uhrich, S. Bandyopadhyay, F. Mattiotti, T. Cantat-Moltrecht, G. Pupillo, P. Hauke, and J.-P. Brantut, Engineering random spin models with atomsinahigh-finessecavity,Nat.Phys.19,1128(2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    R. M. Kroeze, B. P. Marsh, D. Atri Schuller, H. S. Hunt, A. N. Bourzutschky, M. Winer, S. Gopalakrishnan, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Directly observing replica sym- metry breaking in a vector quantum-optical spin glass, Science389, 1122 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Photon-Mediated Quantum Gate between Two Neutral Atoms in an Optical Cavity, Phys. Rev. X8, 011018 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Ramette, J

    J. Ramette, J. Sinclair, Z. Vendeiro, A. Rudelis, M. Cetina, and V. Vuletić, Any-To-Any Connected Cavity-Mediated Architecture for Quantum Computing with Trapped Ions or Rydberg Arrays, PRX Quantum3, 010344 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    J. P. Covey, H. Weinfurter, and H. Bernien, Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes, npj Quan- tum Inf9, 90 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Sinclair, J

    J. Sinclair, J. Ramette, B. Grinkemeyer, D. Bluvstein, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuletić, Fault-tolerant optical in- terconnects for neutral-atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013313 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Reimann, W

    R. Reimann, W. Alt, T. Kampschulte, T. Macha, L. Ratschbacher, N. Thau, S. Yoon, and D. Meschede, Cavity-Modified Collective Rayleigh Scattering of Two Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 023601 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Neuzner, M

    A. Neuzner, M. Körber, O. Morin, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Interference and dynamics of light from a distance-controlled atom pair in an optical cavity, Na- ture Photon10, 303 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Deist, J

    E. Deist, J. A. Gerber, Y.-H. Lu, J. Zeiher, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Superresolution Microscopy of Optical Fields Using Tweezer-Trapped Single Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 083201 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, P. Yang, Q. Wang, Q. Fan, S. Guan, G. Li, P. Zhang, and T. Zhang, Realization of Strong Coupling between Deterministic Single-Atom Arrays and a High-Finesse Miniature Optical Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 173601 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Hartung, M

    L. Hartung, M. Seubert, S. Welte, E. Distante, and G. Rempe, A quantum-network register assembled with optical tweezers in an optical cavity, Science385, 179 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Seubert, L

    M. Seubert, L. Hartung, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and E. Dis- tante, Tweezer-Assisted Subwavelength Positioning of Atomic Arrays in an Optical Cavity, PRX Quantum6, 010322 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Grinkemeyer, E

    B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado-Sanchez, I. Dimitrova, D. Shchepanovich, G. E. Mandopoulou, J. Borregaard, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Error-detected quantum operations with neutral atoms mediated by an optical cavity, Science387, 1301 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Z. Wang, S. Guan, G. Teng, P. Yang, P. Zhang, G. Li, and T. Zhang, A cavity QED system with defect-free single-atom array strongly coupled to an optical cavity, Quantum Front4, 10 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    B. Hu, J. Sinclair, E. Bytyqi, M. Chong, A. Rudelis, J. Ramette, Z. Vendeiro, and V. Vuletić, Site-Selective Cavity Readout and Classical Error Correction of a 5-Bit Atomic Register, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 120801 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    A. L. Shaw, A. Soper, D. Shadmany, A. Kumar, L. Palm, D.-Y. Koh, V. Kaxiras, L. Taneja, M. Jaffe, D. I. Schus- ter, and J. Simon, A cavity-array microscope for parallel single-atom interfacing, Nature650, 320 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    J. D. Santis, B. Dura-Kovács, M. Öncü, A. Bouscal, D. Vasileiadis, and J. Zeiher, Realization of a cavity- coupled Rydberg array (2026), arXiv:2602.12152 [quant- ph]

    2026

  19. [27]

    R. Gehr, J. Volz, G. Dubois, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe, B. L. Lev, R. Long, J. Estève, and J. Reichel, Cavity- BasedSingleAtomPreparationandHigh-FidelityHyper- fine State Readout, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 203602 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    J. Volz, R. Gehr, G. Dubois, J. Estève, and J. Reichel, Measurement of the internal state of a single atom with- out energy exchange., Nature475, 210 (2011), 21753851

    2011

  21. [29]

    F. Haas, J. Volz, R. Gehr, J. Reichel, and J. Esteve, Entangled States of More Than 40 Atoms in an Optical Fiber Cavity, Science344, 180 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    J. P. McGilligan, K. R. Moore, A. Dellis, G. D. Mar- tinez, E. de Clercq, P. F. Griffin, A. S. Arnold, E. Riis, R. Boudot, and J. Kitching, Laser cooling in a chip-scale platform, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 054001 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    S. G. Menon, N. Glachman, M. Pompili, A. Dibos, and H. Bernien, An integrated atom array-nanophotonic chip platform with background-free imaging, Nat Commun 15, 6156 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Baghdad, P.-A

    M. Baghdad, P.-A. Bourdel, S. Schwartz, F. Ferri, J. Reichel, and R. Long, Spectral engineering of cavity- protected polaritons in an atomic ensemble, Nature Physics19, 1104 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Garcia, F

    S. Garcia, F. Ferri, K. Ott, J. Reichel, and R. Long, Dual- wavelength fiber Fabry-Perot cavities with engineered birefringence, Opt. Express26, 22249 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Garcia, F

    S. Garcia, F. Ferri, J. Reichel, and R. Long, Overlapping two standing waves in a microcavity for a multi-atom photon interface, Opt. Express28, 15515 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Ferri, A

    F. Ferri, A. L. Rooij, C. Lebouteiller, P.-A. Bourdel, M. Baghdad, S. Schwartz, S. Garcia, J. Reichel, and R. Long, An optical elevator for precise delivery of cold atoms using an acousto-optical deflector, New J. Phys. 24, 043013 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Bourdel,Atomic Ensembles in a Microcavity : From Cavity Protection to Single Atom Control, Ph.D

    P.-A. Bourdel,Atomic Ensembles in a Microcavity : From Cavity Protection to Single Atom Control, Ph.D. thesis, Sorbonne Université (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Noh and H

    H.-R. Noh and H. S. Moon, Transmittance signal in real ladder-type atoms, Phys. Rev. A85, 033817 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Ferri, S

    F. Ferri, S. Garcia, M. Baghdad, J. Reichel, and R. Long, Mapping optical standing-waves of an open- access Fabry–Perot cavity with a tapered fiber, Review of Scientific Instruments91, 033104 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de Léséleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free 8 arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Jandura, V

    S. Jandura, V. Srivastava, L. Pecorari, G. K. Brennen, and G. Pupillo, Nonlocal multiqubit quantum gates via a driven cavity, Phys. Rev. A110, 062610 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P.Treutlein,Quantummetrologywithnonclassicalstates of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018), arXiv:1609.01609

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gessner, A

    M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Multiparameter squeezing for optimal quantum enhancements in sensor networks, Nature Communications11, 3817 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Baamara, M

    Y. Baamara, M. Gessner, and A. Sinatra, Quantum- enhanced multiparameter estimation and compressed sensing of a field, SciPost Phys.14, 050 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Y. Li, L. Joosten, Y. Baamara, P. Colciaghi, A. Sinatra, P. Treutlein, and T. Zibold, Multiparameter estimation with an array of entangled atomic sensors, Science391, 374 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    Botzung, D

    T. Botzung, D. Hagenmüller, S. Schütz, J. Dubail, G. Pupillo, and J. Schachenmayer, Dark state semilo- calization of quantum emitters in a cavity, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144202 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    N. C. Chávez, F. Mattiotti, J. A. Méndez-Bermúdez, F. Borgonovi, and G. L. Celardo, Disorder-Enhanced and Disorder-Independent Transport with Long-Range Hop- ping: Application to Molecular Chains in Optical Cavi- ties, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 153201 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    J. Ye, Z. Chi, Y. Tian, S. Mei, X. Li, W. Zhang, Y. Zhao, J. Hu, and W. Chen, Controlling Atom Ar- ray in an Ultra-high-cooperativity Optical Cavity (2026), arXiv:2607.04090 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  41. [132]

    Cold atoms are first produced in a magneto-optical trap and transported into the cav- ity region using an optical dipole beam [35]

    Heregis the single-atom single-photon coupling strength, whileκandγare the the cavity and atomic HWHM decay rates, respectively, with(g, κ, γ)/2π= (75.0,14.2,3.0)MHz. Cold atoms are first produced in a magneto-optical trap and transported into the cav- ity region using an opti...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.