Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Programmable Assembly of Ground State Fermionic Tweezer Arrays

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that arbitrary two-component product states of fermionic lithium-6 can be deterministically prepared in an 8×8 optical tweezer array with motional ground-state fidelities above 98.5%, using Pauli-suppressed loading an

desk verdict Solid experimental platform paper; the 98.5% abstract claim is a trivial overstatement, and the second-spill fidelity check is standard practice, not a fatal gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.09849 v3 pith:JYMHF5GQ submitted 2025-12-10 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

Naman Jain , Jin Zhang , Marcus Culemann , Philipp M. Preiss This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords fermionicatomsopticaltweezerarraysPaulisuppressionground-statepreparationspin-resolvedimagingquantumsimulationlithium-6programmable
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 reports a method to prepare arbitrary two-component product states of fermionic 6Li atoms in an 8×8 optical tweezer array, with motional ground-state fidelities above 98.5%. The authors show that by loading from a deeply degenerate reservoir, Pauli suppression fills each tweezer with a singlet pair in the ground state, and that a combination of magnetic-field gradients and locally projected repulsive optical potentials removes chosen spins at chosen sites in parallel, without spin-dependent optical potentials. The work matters because it provides a fast (3-second cycle), scalable, programmable source of low-entropy fermionic initial states, suitable for seeding Fermi-Hubbard quantum simulators and other many-body studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is 'spilling': adiabatically lowering the tweezer depth so that atoms in excited motional states are removed while ground-state atoms remain, with Pauli suppression ensuring at most one atom per spin state in the ground state. Spin selectivity comes from the Zeeman-tunable magnetic moment: at 27 G, state |2> has near-zero moment while |1> retains about -0.6 Bohr magneton, so a gradient weakens only the |1> potential. A digital micromirror device projects repulsive optical disks (about 500 nm radius) onto individual tweezers, adding site-specific axial gradients that push chosen atoms over the threshold. Detection uses closed sigma-plus/minus transitions on stretche

What would settle it

Perform a second-spill test while varying the reservoir temperature from about 0.025 T_F to 0.1 T_F: if the ground-state survival probability does not degrade sharply, then the claimed mechanism of Pauli-suppressed near-unity filling is not the operative one. A direct measurement of the reservoir's momentum distribution would provide the Fermi temperature independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's terms, the central discovery is that arbitrary product states of two-component fermions can be deterministically assembled in an optical tweezer array by combining degenerate-reservoir loading with spin-selective spilling. When the reservoir is deeply degenerate (T_R/T_F ≈ 0.025), thermalization with the tweezers leaves each site with near-unity probability of a single spin-up/spin-down pair in the 3D motional ground state. Then, using the large differential magnetic moment between the two lowest hyperfine states of 6Li at low field, a magnetic-field gradient makes the effective potential spin-dependent, and locally addressed optical gradients from a digital micromirror device

Load-bearing premise

The reservoir of 6Li must be so deeply degenerate (T/T_F around 0.025) that Pauli suppression gives near-unity occupation of the lowest motional state in each tweezer; if the degeneracy or the thermalization is less efficient than assumed, the claimed 98.5% ground-state fidelity would degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the platform can seed Fermi-Hubbard simulators with low-entropy, defect-controlled initial states such as antiferromagnetic domains and hole dopants, enabling studies of spin transport and thermalization.
  • The 3-second cycle time allows high-statistics acquisition, making protocols such as Hamiltonian learning practical.
  • The single-exposure spin-resolved imaging at 20 microseconds with >99.4% fidelity removes a major bottleneck of fermionic microscopes, which previously required hundreds of milliseconds.
  • The preparation is compatible with transfer to optical lattices or tunnel-coupled tweezers, offering a route to itinerant ferromagnetism and Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov physics in spin-imbalanced systems.
  • The per-particle entropy of 0.080 k_B for filled arrays, with post-selection, approaches the regime of band-insulator entropies needed for low-temperature strongly correlated physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Pauli-suppression loading is as robust as reported, the same spilling technique could work for any fermionic species with a large magnetic moment, including potassium-40 or erbium-167, by tuning to a field where one spin state is magnetically insensitive.
  • The demonstration of gravity-based spilling for 6Li suggests that species with essentially zero magnetic moment (e.g., strontium-87, ytterbium-171) might also achieve deterministic ground-state filling, though the needed power stability would be stricter as the supplemental analysis indicates.
  • An untested but natural extension is to use the DMD-based selective spilling to prepare three-component mixtures or to write arbitrary patterns of double occupancies, extending the toolbox from product states to more complex correlated initial states.
  • The reported 98.5% ground-state fidelity is a single-shot preparation fidelity; combining it with in-sequence verification and correction could push effective preparation fidelity closer to unity for quantum computing applications, where error correction requires heralded state preparation.
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 an 8×8 optical tweezer array for 6Li fermions with deterministic preparation of arbitrary two-component product states. The authors combine degenerate-reservoir loading, gradient-assisted spilling, DMD-based local potentials, and magnetic-moment-based spin selectivity to prepare singlet pairs and then hole/spin patterns. They also demonstrate single-exposure spin- and density-resolved imaging with >99.4% single-atom detection fidelity, fast RF/MW state transfers, and 3 s experimental cycles. The central quantitative claim is a motional ground-state fidelity above 98.5% (abstract), with a reported array-averaged single-particle preparation fidelity of 98.47(2)% and best-tweezer values of 99.7%.

Significance. If fully substantiated, this is an important advance: it provides fast, programmable, low-entropy initialization of fermionic quantum states, directly relevant to Fermi-Hubbard simulation and fermionic quantum processing. The paper is strengthened by careful experimental benchmarking: µMOT atom-counting validates the EMCCD detection; gravity-only spilling is compared to gradient-assisted spilling; spilling-curve plateaus are resolved; and error bars are reported throughout. However, the headline ground-state fidelity is not consistently stated, and the motional-state verification relies on an indirect threshold filter rather than a direct probe of the motional quantum state.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Fig. 3c] The abstract claims 'motional ground-state fidelities above 98.5%', but the reported array-averaged single-particle preparation fidelity is 98.47(2)% (Fig. 3c). This is a direct inconsistency on a headline number. If 'above 98.5%' refers only to the best tweezers (99.7%) or to a different fidelity definition, that should be stated explicitly. Otherwise the wording should be changed to 'approximately 98.5%' or the exact number used. The distinction matters because the central advance is quantified by this number.
  2. [Supplement, 'Ground State Fraction Estimation'] The second-spill benchmark is a threshold filter: it detects atoms that remain bound at a chosen trap depth, not a direct measurement of the motional quantum state. Excited states that survive the same spilling threshold—owing to anharmonicity, interaction shifts, or calibration errors—would be counted as ground state. In addition, the reported 100.0(+0.0,-0.2)% second-spill survival appears to conflict with the 98.47(2)% preparation fidelity if the latter is interpreted as a ground-state fraction; the logical relationship between the two numbers is never defined. Please clarify the definition of 'ground-state fidelity' and either add an independent probe (e.g., resolved sideband spectroscopy or a calibrated heating test) or explicitly qualify the second-spill result as an operational lower bound.
  3. [Fig. 4d; 'Parallelized spin-dependent preparation'] The claim of 'arbitrary product states' is not quantified end-to-end. The operational fidelities in Fig. 4d are per-operation values: |1⟩ removal 99.7%, |2⟩ retention 98.5%, and non-addressed |1⟩ retention 99.8%. For a generic pattern, the net preparation fidelity compounds these probabilities with the |1⟩–|2⟩ RF swap fidelity, yet no end-to-end fidelity for a generic final configuration is reported. The demonstrated 'L-i' and antiferromagnetic patterns are illustrative rather than a statistical test of arbitrariness. Please either report measured fidelities for several random patterns or restrict the claim to 'representative patterns'.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3c] The term 'single-particle preparation fidelity' should be defined explicitly: is it the probability that a given site contains exactly one atom in the 3D motional ground state? The current wording is ambiguous and could also be read as the probability of exactly one atom regardless of motional state.
  2. [Fig. 4b] The sigmoid fit parameters a_|1⟩, ε_|1⟩, a_|2⟩, ε_|2⟩ are given only in the caption. The fit function should be stated in the main text or explicitly referenced, so the reader can reproduce the extinction curves.
  3. [Throughout] Several figures and the acknowledgements contain OCR-style corruption: '∫hortrightarrow', '∫hortuparrow', 'inital', and similar artifacts. A careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are direct experimental measurements with independent cross-checks, not derived predictions.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation chain in which a fitted parameter or defined quantity is later renamed as a prediction. The central claims are experimental demonstrations: deterministic singlet preparation in an 8x8 tweezer array, spin- and density-resolved imaging, and programmable spin-selective spilling. Preparation fidelities are reported from measured spilling-plateau behavior and a second-spill survival benchmark; spin-selective thresholds are extracted from measured survival curves via sigmoid fits to data. The independent µMOT atom-counting benchmark cross-checks the EMCCD occupation statistics, and the µMOT data confirm that residual multi-atom events are predominantly true singlets. The second-spill ground-state diagnostic does reuse the same spill threshold as the preparation filter, so it is an operational filter check rather than an independent motional-state probe; however, that is a measurement-validity caveat, not a case where the output is defined by the input or where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., [10], [23], [45]) refer to established external methods, prior apparatus work, or hardware collaboration and are not load-bearing for the main result in a circular way. The paper is self-contained as an experimental report, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The protocol rests on standard cold-atom physics (Fermi statistics, Zeeman structure, trap spilling) and on the assumption that the second-spill method measures the ground-state fraction. The listed fit parameters are experimental calibrations rather than theoretical inputs; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • a_|1> (spin-selective spilling center for |1>) = 19.83(3) µW
    Fitted center of the |1> ground-state survival probability vs DMD/tweezer power; defines the threshold for spin-selective removal.
  • a_|2> (spin-selective spilling center for |2>) = 3.54(2) µW
    Fitted center for |2> survival; its separation from a_|1> enables spin-selective spilling.
  • Sigmoid widths ε_|1>, ε_|2> = 1.30(6) µW, 0.70(2) µW
    Widths quantify the selectivity of the spin-dependent spilling and are used to choose the operating point.
  • Operating DMD power (dashed line in Fig. 4d) = not quoted in text
    Chosen between the two measured thresholds to balance |1> removal and |2> retention; this is a free experimental choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fermi-Dirac statistics suppress density fluctuations at the bottom of a degenerate Fermi gas, allowing near-unity occupation of the lowest bound states of an optical tweezer.
    Invoked in 'Ground-state loading exploits Pauli suppression...' and foundational to the singlet preparation method from [10].
  • domain assumption At 27 G the |1> and |2> states of 6Li have magnetic moments of approximately −0.6 µ_B and 0, respectively, so a magnetic-field gradient creates a spin-selective potential.
    Uses the known Zeeman structure of 6Li (Fig. 2b) to justify spin-selective spilling.
  • domain assumption The second-spill procedure removes atoms in excited motional states without removing ground-state atoms, so a measured 100% survival indicates 100% ground-state fraction.
    Underlies the ground-state fidelity benchmark in 'Ground State Fraction Estimation'; relies on the threshold behavior of the spilling process.
  • domain assumption DMD-projected potentials can be aligned to individual tweezers with <130 nm error and impose controlled axial gradients without affecting neighboring sites.
    Required for site-resolved addressing; alignment is measured but assumed stable over the experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable Assembly of Ground State Fermionic Tweezer Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JYMHF5GQ

@misc{pith2026251209849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable Assembly of Ground State Fermionic Tweezer Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JYMHF5GQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.09849}
}
abstract

We demonstrate deterministic preparation of arbitrary two-component product states of fermionic $^6$Li atoms in an 8$\times$8 optical tweezer array, achieving motional ground-state fidelities above $98.5\,\%$. Leveraging the large differential magnetic moments for spin-resolution, with parallelized site- and number-resolved control, our approach addresses key challenges for low-entropy quantum state engineering. Combined with high-fidelity spin-, site-, and density-resolved readout within a single $20\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ exposure, and $3\,\mathrm{s}$ experimental cycles, these advances establish a fast, scalable, and programmable architecture for fermionic quantum simulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Parallel analog quantum simulation in homogeneous quantum gases

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single ultracold Fermi gas is partitioned into independently tunable quantum-simulation units, enabling parallel thermometry and Josephson-junction dynamics within one experimental cycle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Saffman, T

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

    2010

  3. [3]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- 6 cold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    W. S. Bakr, Z. Ba, and M. L. Prichard, Microscopy of ul- tracold Fermions in optical lattices, arXiv:2507.04042v1 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    B. J. Lester, N. Luick, A. M. Kaufman, C. M. Reynolds, and C. A. Regal, Rapid production of uniformly filled arrays of neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 073003 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    R. M. Kroeze, R. A. Villela, E. Zu, T. O. H¨ ohn, and M. Aidelsburger, Isotope-agnostic motional ground-state cooling of neutral Yb atoms, arXiv:2506.09031 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Serwane, G

    F. Serwane, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lompe, T. B. Ottenstein, A. N. Wenz, and S. Jochim, Deterministic preparation of a tun- able few-Fermion system, Science332, 336 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, A neutral-atom Hubbard quantum simulator in the cryo- genic regime, Nature642, 909 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many- body systems out of equilibrium, Nature Phys.11, 124 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annu

    A. Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annu. Rev. Con- dens. Matter Phys.9, 245 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quan- tum many-body scars and Hilbert space fragmentation: a review of exact results, Rep. Prog. Phys.85, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    T. A. Hilker, G. Salomon, F. Grusdt, A. Omran, M. Boll, E. Demler, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Revealing hidden an- tiferromagnetic correlations in doped Hubbard chains via string correlators, Science357, 484 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, A. D. Deters, M. Le- brat, A. W. Young, and M. Greiner, Pseudogap in a Fermi-Hubbard quantum simulator, arXiv:2509.18075 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Hartke, B

    T. Hartke, B. Oreg, C. Turnbaugh, N. Jia, and M. Zwier- lein, Direct observation of nonlocal Fermion pairing in an attractive Fermi-Hubbard gas, Science381, 82 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Gross and W

    C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection, Nature Phys.17, 1316 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    M. C. Tichy, M. Tiersch, F. Mintert, and A. Buch- leitner, Many-particle interference beyond many-Boson and many-Fermion statistics, New J. Phys.14, 093015 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    P. Lunt, P. Hill, J. Reiter, P. M. Preiss, M. Ga lka, and S. Jochim, Realization of a Laughlin state of two rapidly rotating Fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 253401 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Z. Z. Yan, B. M. Spar, M. L. Prichard, S. Chi, H.-T. Wei, E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla, K. R. A. Hazzard, and W. S. Bakr, Two-dimensional programmable tweezer arrays of Fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 123201 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, N. Schine, A. M. Childs, and A. M. Kaufman, Tweezer-programmable 2D quan- tum walks in a Hubbard-regime lattice, Science377, 885 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Bergschneider, V

    A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, J. H. Becher, R. Klemt, G. Z¨ urn, P. M. Preiss, and S. Jochim, Spin- resolved single-atom imaging of 6Li in free space, Phys. Rev. A97, 063613 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Hammel, M

    T. Hammel, M. Kaiser, D. Dux, M. Weidem¨ uller, and S. Jochim, Atom and spin resolved imaging in a single shot (2025), see arXiv posting on the same day

    2025

  17. [25]

    Scazza, G

    F. Scazza, G. Del Pace, L. Pieri, R. Concas, W. J. Kwon, and G. Roati, A low-impedance radio-frequency circuit for fast spin manipulations in cold alkali atoms, Rev. Sci. Instrum.96, 104713 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermersch, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays, Proceedings of the National A...

    2023

  19. [27]

    R. Ott, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, P. Zoller, A. M. Kaufman, and H. Pichler, Error-corrected fermionic quantum processors with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 090601 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Schuckert, E

    A. Schuckert, E. Crane, A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hafezi, and M. J. Gullans, Fault-tolerant Fermionic quantum com- puting, arXiv:2411.08955 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dutkiewicz, T

    A. Dutkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, and T. Schuster, The ad- vantage of quantum control in many-body Hamiltonian learning, Quantum8, 1537 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Massignan, M

    P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti, and G. M. Bruun, Polarons, dressed molecules and itinerant ferromagnetism in ultra- cold Fermi gases, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 034401 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    P. M. Preiss, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, J. Simon, and M. Greiner, Quantum gas microscopy with spin, atom-number, and multilayer readout, Phys. Rev. A91, 041602 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    M. Boll, T. A. Hilker, G. Salomon, A. Omran, J. Nespolo, L. Pollet, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Spin- and density- resolved microscopy of antiferromagnetic correlations in Fermi-Hubbard chains, Science353, 1257 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    L. W. Cheuk, M. A. Nichols, K. R. Lawrence, M. Okan, H. Zhang, E. Khatami, N. Trivedi, T. Paiva, M. Rigol, and M. W. Zwierlein, Observation of spatial charge and spin correlations in the 2D Fermi-Hubbard model, Sci- ence353, 1260 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    O. C. Andronesi, S. Ramadan, E.-M. Ratai, D. Jen- nings, C. E. Mountford, and A. G. Sorensen, Spectro- scopic imaging with improved gradient modulated con- stant adiabaticity pulses on high-field clinical scanners, Journal of Magnetic Resonance203, 283 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle, Reversible for- mation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2194 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    D. B. Hume, I. Stroescu, M. Joos, W. Muessel, H. Stro- bel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Accurate atom counting in mesoscopic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 253001 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, and C. A. Regal, Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its quantum ground state, Phys. Rev. X2, 041014 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Jenkins, J

    A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Ytterbium nuclear-spin qubits in an op- tical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. X12, 021027 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Lebrat, S

    M. Lebrat, S. H¨ ausler, P. Fabritius, D. Husmann, L. Cor- 7 man, and T. Esslinger, Quantized conductance through a spin-selective atomic point contact, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 193605 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, S. Murmann, I. Brouzos, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, From few to many: Observing the forma- tion of a Fermi sea one atom at a time, Science342, 457 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Sompet, S

    P. Sompet, S. Hirthe, D. Bourgund, T. Chalopin, J. Bibo, J. Koepsell, P. Bojovi´ c, R. Verresen, F. Pollmann, G. Sa- lomon, C. Gross, T. A. Hilker, and I. Bloch, Realizing the symmetry-protected Haldane phase in Fermi-Hubbard ladders, Nature606, 484 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Pilati, G

    S. Pilati, G. Bertaina, S. Giorgini, and M. Troyer, Itin- erant ferromagnetism of a repulsive atomic fermi gas: A quantum monte carlo study, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 030405 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    J. J. Kinnunen, J. E. Baarsma, J.-P. Martikainen, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, The Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov state for ultracold Fermions in lattice and harmonic potentials: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 046401 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    T. G. Tiecke, S. D. Gensemer, A. Ludewig, and J. T. M. Walraven, High-flux two-dimensional magneto-optical- trap source for cold Lithium atoms, Phys. Rev. A80, 013409 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Hammel, M

    T. Hammel, M. Kaiser, D. Dux, P. M. Preiss, M. Wei- dem¨ uller, and S. Jochim, Modular quantum gas platform, Phys. Rev. A111, 033314 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Schroeder, Synthesis of low-peak-factor signals and bi- nary sequences with low autocorrelation (corresp.), IEEE Transactions on Information Theory16, 85 (1970)

    M. Schroeder, Synthesis of low-peak-factor signals and bi- nary sequences with low autocorrelation (corresp.), IEEE Transactions on Information Theory16, 85 (1970)

    1970

  39. [47]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem¨ uller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Op- tical dipole traps for neutral atoms, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics42, 95 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Torrontegui, S

    E. Torrontegui, S. Ib´ a˜ nez, X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Fast atomic transport without vibrational heating, Phys. Rev. A83, 013415 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    A. C. Gossard, V. Jaccarino, and J. H. Wernick, Ytter- bium NMR:Yb171 nuclear moment and Yb metal knight shift, Phys. Rev.133, A881 (1964)

    1964

  42. [50]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, A. H. H´ ebert, A. Krahn, R. Groth, G. A. Phelps, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Greiner, Fast single atom imaging for optical lattice arrays, Nat. Commun.16, 1017 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    B. M. Spar, E. Guardado-Sanchez, S. Chi, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Realization of a Fermi-Hubbard optical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 223202 (2022). 8 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION Optical T raps and Potentials Reservoir Preparation Our experiment utilizes a 2D-MOT to ...

    2022

  44. [635]

    1 in the main text)

    potentials via a digital micro-mirror device (DMD, Texas Instruments DLPLCR9000EVM), while also col- lecting the 671 nm light for fluorescence detection (Fig. 1 in the main text). Tweezer Array Generation Far off-resonantλ T = 808 nm light from a holographic grating stabilized...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.