In situ magnetic-field stabilization for quantum-gas experiments

A. M. Pi\~neiro; A. Vald\'es-Curiel; D. Trypogeorgos; E. D. Mercado-Gutierrez; E. Gvozdiovas; I. B. Spielman; J. Tao; M. Zhao; Q.-Y. Liang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

In situ magnetic-field stabilization for quantum-gas experiments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An ultracold rubidium gas can serve as its own magnetometer, and feedback on that measurement stabilizes the ambient magnetic field at the few-nanotesla level.

desk verdict Solid methods paper with a genuinely useful closed-form analysis; the main soft spot is that the independent Ramsey benchmark doesn't fully validate the field-stabilization claim, plus a numbers inconsistency in the abstract vs. text. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.06988 v2 pith:MEYJEBDU submitted 2026-03-07 physics.atom-ph physics.app-ph

E. Gvozdiovas , A. Valdés-Curiel , Q.-Y. Liang , E. D. Mercado-Gutierrez , A. M. Piñeiro , J. Tao , D. Trypogeorgos , M. Zhao

show 1 more author

I. B. Spielman

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phphysics.app-ph

keywords magnetic-fieldstabilizationinsitumagnetometryultracoldatomspartial-transferabsorptionimagingKalmanfilterZeemanshiftRamseyinterferometrytwo-pulsemeasurement

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 demonstrates that the atoms being studied can also be the sensor that stabilizes their own magnetic field. Two weak microwave pulses, tuned symmetrically around a magnetically sensitive transition, transfer small fractions of a rubidium-87 cloud; their normalized difference provides an error signal that tracks the Zeeman detuning. A Kalman-filtered PI controller uses that signal to correct the bias field once per experimental cycle, removing slow ambient drift as large as ~70 nT per hour while keeping shot-to-shot variability near 2 nT. The cost is only a few percent of the atoms per cycle, making the measurement minimally destructive. If the approach is correct, any cold-atom experiment with a field-sensitive transition gains a built-in, co-located field reference without external sensors.

What carries the argument

The key object is the two-pulse error signal ϵ=(N1−N2)/(N1+N2): two fixed microwave oscillators straddle the resonance, and the difference in the small transferred fractions N1,N2 is a monotonic, near-linear function of detuning near zero. Setting the pulse spacing to the maximum-sensitivity value tδω≈2.61 gives responsivity R≈3.1t/(2π), so longer pulses yield finer resolution but narrower dynamic range. The loop itself is a discrete-time PI controller with a Kalman-filter state estimate that averages measurement noise while a variance-based reset handles occasional large field excursions.

What would settle it

With the lock engaged, run a Ramsey interferometer whose probe pulses occur after the same 2.5 s delay that separates the magnetometry stage from the experiment. If the Ramsey detuning shows a persistent offset or slow drift while the PTAI error signal sits at zero (the paper reports ≈100 Hz offset and ≈20 Hz rms drift), the loop is stabilizing the sensor's field, not the field at the atoms during the experiment. A more controlled version: step the bias field between the magnetometry and Ramsey stages and check whether the Ramsey signal follows the step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-pulse partial-transfer magnetometry scheme, applied to the |F=1,mF=−1⟩ ↔ |F=2,mF=−2⟩ microwave transition of rubidium-87, yields an in-situ error signal that can lock the magnetic field at the atom cloud. With frequencies ω0±δω and pulse duration t, the signal ϵ=(N1−N2)/(N1+N2) is approximately linear near resonance, with responsivity R≈3.1t/(2π) confirmed by experiment. Feeding ϵ through a discrete-time PI controller smoothed by a Kalman filter cancels long-term field drift; the paper reports that shot-to-shot variability rises only from 1.8(2) nT to 2.0(2) nT while slow drift up to ~70 nT/hr is eliminated, as verified by Ramsey interferometry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the field the loop measures during the short magnetometry stage is the field the atoms feel when the actual experiment runs 2.5 s later; the paper states it assumes systematic errors in the atom-number measurements are negligible, and its own Ramsey benchmark shows the lock holds the measured detuning but not necessarily the field at experiment time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Slow magnetic drift — a common source of dephasing in quantum-gas experiments — can be cancelled without external Hall, fluxgate, or magnetoresistive sensors.
Because the sensor and the sample are the same atoms, the measured field is automatically the field at the experiment's location, avoiding sensor standoff and perturbation issues.
The per-cycle atom cost is small (roughly 2% transfer per pulse), so the technique is compatible with experiments that need many repeated cycles.
The closed-form error-signal expressions transfer to any magnetically sensitive transition, so the same scheme can be tuned for other atomic species and other bias-field values.
The Kalman filter's reset mechanism lets the loop absorb transient field excursions (e.g., moving magnetic objects) without injecting measurement noise into the lock.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, running the feedback within a single experimental cycle would push the bandwidth up but would introduce Dick-sampling noise at frequencies between cycles; the paper notes this but does not implement it.
Beyond the paper, replacing the aggregated error signal ϵ with a Bayesian estimator that uses N1 and N2 directly could extend the lock's capture range outside the linear regime.
Beyond the paper, pulse shaping or composite pulse sequences could remove systematic pulse-area errors and extend dynamic range without sacrificing sensitivity.
Beyond the paper, the same in-situ sensing principle could be combined with a second, independent probe (e.g., Ramsey or Faraday rotation) to diagnose the unexplained offset between the lock point and the field experienced during the experiment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: This is a competent methods paper with genuine closed-form value; the main caveat is that the independent Ramsey benchmark doesn't fully nail the field-stabilization claim, and the abstract swaps two numbers.

The genuinely new content is the closed-form characterization of the two-pulse partial-transfer magnetometer. The three operating regimes in Sec. II.C, the responsivity formula R ~ 3.1t/(2pi), and the finite-fmax corrections in Appendix B are the kind of thing that lets others pick operating points without re-deriving trade-offs. The model is parameter-free and the data match: Eq. 5 follows from Eq. 4, Eq. 8 error propagation checks out, and Fig. 3 confirms the predicted responsivity scaling. The paper also ships code and data in the supplemental material, which is good practice.

The central drift-suppression result is supported. Fig. 1(c) shows clear locking over hours, and the correlation analysis in Sec. IV.B is a sensible way to isolate detuning noise from measurement noise. The claim that the feedback imprints no extra noise is credible.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the Ramsey benchmark in Sec. IV.B is the load-bearing weak link. With the lock engaged, Delta_L zeroes by construction, so the independent check is Delta_R, which is offset by ~100 Hz and drifts with ~20 Hz standard deviation. The authors explicitly say they have no concrete explanation. That leaves the headline claim -- that the loop eliminated long-term drift at the nT level at the atoms -- only partially supported: the loop demonstrably stabilizes the PTAI detuning, but not necessarily the field felt by the BEC 2.5 s later. The stated assumption in Sec. II.B that systematic errors are negligible is optimistic, especially with the imaging nonlinearity OD' = OD + 1.25*OD^3. Second, there's a concrete internal inconsistency: the abstract says variability goes from 1.8(2) to 2.0(2) nT with the lock on, but Sec. IV.B reports the reverse. That should be fixed. Third, the 'Kalman filter' is a heuristic variance-reset rule (Eq. 12), not a standard Kalman update; not a flaw, just don't oversell it.

Overall, this is a solid, honest paper. The derivations and data support the design analysis; the experimental claim is plausible but the Ramsey caveat means it isn't fully closed. It deserves a serious referee, and I'd cite it for the closed-form expressions. If the reading group does cold-atom methods, bring it.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an in-situ, minimally destructive magnetometry and field-stabilization technique for ultracold-atom experiments. Two fixed microwave pulses near a magnetically sensitive transition transfer a small fraction of 87Rb atoms; the normalized difference of the two transferred atom numbers yields a detuning error signal. The authors derive closed-form expressions for the error signal, its noise, and the responsivity (§II, Eqs. (3)–(9)), validate these against experimental data (Figs. 2–4), and close a feedback loop using a PI controller with a Kalman-like filter (§III). The headline claim is that the loop eliminated long-term ambient-field drift (up to ~70 nT/hr) with only a modest change in shot-to-shot field variability, from 1.8(2) nT to 2.0(2) nT. An independent Ramsey-interferometry benchmark (§IV.B, Fig. 5) is used to assess the locked performance.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the technique would be a valuable tool for quantum-gas experiments: it provides nT-level, co-located field sensing with only a few percent atom loss, requires no external magnetometers, and is accompanied by a parameter-free two-level model that is checked against data. The manuscript also provides a reference implementation and data as supplemental material, which strengthens reproducibility. However, the independent Ramsey benchmark only partially supports the central drift-elimination claim: it shows a ~100 Hz offset and ~20 Hz drift that the authors state they cannot explain, leaving open the possibility that the lock stabilizes the PTAI error signal rather than the field actually experienced by the atoms.

major comments (4)

[Abstract and §IV.B] The reported shot-to-shot variability values are reversed. The abstract states the lock increases the variability 'from 1.8(2) nT to 2.0(2) nT', but §IV.B reports δB≈1.8(2) nT with the lock enabled and δB≈2.0(2) nT with the lock disabled. This is not merely a typographical issue because the central claim is that the loop suppresses drift without adding noise; the numbers must be stated correctly.
[§IV.B, Fig. 5] The Ramsey benchmark is the only independent test of the field stabilization, since the PTAI error signal ΔL is zero by construction when the loop is engaged. The benchmark shows ΔR offset by ≈100 Hz and drifting with ≈20 Hz standard deviation, corresponding to ≈5 nT and ≈1 nT respectively for the 21 kHz/µT transition. The authors write that they have 'identified no concrete explanation for either effect.' This residual offset and drift are in the same regime as the claimed nT-level stabilization, so the evidence supports stabilization of the PTAI detuning but not, without further analysis, of the field at the atoms at the nT level. The claim in the abstract and §I that the loop 'eliminated long-term drift' is therefore stronger than what Fig. 5 demonstrates. Please either qualify the claim, provide a calibration of the Ramsey offset, or show that the residual drift is uncorrelated with
[§II.B and §IV.A] The lock point is set by assuming systematic errors in N1 and N2 are negligible. The imaging nonlinearity correction OD′ = OD + a·OD³ with a = 1.25 (Ref. 36) can, in principle, introduce an amplitude-dependent bias in the measured atom numbers, which would shift the ϵ=0 lock point without being detected by the PTAI signal itself. The magnitude of such a systematic shift is not quantified. This is directly relevant to the unexplained ≈100 Hz Ramsey offset, and a quantitative estimate (or a calibration measurement) would materially strengthen the paper.
[§III.A, Eq. (12)] The Kalman-like variance update is introduced as an ad hoc model with an effective number of measurements Neff. The reset mechanism is plausible, but the paper does not justify why this particular update is optimal or how Neff is chosen. Since the closed-loop performance and the claim of 'no detectable noise imprint' depend on this filter, a brief justification or a sensitivity check (e.g., varying Neff) would make the controller design more transparent. This is not a correctness error, but it is a gap in the presentation.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 3] The inset caption mentions a 'fifth order polynomial fit' but the visible dashed line is the linear component; please clarify what is shown and how the reported uncertainties are propagated.
[§IV.A] The current-to-detuning calibration is described in one sentence. Since this calibration directly sets the loop gain, a brief description of its uncertainty and stability would be helpful.
[Eq. (13)] The feedback coefficient Ij is defined but never used in the experimental demonstration; the text says 'we opt for simplicity set Ij = -R^{-1}'. Please state this explicitly at the point of Eq. (13) to avoid confusion.
[§II.C] The discussion of the 'continuity' regime (tδω/(2π)=0.5) is clear, but Figure 4 columns are not labelled with the specific tδω values in the caption except in the text. Adding the values to the caption would improve readability.
[Appendix B] Eq. (B10) gives Δsys with a sign convention; it would help to state explicitly that Δsys is the detuning at which ϵ=0 and how this is used to adjust the microwave frequencies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic model is derived from the two-level Hamiltonian, and the drift-suppression claim is checked against an independent Ramsey benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (2) follows from the RWA Hamiltonian in Eq. (1); Eqs. (3)-(5) are the small-pulse-area limit and the sensitivity-maximization condition; Eq. (7) defines the two-pulse error signal; Eqs. (8)-(9) and Appendix B are analytic consequences of the same model. The responsivity R ≈ 3.1t/(2π) is a parameter-free prediction (up to the measured small fmax ≈ 0.02, with finite-fmax corrections in Appendix B), and Fig. 3 validates it against independent slope measurements rather than fitting it. The feedback gain uses the measured R, but the closed-loop field-stabilization claim is not validated solely by the loop's own error signal: Section IV.B uses Ramsey interferometry with a separate two-π/2-pulse protocol and time-of-flight Stern-Gerlach readout. The Ramsey benchmark does show an unexplained ≈100 Hz offset and ≈20 Hz drift, which the authors explicitly disclose ('we have identified no concrete explanation'), but that is a limitation on the strength of the field-stabilization claim, not circularity: the benchmark is external to the feedback signal and would be capable of falsifying the claim. Self-citations (Refs. 13, 18, 22-24, 26, 31) are background/method citations for PTAI, cyclic experimentation, current sources, and experimental sequence; none is invoked as an authority for the central derivation or to forbid alternatives. No uniqueness theorem, smuggled ansatz, or renaming of a known result is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model is parameter-free (only experimental controls t, Ω, δω with analytical predictions Eqs. 5, 9, B4–B10 checked against data). Fitted/calibrated inputs are confined to the imaging correction a = 1.25, the current→detuning calibration, the chosen pulse spacing, the calibrated transfer fraction, and the heuristic Kalman variance reset. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)

Imaging nonlinearity correction coefficient a = 1.25
Footnote 36: OD' = OD + a·(OD)³, 'with the calibrated factor a = 1.25'; this empirical correction enters every atom number N1, N2 and therefore the error signal ϵ and the fitted responsivity R.
Current-to-detuning calibration (incl. measured responsivity R) = R ≈ 2π×3.6 kHz per unit ϵ for t = 90 µs; |I| = R⁻¹
§IV.A: 'the required calibration between current (A) and detuning (Hz) was obtained by scanning... 30 kHz'; Fig. 3 inset obtains R from a fifth-order polynomial fit to ϵ(∆). The controller gain and Kalman model both use this measured R.
Pulse spacing δω = 2π × 4.6 kHz
§IV: 'δω must be selected to exceed the largest plausible shot-to-shot change in detuning; for our lab environment, this motivates δω = 2π×4.6 kHz' — a hand-chosen operating parameter that fixes dynamic range vs sensitivity.
Peak transferred fraction fmax = ≈ 0.02
§IV: 'microwave pulses were both calibrated to transfer fmax ≈ 0.02 of the ensemble' — a calibrated knob controlling atom loss and the finite-fmax corrections of Appendix B.
Kalman filter variance model (Neff, Eq. 12) = Neff = [δϵj/δmj]²
§III.A: the variance update is a heuristic reset mechanism, not the standard Kalman posterior update; its form determines feedback responsiveness and the reset behavior.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Two-level rotating-wave-approximation Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) describes the microwave-driven transition
§II.A; standard for magnetic-dipole microwave coupling; neglects off-resonant hyperfine levels and Rabi-frequency inhomogeneities.
domain assumption Small-pulse-area limit tΩ ≪ 1 (Eq. 3) with corrections in Appendix B
§II.A and Appendix B; fmax = 0.02 makes corrections modest but nonzero; Appendix B supplies finite-fmax expressions used in the error-signal model.
domain assumption Detector (photoelectron shot) noise dominates the uncertainty δN1,2
§II.B: 'assuming that detector noise ... is the leading contributor'; PCA probe reconstruction is used to suppress imaging noise.
domain assumption Systematic errors in atom-number measurement are negligible
§II.B: 'In the following, we assume systematic errors are negligible' — explicitly stated without quantitative bound; a persistent offset would shift the lock point.
standard math Breit-Rabi formula (Eq. A1) gives the transition frequencies
Appendix A; established atomic-physics result (Ref. 48); used to convert detuning to field with the linear sensitivity α1 ≈ 21 kHz/µT.
domain assumption Dominant field noise is slower than the ~15 s cycle time
§III/IV: feedback updates once per cycle; the Ramsey benchmark's residual ~20 Hz drift suggests faster or intermittent components are not captured.
ad hoc to paper Kalman-like variance update (Eq. 12) is a valid process model
§III.A: the update δm²_{j+1} = [Neff δϵ² + (ϵj−mj)²]/(Neff+1)² is nonstandard (not the Kalman posterior variance) and is introduced ad hoc to provide a reset mechanism for large excursions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In situ magnetic-field stabilization for quantum-gas experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEYJEBDU

@misc{pith2026260306988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In situ magnetic-field stabilization for quantum-gas experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEYJEBDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.06988}
}

read the original abstract

We demonstrate a minimally-destructive in situ technique for measuring and stabilizing slowly-drifting magnetic fields in ultracold-atom experiments. While conventional magnetic-field sensors such as Hall, giant magnetoresistive, or fluxgate-based devices are broadly used, their accuracy, precision and dynamic range can be limited. In addition, these sensors are typically positioned at least several centimeters away from the in-vacuum atomic system, as their operation creates perturbing magnetic fields, and their placement is limited by geometric constraints imposed by the vacuum system. We overcome these issues by using the atomic system itself as a built-in magnetometer. To that end, we employ a pair of weak measurements to determine the Zeeman splitting -- and thereby the magnetic field -- of a magnetically sensitive atomic transition. We provide closed-form expressions quantifying the trade-offs between measurement noise, dynamic range, and atom loss. This procedure is demonstrated with ultracold Rb-87, weakly measured using partial-transfer absorption imaging. We then incorporate a Kalman filter to stabilize the magnetic field; this eliminated long-term drift in the ambient field (as high as ~70 nT/hr) in exchange for a modest increase in shot-to-shot variability from 1.8(2) nT to 2.0(2) nT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.06988 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Two-pulse PTAI-magnetometry. (a) Atom number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Responsivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Impact of pulse spacing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (b) continues by plotting the auto-correlation functions (ACFs) of ∆L and ∆R (ACFL and ACFR, respectively) as well as their cross-correlation function (CCF), all computed with the low-pass filtered data subtracted. Using the fact that the ACF evaluated at delay δj = 0…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Energy diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references

[1]

This can signifi- cantly modify the error signalϵ, which we investigate in the following

Inthatcase, theensembleisdepletedbythefirstpulse, reducing the second fractional transfer. This can signifi- cantly modify the error signalϵ, which we investigate in the following. Theexactrelationshipbetweenf max andthepulsearea tΩis found by inverting Eq. (2) for∆ = 0: tΩ = 2 arcsin p fmax .(B1) The total fractionf0 =f 1 + (1−f 1)f2 transferred by the t...
[2]

4 column 2] forfmax <0.5

Number stability regime Now, we explore the sensitivity regimeδω= ∆d [Fig. 4 column 2] forfmax <0.5. Eq. (5) is found to be t∆d/2π≈0.4147838−f max(0.012 + 0.0065fmax),(B6) while the fraction transferred by a single pulse detuned by∆ d is fe(∆d)≈ fmax 0.5477−0.0039f max −0.0023f 2 max .(B7) Next, the responsivityRgiven by Eq. (9) is more accu- rately repre...
[3]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

2008
[4]

Wintersperger, F

K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, T. Ehmer, A. Hour- sanov, J. Klepsch, W. Mauerer, G. Reuber, T. Strohm, M. Yin, and S. Luber, Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: performance and end-user perspective, EPJ Quantum Technol.10, 32 (2023)

2023
[5]

C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Fesh- bach resonances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

2010
[6]

C. J. Dedman, R. G. Dall, L. J. Byron, and A. G. Tr- uscott, Active cancellation of stray magnetic fields in a Bose-Einstein condensation experiment, Rev. Sci. In- strum.78, 024703 (2007)

2007
[7]

Merkel, K

B. Merkel, K. Thirumalai, J. E. Tarlton, V. M. Schäfer, C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, and D. M. Lucas, Magnetic field stabilization system for atomic physics experiments, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 044702 (2019)

2019
[8]

K. Xiao, L. Wang, J. Guo, M. Zhu, X. Zhao, X. Sun, C. Ye, and X. Zhou, Quieting an environmental magnetic field without shielding, Rev. Sci. Instrum.91, 085107 (2020)

2020

Show all 50 references

[9]

Rogora, R

C. Rogora, R. Cominotti, C. Baroni, D. Andreoni, G. Lamporesi, A. Zenesini, and G. Ferrari, Progress to- ward a zero-magnetic-field environment for ultracold- atom experiments, Phys. Rev. A110, 013319 (2024)

2024
[10]

Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, J

M. Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.49, 202001 (2016)

2016
[11]

Y.-J. Lin, K. Jiménez-García, and I. B. Spielman, Spin–orbit-coupled Bose–Einstein condensates, Nature 471, 83–86 (2011)

2011
[12]

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

2015
[13]

T. E. Mehlstäubler, G. Grosche, C. Lisdat, P. O. Schmidt, and H. Denker, Atomic clocks for geodesy, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 064401 (2018)

2018
[14]

Sárkány, P

L. Sárkány, P. Weiss, H. Hattermann, and J. Fortágh, Controlling the magnetic-field sensitivity of atomic-clock states by microwave dressing, Phys. Rev. A90, 053416 (2014)

2014
[15]

Trypogeorgos, A

D. Trypogeorgos, A. Valdés-Curiel, N. Lundblad, and I. B. Spielman, Synthetic clock transitions via continuous dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. A97, 013407 (2018)

2018
[16]

Farolfi, D

A. Farolfi, D. Trypogeorgos, G. Colzi, E. Fava, G. Lam- poresi, and G. Ferrari, Design and characterization of a compact magnetic shield for ultracold atomic gas exper- iments, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 115114 (2019)

2019
[17]

Yang, H.-T

Y.-M. Yang, H.-T. Xie, W.-C. Ji, Y.-F. Wang, W.-Y. Zhang, S. Chen, and X. Jiang, Ultra-low noise and high bandwidth bipolar current driver for precise magnetic field control, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 014701 (2019)

2019
[18]

Borkowski, L

M. Borkowski, L. Reichsöllner, P. Thekkeppatt, V. Barbé, T. van Roon, K. van Druten, and F. Schreck, Active stabilization of kilogauss magnetic fields to the ppm level for magnetoassociation on ultranarrow Fesh- bach resonances, Rev. Sci. Instrum.94, 073202 (2023)

2023
[19]

H. Liu, S. Peng, B. Jiao, J. Li, and L. Luo, Ultra-low noise bipolar current source for ultracold atom magnetic system, Rev. Sci. Instrum.94, 053201 (2023)

2023
[20]

M. Zhao, A. Restelli, J. Tao, Q. Liang, and I. B. Spiel- man, A 20 A bipolar current source with 140 micro-A noise over 100 kHz bandwidth, AIP Adv.13(2023)

2023
[21]

O’Dwyer, S

C. O’Dwyer, S. J. Ingleby, I. C. Chalmers, P. F. Griffin, and E. Riis, A feed-forward measurement scheme for pe- riodic noise suppression in atomic magnetometry, Rev. Sci. Instrum.91, 045103 (2020)

2020
[22]

Duan, W.-T

Z.-X. Duan, W.-T. Wu, Y.-T. Lin, and S.-J. Yang, Sim- ple and active magnetic-field stabilization for cold atom experiments, Rev. Sci. Instrum.93, 123201 (2022)

2022
[23]

G. J. Dick, Local oscillator induced instabilities in trapped ion frequency standards, inProceedings of the 19th Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) Applica- tions and Planning Meeting(1987) pp. 133–147

1987
[24]

L. J. LeBlanc, M. C. Beeler, K. Jiménez-García, A. R. Perry, S. Sugawa, R. A. Williams, and I. B. Spielman, Direct observation of zitterbewegung in a Bose–Einstein condensate, New J. Phys.15, 073011 (2013)

2013
[25]

Valdés-Curiel, D

A. Valdés-Curiel, D. Trypogeorgos, E. E. Marshall, and I. B. Spielman, Fourier transform spectroscopy of a spin–orbit coupled Bose gas, New J. Phys.19, 033025 (2017)

2017
[26]

H.-I. Lu, M. Schemmer, L. M. Aycock, D. Genkina, S. Sugawa, and I. B. Spielman, Geometrical pumping with a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 200402 (2016)

2016
[27]

Ramanathan, S

A. Ramanathan, S. R. Muniz, K. C. Wright, R. P. Ander- son, W. D. Phillips, K. Helmerson, and G. K. Campbell, Partial-transfer absorption imaging: A versatile tech- nique for optimal imaging of ultracold gases, Rev. Sci. Instrum.83, 083119 (2012)

2012
[28]

E. M. Seroka, A. V. Curiel, D. Trypogeorgos, N. Lund- blad, and I. B. Spielman, Repeated measurements with minimally destructive partial-transfer absorption imag- ing, Opt. Express27, 36611 (2019)

2019
[29]

Ferrari, Single-shot reconstruction of the density profile of a dense atomic gas, Opt

C.Mordini, D.Trypogeorgos, L.Wolswijk, G.Lamporesi, and G. Ferrari, Single-shot reconstruction of the density profile of a dense atomic gas, Opt. Express28, 29408 (2020)

2020
[30]

We use the standard (non-normalized) sinc function sinc(x) = sin (x)/x, suitable for expressions involving an- gular frequencies
[31]

We used a PI loop rather than PID loop both because the delay between measurements is much larger than the response time of our system (i.e., no inertia), and also to avoid noise amplification by differentiation
[32]

R. E. Kalman, A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems, J. Basic Eng.82, 35 (1960)

1960
[33]

Y.-J. Lin, A. R. Perry, R. L. Compton, I. B. Spielman, and J. V. Porto, Rapid production of87Rb Bose-Einstein condensates in a combined magnetic and optical poten- tial, Phys. Rev. A79, 063631 (2009)

2009
[34]

P. T. Starkey, C. J. Billington, S. P. Johnstone, M. Jasperse, K. Helmerson, L. D. Turner, and R. P. Anderson, A scripted control system for autonomous hardware-timed experiments, Rev. Sci. Instrum.84 (2013)

2013
[35]

See Ancillary files for the data of the experiments and the reference implementation of the feedback loop. 11
[36]

Reinaudi, T

G. Reinaudi, T. Lahaye, Z. Wang, and D. Guéry-Odelin, Strong saturation absorption imaging of dense clouds of ultracold atoms, Opt. Lett.32, 3143 (2007)

2007
[37]

Hueck, N

K. Hueck, N. Luick, L. Sobirey, J. Siegl, T. Lompe, H. Moritz, L. W. Clark, and C. Chin, Calibrating high intensity absorption imagingof ultracold atoms, Opt. Ex- press25, 8670 (2017)

2017
[38]

3 and 2 were taken at much lower intensity, where larger optical depths are artificially suppressed

The data shown in Figs. 3 and 2 were taken at much lower intensity, where larger optical depths are artificially suppressed. We empirically correct for this via OD′ = OD+a(OD) 3, with the calibrated factora= 1.25
[39]

Abdi and L

H. Abdi and L. J. Williams, Principal component analy- sis, WIREs Comput. Stat.2, 433 (2010)

2010
[40]

I. T. Jolliffe and J. Cadima, Principal component analy- sis: a review and recent developments, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A374, 20150202 (2016)

2016
[41]

C. J. Billington, Python library for reconstructing images as linear sums of reference images,https://github.com/ chrisjbillington/image_reconstruction(2020)

2020
[42]

B. P. Carlin and T. A. Louis, Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for data analysis, Stat. Comput.7, 153–154 (1997)

1997
[43]

Jaakkola and M

T. Jaakkola and M. Jordan, Bayesian parameter esti- mation via variational methods, Stat. Comput.10, 25 (2000)

2000
[44]

van de Schoot, S

R. van de Schoot, S. Depaoli, R. King, B. Kramer, K. Märtens, M. G. Tadesse, M. Vannucci, A. Gelman, D. Veen, J. Willemsen, and C. Yau, Bayesian statistics and modelling, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers1, 26 (2021)

2021
[45]

M. H. Levitt, Composite pulses, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Re- son. Spectrosc.18, 61 (1986)

1986
[46]

K. R. Brown, A. W. Harrow, and I. L. Chuang, Arbitrar- ily accurate composite pulse sequences, Phys. Rev. A70, 052318 (2004)

2004
[47]

B. T. Torosov and N. V. Vitanov, Smooth composite pulses for high-fidelity quantum information processing, Phys. Rev. A83, 053420 (2011)

2011
[48]

B. T. Torosov and N. V. Vitanov, Composite pulses with errant phases, Phys. Rev. A100(2019)

2019
[49]

Jasperse, M

M. Jasperse, M. J. Kewming, S. N. Fischer, P. Pakkiam, R. P. Anderson, and L. D. Turner, Continuous fara- day measurement of spin precession without light shifts, Phys. Rev. A96, 063402 (2017)

2017
[50]

Breit and I

G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, Measurement of nuclear spin, Phys. Rev.38, 2082 (1931)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

This can signifi- cantly modify the error signalϵ, which we investigate in the following

Inthatcase, theensembleisdepletedbythefirstpulse, reducing the second fractional transfer. This can signifi- cantly modify the error signalϵ, which we investigate in the following. Theexactrelationshipbetweenf max andthepulsearea tΩis found by inverting Eq. (2) for∆ = 0: tΩ = 2 arcsin p fmax .(B1) The total fractionf0 =f 1 + (1−f 1)f2 transferred by the t...

[2] [2]

4 column 2] forfmax <0.5

Number stability regime Now, we explore the sensitivity regimeδω= ∆d [Fig. 4 column 2] forfmax <0.5. Eq. (5) is found to be t∆d/2π≈0.4147838−f max(0.012 + 0.0065fmax),(B6) while the fraction transferred by a single pulse detuned by∆ d is fe(∆d)≈ fmax 0.5477−0.0039f max −0.0023f 2 max .(B7) Next, the responsivityRgiven by Eq. (9) is more accu- rately repre...

[3] [3]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

2008

[4] [4]

Wintersperger, F

K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, T. Ehmer, A. Hour- sanov, J. Klepsch, W. Mauerer, G. Reuber, T. Strohm, M. Yin, and S. Luber, Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: performance and end-user perspective, EPJ Quantum Technol.10, 32 (2023)

2023

[5] [5]

C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Fesh- bach resonances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

C. J. Dedman, R. G. Dall, L. J. Byron, and A. G. Tr- uscott, Active cancellation of stray magnetic fields in a Bose-Einstein condensation experiment, Rev. Sci. In- strum.78, 024703 (2007)

2007

[7] [7]

Merkel, K

B. Merkel, K. Thirumalai, J. E. Tarlton, V. M. Schäfer, C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, and D. M. Lucas, Magnetic field stabilization system for atomic physics experiments, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 044702 (2019)

2019

[8] [8]

K. Xiao, L. Wang, J. Guo, M. Zhu, X. Zhao, X. Sun, C. Ye, and X. Zhou, Quieting an environmental magnetic field without shielding, Rev. Sci. Instrum.91, 085107 (2020)

2020