Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Excited-state decay makes a Carr-Purcell pulse sequence sharply sensitive to detuning, turning dissipation into a usable spectroscopic signal.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 03:13 UTC pith:M5V3T72C

load-bearing objection Dissipation-induced detuning sensitivity in CP sequences is real and shown on two platforms, but the exact prefactor and the DCPS linewidth rest on an unverified uniform-decay weighting. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25176 v1 pith:M5V3T72C submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Dissipation Enables Strongly Detuning-Dependent Interference in Pulsed Dynamical Decoupling

Kenneth DeRose , Jonah Glick , Kefeng Jiang , Hans Johnson , Tanay Roy , Sharika Saraf , Anya Abraham , Hardeep Singh
show 1 more author
Tim Kovachy
This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.atom-ph
keywords dynamical decouplingCarr-Purcell sequenceexcited-state decaydetuning sensitivityinterference visibilityquantum spectroscopyBloch spheredissipative Carr-Purcell spectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that dissipation, in the form of excited-state decay, can change the defining behavior of pulsed dynamical decoupling: instead of suppressing sensitivity to detuning errors, a Carr-Purcell sequence whose duration exceeds the qubit lifetime acquires a strong, predictable detuning dependence. The mechanism is that a decay event resets the qubit to the ground state, and the partial pulse following the reset acts as a π/2-like rotation that starts a new superposition whose phase is no longer fully compensated by subsequent pulses. The paper predicts, to first order in the detuning δ, that the final interference visibility grows linearly with the normalized detuning |δ/Ω| and that the phase shift flips by π as δ crosses zero. This effect is reproduced analytically, in optical-Bloch-equation simulations, and in experiments on both a strontium atom interferometer and a superconducting transmon qubit. The authors use the effect as the basis for a new spectroscopic technique, Dissipative Carr-Purcell Spectroscopy (DCPS), which suppresses high-frequency frequency noise while retaining sensitivity to a static detuning offset.

Core claim

For a Carr-Purcell (CP) sequence of repeated X gates with free-evolution intervals T and π-pulse duration τπ, in the limit that the total sequence duration is much longer than the excited-state lifetime T1, the ensemble-averaged excited-state population is, to first order in the detuning δ, ⟨p1⟩ = 1/2 − (2T+τπ)/(2(T+τπ)) (δ/Ω) sin φR. Writing this as a fringe gives a visibility v = (2T+τπ)/(T+τπ) |δ/Ω| and a phase Δφ = π ∓ π/2 for δ > 0 and δ < 0, respectively. The mechanism is that a qubit which decays during the sequence is reset to |0⟩ and then experiences only the remaining pulses; depending on where in the two-pulse cycle the decay occurs, the subsequent evolution leaves a detuning-depe

What carries the argument

The central object is the Carr-Purcell two-pulse cycle — one X gate plus free evolution repeated with opposite phase — which, to first order in the detuning, acts as a global phase (X U_F^T X U_F^T ≈ −1 + O(δ²)). This makes the final state depend only on where in the cycle a decay event occurs, and averaging the four possible decay locations (pulse vs deadtime, even vs odd number of subsequent X gates) with durations weighted by their share of the cycle produces Eq. (4). The partial X gate immediately following a decay acts as a π/2-like rotation, creating the coherence that then accumulates detuning-dependent phase over the remaining pulses.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the two-pulse cycle is much shorter than T1 and that the excited-state population remains near one-half throughout the sequence, so decay events can be averaged uniformly over pulse and dead-time intervals; if pulses significantly modulate the population within a cycle, the linear visibility law and the π phase jump need not hold.

What would settle it

Take a CP sequence with total duration much longer than T1, set the final readout phase to φR = π/2, and measure ⟨p1⟩ as a function of δ/Ω. Eq. (4) predicts a slope of −(2T+τπ)/(2(T+τπ)) at small δ, approaching −3/4 when T = τπ; if the measured slope remains near zero for large sequence durations, or the visibility does not grow as |δ/Ω|, the uniform-decay-time model is invalidated.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Increasing the total duration of a CP sequence relative to T1 strengthens the relaxation-induced detuning sensitivity, as shown by a measured slope that grows toward the predicted asymptotic value of 3/4 for ∂⟨p1⟩/∂(δ/Ω).
  • The same effect appears in two very different physical systems (a free-space atom interferometer and a superconducting transmon), suggesting it is a generic feature of driven two-level systems with relaxation.
  • DCPS yields a frequency-noise transfer function of the form H(ω) ∝ √(γ²/(γ² + 4ω²)), with a linewidth of √3 γ, so it rejects noise above the relaxation rate while retaining sensitivity to a static detuning.
  • Not all dynamically decoupling sequences are equally affected: CP is the most relaxation-sensitive, while XY-8 and UR-8 remain comparatively robust, which matters for choosing a sequence when phase precision is required.
  • At zero detuning the CP-sequence visibility vanishes (the arcs of decayed qubits cancel), whereas an alternating-phase −Y,Y sequence produces a large relaxation-induced coherence at δ=0, showing that dissipation′s effect depends sensitively on pulse phases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mechanism should apply to any incoherent reset channel that leaves the qubit in |0⟩, not only T1 decay — for example, measurement-induced reset or repumping errors — so similar detuning fringes might be observed in other driven quantum systems.
  • Because the visibility grows linearly with detuning and the phase flips sign, the effect could be used as a sensitive, calibration-free null detector for drive detuning in experimental setups, complementing Ramsey spectroscopy in regimes with short T2* but long T1.
  • When extending DD sequences beyond T1 for quantum-lock-in sensing or error suppression, residual detuning sensitivity caused by relaxation may need to be included in error budgets, even if the individual pulses are perfect.
  • In multi-photon driven systems where relaxation occurs only during the pulses, the uniform-time-weighting analysis would break down; the effect might then depend on pulse duty cycle in a different way, offering a test of the underlying assumption.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper claims that excited-state decay in a Carr-Purcell (CP) dynamical-decoupling sequence, in the limit where the sequence is much longer than T1, converts the usual detuning insensitivity of DD into a strong detuning-dependent interference signal. The central analytic result, Eq. (4), predicts a visibility v=(2T+τπ)/(T+τπ)|δ/Ω| and a π phase jump at zero detuning. The derivation in Appendix A is a gate-based average over possible decay times within a two-pulse cycle. The same mechanism is used to introduce Dissipative Carr-Purcell Spectroscopy (DCPS), with a Lorentzian noise transfer function H(ω)=√(γ²/[2(γ²+4ω²)]) derived in Appendix B. The effect is demonstrated experimentally in a ⁸⁸Sr atom interferometer and a superconducting transmon qubit, with qualitative agreement to the analytic lines and to optical-Bloch-equation simulations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper establishes a conceptually new regime of pulsed dynamical decoupling in which dissipation does not merely degrade coherent control but creates a new, strong detuning sensitivity. The two-platform experimental demonstration (Sr atom interferometer and transmon) is a significant strength, as is the absence of fitted parameters: the theory lines in Fig. 3 use only independently set pulse parameters and measured T1. The proposed DCPS technique, with its predicted √3γ linewidth and high-frequency noise suppression, is a potentially useful complement to Ramsey spectroscopy in specific regimes. The paper is clearly written, with detailed appendices and a transparent disclosure of generative-AI assistance. The main weakness is that the analytical core rests on an unstated uniform-decay-time weighting whose quantitative accuracy is not directly validated by a full optical-Bloch-equation simulation without inhomogeneous broadening.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II A and Appendix A, Eqs. (A13)-(A14), Eq. (4)] The average over decay times in Eqs. (A13)-(A14) weights each interval of the two-pulse cycle by its duration, i.e. it assumes a uniform distribution of decay events within the cycle. The instantaneous decay rate is γp_e(t), and p_e(t) oscillates within each pulse and acquires an O(δ) component when the pulse rotation axis tilts. The paper does not explicitly show that the resulting correction to the coefficient in Eq. (4) is higher order in the stated small parameter 2(T+τπ)≪1/γ. A direct quantitative check is missing: Fig. 3 shows only analytic lines and data, not the corresponding OBE simulation without inhomogeneous broadening. Please add either an explicit order-counting argument or a comparison of Eq. (4) with a full Lindblad/OBE simulation for the same T, τπ, Ω (and no detuning spread), showing that the prefactor (2T+τπ)/(T+τπ) is reproduced.
  2. [§III and Appendix B, Eqs. (B10)-(B18), Eq. (8)] The DCPS transfer function Eq. (8) and the √3γ linewidth inherit the same uniform-decay-time assumption via Eq. (B10). The text states that simulations reproduce the √3γ FWHM, but no overlay of the full simulation with Eq. (8) is shown, so it is not verified that the absolute scale of H (used in Eq. (9) to convert a measured noise spectrum into a detuning error) is reproduced. Furthermore, the correction factor B in Eq. (B18) is defined by matching the smoothed integral to the exact integral within the uniform-decay model; it does not address the weighting issue. Please provide a direct comparison of the simulated transfer function (both FWHM and amplitude) with Eq. (8).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The phase expression Δφ=π+(−π/2 for δ>0, π/2 for δ<0) is equivalent to Δφ=π/2 for δ>0 and 3π/2 for δ<0 modulo 2π. This is correct but somewhat opaque; stating the two values explicitly would help readers connect to the π-flip claim.
  2. [§II A, text near Fig. 3] The sentence 'This result captures only the leading-order effect … which are expected to further reduce the measured visibility beyond what Eq. (4) predicts' is confusing at δ=0, where Eq. (4) gives zero visibility and additional loss cannot reduce it further. The nonzero visibility observed at δ=0 in Fig. 3 should be discussed explicitly (e.g., residual detuning spread or O(δ²) effects).
  3. [Fig. 8] The horizontal axis of the left panel is labelled as γ but does not show units; for clarity, specify that it is the relaxation rate in s⁻¹. The right panel horizontal axis is T_seq/T1, which is fine, but the y-axis label is truncated and should read '∂Δφ/∂(δ/Ω)'.
  4. [§II A, near Fig. 9] There is a typo: 'the the detuning senstivity' should be 'the detuning sensitivity'.
  5. [Appendix A] The main text should state explicitly that Eq. (4) is derived to first order in δ and to leading order in the small parameter γ(T+τπ). This would preempt the concern about uniform decay-time weighting and make the domain of validity of the formula clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (4) and the DCPS transfer function are derived from a stated RWA/decay model and compared to two platforms without parameter fitting; self-citations to [23] are apparatus/related-sequence context, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central prediction, Eq. (4), is derived in Appendix A from the first-order RWA Hamiltonian (A1) with a stated reset model of spontaneous decay and explicit averaging over decay times, producing v=(2T+τπ)/(T+τπ)|δ/Ω| and the π phase flip. No parameter in Eq. (4) is fitted to the visibility/phase data in Fig. 3: the theory lines use the experimental settings Ω, T, τπ, and the stated long-sequence/long-T1 regime (Tseq≫T1 and 2(T+τπ)≪1/γ). The DCPS transfer function Eq. (8) follows from the same analytic model; the correction factor B in Eq. (B18) is fixed by the integral-matching condition Eq. (B17), not by data. The paper then compares these predictions with independent measurements on a Sr atom interferometer and a transmon, and with OBE-based numerical simulations, reporting qualitative agreement. The self-citations to [23] are for apparatus details, simulation conventions, and a related alternating-phase sequence that is additionally re-measured in Fig. 6; none of these citations supplies the CP-sequence result or the DCPS linewidth. The uniform-decay-time weighting in Eqs. (A13)-(A14) and Eq. (B10) is a modeling assumption that could affect the quantitative prefactor if the excited-state population is not approximately 1/2 on average; this is a correctness/validity risk, not circularity, because the prediction is not defined in terms of the data or of a self-citation. Thus no circular step is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard open-quantum-system assumptions and four stated limit approximations, with no fitted free parameters and no new physical entities. The free-parameter list is empty because the theory lines use only measured/experimentally set quantities.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation and effective two-level description
    Used in Hamiltonian (A1) and throughout; for the Sr and transmon systems the RWA is well satisfied.
  • domain assumption Markovian excited-state decay with rate γ that instantaneously resets the qubit to |0>
    Central mechanism; valid for spontaneous emission to ground state in a dilute atom cloud and a transmon at low temperature; the paper discusses extensions where this fails.
  • domain assumption Long-sequence limit: T_seq >> 1/γ so every qubit has decayed at least once, and (T+τπ) << 1/γ so the decay-time distribution is uniform within a two-pulse cycle
    Used to derive Eq. (4) and Eq. (6); the experiments satisfy T_seq/T1 ≈ 5. It breaks down for short sequences, which the paper handles only for the alternating-phase sequence in Fig. 6.
  • domain assumption Noise varies slowly over a pulse cycle (φdot_N << 1/(T+τπ)) for the DCPS transfer function
    Used in Appendix B to replace the exact pulse train by a smoothed pulse area with correction factor B; limits the quantitative validity of Eq. (8) at high frequencies.
  • domain assumption Neglect of qubit-qubit interactions, collective decay, and recoil-induced Doppler shifts
    Acknowledged in the Outlook; justified for the dilute Sr cloud and solid-state transmon, but could modify the effect in other systems.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30157 in / 24128 out tokens · 225128 ms · 2026-08-01T03:13:13.676345+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissipation Enables Strongly Detuning-Dependent Interference in Pulsed Dynamical Decoupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5V3T72C

@misc{pith2026260725176,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissipation Enables Strongly Detuning-Dependent Interference in Pulsed Dynamical Decoupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5V3T72C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25176}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

One of the defining features of pulsed dynamical decoupling is its suppression of a driven qubit's sensitivity to static detuning errors between the drive field and qubit resonance. In this paper, we show that dissipation, in the form of excited-state decay, can change this behavior entirely, producing an interference signal with a strong detuning dependence. This signal arises from decay during driven evolution and relies on coherence retained by the qubit after such a decay event. We develop analytical and numerical models that capture the underlying mechanism and observe this same dissipation-induced detuning dependence experimentally in both a free-space strontium atom interferometer and a superconducting transmon qubit system. We also use this dissipation-induced detuning dependence as the basis for a new spectroscopic technique called Dissipative Carr-Purcell Spectroscopy (DCPS) and compare it with a traditional Ramsey sequence. Our results establish a regime of pulsed dynamical decoupling in which dissipation reshapes, rather than merely degrades, coherent control, and we expect these dynamics to be relevant to a wide range of quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25176 by Anya Abraham, Hans Johnson, Hardeep Singh, Jonah Glick, Kefeng Jiang, Kenneth DeRose, Sharika Saraf, Tanay Roy, Tim Kovachy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Gate-based picture of the impact of relaxation on the DD sequence described in Sec. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Two examples of an “arc” distribution of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The impact of relaxation on a DD sequence in (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Bloch sphere OBE simulation (neglecting Rabi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. OBE simulated Bloch spheres (neglecting Rabi fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dissipation-enabled emergence of coherence in a pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Bloch sphere visual aid depicting the distribution of decayed qubit states during: (a) a sequence of repeating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Simulated sensitivity of five common DD sequences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Experimental measurements, using the Sr atom inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Simulated and experimentally measured frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison of Allan deviations for DCPS and Ram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The temporally smoothed pulse area approximation used in Sec. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Two examples of the cumulative state from a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Alternative plot to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The excited state populationp 1 can be written to first order inϵusing Eqs

    after a qubit has relaxed to state|0⟩, and theU[τ π/2,0, π.2] operator is capturing the impact of the final readout π/2 pulse. The excited state populationp 1 can be written to first order inϵusing Eqs. (A9), (B6), (B2), and (B3), as p1 = 1 2 (1−cos [A[0, t0]] cos [A[τπ/2,0]]) +ϵ −sin [A[0, t0]] Z τπ/2 0 dt1 1 2 Qs [t1, τπ/2,0] cos 1 2 A[τπ/2,0] + 1 2 Qc ...

  2. [2]

    (B19), we consider the same scenario explored in Appendix A: a constant detuning between the drive field and the qubit frequency

    Response to Constant Detuning To validate the result of Eq. (B19), we consider the same scenario explored in Appendix A: a constant detuning between the drive field and the qubit frequency. ˙ϕN [t] =δ(B20) Solving the integrals of Eq. (B19) then gives ⟨p1⟩ ≈1 2 −ϵδ 2τ 2 π(2T+τ π)Ω0 γ2(T+τ π)3 + 4τ2π(T+τ π)Ω2 0 (B21) which in the limit thatγ≪1/(T+τ π) beco...

  3. [3]

    (B26) in to Eq

    Response to an Oscillating Detuning Consider a driving field whose frequency is oscillating with amplitudeA ˙ϕ and frequencyω ˙ϕ ˙ϕN [t1] =A ˙ϕ cos h ω ˙ϕt1 +ϕ ˙ϕ i (B26) Plugging Eq. (B26) in to Eq. (B19) gives us ⟨p1⟩ ≈1 2 −A ˙ϕϵ 2γτ 2 π(2T+τ π)Ω0 γcos[ϕ ˙ϕ] + 2ω ˙ϕ sin[ϕ ˙ϕ] (T+τ π) (γ2(T+τ π)2 + 4τ2πΩ2 0) γ2 + 4(ω ˙ϕ)2 (B27) 20 Then taking the limitγ ...

  4. [4]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum optics(Cam- bridge university press, 1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    H. J. Metcalf and P. Van der Straten,Laser cooling and 24 trapping(Springer Science & Business Media, 1999)

    1999

  6. [6]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nature Physics4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quan- tum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nature physics5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Plenio and S

    M. Plenio and S. Huelga, Entangled light from white noise, Physical review letters88, 197901 (2002)

    2002

  9. [9]

    Wang and A

    Y.-D. Wang and A. A. Clerk, Reservoir-engineered en- tanglement in optomechanical systems, Physical review letters110, 253601 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Poyatos, J

    J. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum reser- voir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions, Physical review letters77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  11. [11]

    Kienzler, H.-Y

    D. Kienzler, H.-Y. Lo, B. Keitch, L. De Clercq, F. Le- upold, F. Lindenfelser, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevitsky, and J. Home, Quantum harmonic oscillator state synthesis by reservoir engineering, Science347, 53 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir` o, Many- body open quantum systems, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 099 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Physical Review Letters82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  14. [14]

    Suter and G

    D. Suter and G. A. ´Alvarez, Colloquium: Protecting quantum information against environmental noise, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 041001 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory, Nature458, 996 (2009)

    2009

  16. [16]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dy- namical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nature Physics7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  17. [17]

    De Lange, Z.-H

    G. De Lange, Z.-H. Wang, D. Riste, V. Dobrovitski, and R. Hanson, Universal dynamical decoupling of a single solid-state spin from a spin bath, Science330, 60 (2010)

    2010

  18. [18]

    Y. Sagi, I. Almog, and N. Davidson, Process tomography of dynamical decoupling in a dense cold atomic ensemble, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 053201 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Effects of Diffusion on Free Precession in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Experiments, Phys. Rev.94, 630 (1954)

    1954

  20. [20]

    J.-M. Cai, B. Naydenov, R. Pfeiffer, L. P. McGuinness, K. D. Jahnke, F. Jelezko, M. B. Plenio, and A. Retzker, Robust dynamical decoupling with concatenated contin- uous driving, New Journal of Physics14, 113023 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    Timoney, I

    N. Timoney, I. Baumgart, J. Radtke, M. B. Plenio, A. Retzker, and C. Wunderlich, Quantum gates and memory using microwave-dressed states, Nature476, 185 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    Gullion, D

    T. Gullion, D. B. Baker, and M. S. Conradi, New, com- pensated Carr-Purcell sequences, Journal of Magnetic Resonance (1969)89, 479 (1990)

    1969

  23. [23]

    C. A. Ryan, J. S. Hodges, and D. G. Cory, Robust De- coupling Techniques to Extend Quantum Coherence in Diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 200402 (2010)

    2010

  24. [24]

    A. M. Souza, G. A. ´Alvarez, and D. Suter, Robust Dy- namical Decoupling for Quantum Computing and Quan- tum Memory, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 240501 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    G. T. Genov, D. Schraft, N. V. Vitanov, and T. Half- mann, Arbitrarily Accurate Pulse Sequences for Robust Dynamical Decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 133202 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Y. Wang, J. Glick, T. Deshpande, K. DeRose, S. Saraf, N. Sachdeva, K. Jiang, Z. Chen, and T. Kovachy, Robust quantum control via multipath interference for thousand- fold phase amplification in a resonant atom interferome- ter, Physical review letters133, 243403 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    N. F. Ramsey, A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields, Phys. Rev.78, 695 (1950)

    1950

  28. [28]

    Bar-Gill, L

    N. Bar-Gill, L. M. Pham, A. Jarmola, D. Budker, and R. L. Walsworth, Solid-state electronic spin coherence time approaching one second, Nature communications4, 1743 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    Schmitt, T

    S. Schmitt, T. Gefen, F. M. St¨ urner, T. Unden, G. Wolff, C. M¨ uller, J. Scheuer, B. Naydenov, M. Markham, S. Pezzagna,et al., Submillihertz magnetic spectroscopy performed with a nanoscale quantum sensor, Science 356, 832 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    Bishof, X

    M. Bishof, X. Zhang, M. J. Martin, and J. Ye, Opti- cal spectrum analyzer with quantum-limited noise floor, Physical review letters111, 093604 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    Kolkowitz, I

    S. Kolkowitz, I. Pikovski, N. Langellier, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, and J. Ye, Gravitational wave detection with optical lattice atomic clocks, Physical Review D94, 124043 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, Resonant mode for gravitational wave detectors based on atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. D94, 104022 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    de Lange, D

    G. de Lange, D. Rist` e, V. Dobrovitski, and R. Han- son, Single-spin magnetometry with multipulse sensing sequences, Physical review letters106, 080802 (2011)

    2011

  34. [34]

    Kotler, N

    S. Kotler, N. Akerman, Y. Glickman, A. Keselman, and R. Ozeri, Single-ion quantum lock-in amplifier, Nature 473, 61 (2011)

    2011

  35. [35]

    J. M. Boss, K. Cujia, J. Zopes, and C. L. Degen, Quan- tum sensing with arbitrary frequency resolution, Science 356, 837 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    J. R. Maze, P. L. Stanwix, J. S. Hodges, S. Hong, J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Jiang, M. G. Dutt, E. Togan, A. Zibrov,et al., Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond, Nature455, 644 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    Shaniv and R

    R. Shaniv and R. Ozeri, Quantum lock-in force sensing using optical clock doppler velocimetry, Nature commu- nications8, 14157 (2017)

    2017

  38. [38]

    Shibata, N

    K. Shibata, N. Sekiguchi, and T. Hirano, Quantum lock- in detection of a vector light shift, Physical Review A 103, 043335 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Zhuang, J

    M. Zhuang, J. Huang, and C. Lee, Many-body quantum lock-in amplifier, PRX Quantum2, 040317 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Kolkowitz, A

    S. Kolkowitz, A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Q. P. Unterrei- thmeier, S. D. Bennett, P. Rabl, J. Harris, and M. D. Lukin, Coherent sensing of a mechanical resonator with a single-spin qubit, Science335, 1603 (2012)

    2012

  41. [41]

    Pucher, S

    S. Pucher, S. L. Kristensen, and R. M. Kroeze, 88Sr Ref- erence Data (2025), eprint: 2507.10487

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Stefanazzi, K

    L. Stefanazzi, K. Treptow, N. Wilcer, C. Stoughton, C. Bradford, S. Uemura, S. Zorzetti, S. Montella, G. Can- celo, S. Sussman, A. Houck, S. Saxena, H. Arnaldi, A. Agrawal, H. Zhang, C. Ding, and D. I. Schuster, The 25 qick (quantum instrumentation control kit): Readout and control for qubits and detectors, Review of Scien- tific Instruments93, 044709 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    G. S. Uhrig, Keeping a Quantum Bit Alive by Optimized \ensuremath\pi-Pulse Sequences, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 100504 (2007)

    2007

  44. [44]

    Hayes, K

    D. Hayes, K. Khodjasteh, L. Viola, and M. J. Biercuk, Reducing sequencing complexity in dynamical quantum error suppression by Walsh modulation, Phys. Rev. A84, 062323 (2011)

    2011

  45. [45]

    J. Lang, T. Madhavan, J.-P. Tetienne, D. Broad- way, L. Hall, T. Teraji, T. Monteiro, A. Stacey, and L. Hollenberg, Nonvanishing effect of detuning errors in dynamical-decoupling-based quantum sensing exper- iments, Physical Review A99, 012110 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Riley, Handbook of frequency, NIST: Gaithersburg, MD, USA (2008)

    W. Riley, Handbook of frequency, NIST: Gaithersburg, MD, USA (2008)

    2008

  47. [47]

    H¨ affner, C

    H. H¨ affner, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Quantum comput- ing with trapped ions, Physics Reports469, 155 (2008)

    2008

  48. [48]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, The nitrogen- vacancy colour centre in diamond, Physics Reports528, 1 (2013)

    2013

  49. [49]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  50. [50]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Quantum computation and quantum simulation with ul- tracold molecules, Nature Physics20, 730 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Bergmann, H

    K. Bergmann, H. Theuer, and B. Shore, Coherent pop- ulation transfer among quantum states of atoms and molecules, Reviews of Modern Physics70, 1003 (1998)

    1998

  52. [52]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Stimulated raman adiabatic passage in physics, chemistry, and beyond, Reviews of modern physics89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Atomic interferometry using stimulated raman transitions, Physical review letters67, 181 (1991)

    1991

  54. [54]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  55. [55]

    Panelli, S

    G. Panelli, S. C. Burd, E. J. Porter, and M. Kase- vich, Doppler-free three-photon spectroscopy on narrow- line optical transitions, Physical Review A111, 033112 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    S. P. Carman, J. Rudolph, B. E. Garber, M. J. Van de Graaff, H. Swan, Y. Jiang, M. Nantel, M. Abe, R. L. Barcklay, and J. M. Hogan, Collinear three-photon ex- citation of a strongly forbidden optical clock transition, Physical Review X15, 031051 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    J. He, B. Pasquiou, R. G. Escudero, S. Zhou, M. Borkowski, and F. Schreck, Coherent three-photon excitation of the strontium clock transition, Physical Re- view Research7, L012050 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Ammenwerth, H

    M. Ammenwerth, H. Timme, F. Gyger, R. Tao, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Realization of a fast triple-magic all-optical qutrit in sr 88, Physical Review Letters135, 143401 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Panelli, E

    G. Panelli, E. J. Porter, V. R. Knight, S. C. Burd, and M. Kasevich, Microsecond-scale coherent control of a for- bidden clock transition with doppler-free multiphoton ex- citations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.06789 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    X. Y. Jin, A. Kamal, A. P. Sears, T. Gudmundsen, D. Hover, J. Miloshi, R. Slattery, F. Yan, J. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Thermal and residual excited-state population in a 3d transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 240501 (2015)

    2015

  61. [61]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Physics Reports93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  62. [62]

    Weiner, V

    J. Weiner, V. S. Bagnato, S. Zilio, and P. S. Julienne, Experiments and theory in cold and ultracold collisions, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1 (1999)

    1999

  63. [63]

    Reitz, C

    M. Reitz, C. Sommer, and C. Genes, Cooperative quan- tum phenomena in light-matter platforms, PRX Quan- tum3, 010201 (2022)

    2022