Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 minor 56 references

Fast Pulses for High-Fidelity Circularization of Interacting Rydberg atoms

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-07 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Phase trick restores 95% circularization of interacting Rydberg atoms

desk verdict Solid theoretical contribution: analytically derived two-parameter phase correction restores ≥95% circularization fidelity for interacting Rydberg pairs at 65 ns, with clean numerics and honest limitations. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05216 v1 pith:PVJRIPBK submitted 2026-07-06 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Matthias Hüls , Aurore A. Young , Clément Sayrin , Michel Brune , Jean-Michel Raimond , Tommaso Calarco , Felix Motzoi , Robert Zeier
show 1 more author
Eloisa Cuestas
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords pulsesatomsquantumrydbergcircularcircularizationinteractinginteractions
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

Circular Rydberg atoms are prized for quantum simulation, computation, and sensing, but their preparation — circularization, the transfer of ~50 angular momentum quanta to the valence electron — has been a bottleneck. Prior fast-pulse methods worked for isolated atoms but failed when interatomic dipole-dipole interactions were present, exactly the regime quantum technologies require. This paper identifies the dominant disturbance as interaction-induced shifts to transition frequencies along the so-called lowest diagonal ladder of Rydberg states, derives those shifts analytically in a hydrogenic picture as two linear parameters (alpha_int, beta_int), and corrects for them by multiplying a pre-optimized single-atom RF pulse by a time-dependent phase factor that tracks the instantaneous frequency shift. The resulting adapted pulse, requiring no numerical optimization beyond the single-atom pulse already in hand, restores circular pair-state fidelity to at least 95% for two rubidium-87 atoms at n=52 separated by as little as 6.5 micrometers, in any angular orientation, at 65 ns duration — a 60-fold speedup over the standard adiabatic passage. Combined with Krotov's gradient-based pulse shaping as a refinement layer, the method reaches 99% fidelity for distances above 5.9 micrometers.

What carries the argument

The adapted pulse F_aa^{ad.freq.}(t) = F_a^{opt}(t) * exp(-i * integral of Delta_omega(tau) d tau), with Delta_omega(M+) = (alpha_int + beta_int * M+) / hbar, where alpha_int and beta_int are given in closed form by Eq. (4.2) and depend on (1 - 3 cos^2 theta)/R^3. The phase integral uses the single-atom trajectory m_bar_opt(t) as proxy for M+/2.

What would settle it

Experimental measurement of circular pair-state probability for two interacting 87Rb atoms at n=52, R ~ 7 micrometers, theta = 0, with the adapted pulse applied. If the measured p_CC falls substantially below the predicted ~97%, the analytical frequency-shift model or the synchronous-climbing approximation does not capture the dominant physics. A second falsifier: if the adapted pulse's performance does not follow the (1 - 3 cos^2 theta)/R^3 scaling across angles and distances, the identified mechanism is not the primary disturbance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is that dipole-dipole interactions between two Rydberg atoms shift the transition frequencies along the lowest diagonal ladder by an amount that is linear in the total magnetic quantum number M+ and scales as (1 - 3 cos^2 theta) / R^3. Because the single-atom pulse was designed for unshifted frequencies, these shifts drive it off resonance and destroy fidelity. The correction is a phase modulation F_aa(t) = F_a_opt(t) * exp(-i * integral of Delta_omega(t) dt), where Delta_omega depends on the analytically derived parameters alpha_int and beta_int and on the single-atom trajectory m_bar(t). This correction is constructed entirely from the single-atom pulse and the known氢

Load-bearing premise

The analytical correction assumes both atoms climb their respective ladders synchronously, populating only pair states with m1 = m2, which reduces the two-body dynamics to two simultaneous single-atom transitions. This breaks down at short distances where interaction terms coupling to states with m1 != m2 become significant, and indeed the fidelity drops to 62.7% at R = 4 micrometers.

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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript addresses the problem of fast circularization of two interacting Rydberg atoms, a key bottleneck for quantum simulation and computation with circular Rydberg states. The authors identify interaction-induced frequency shifts on the lowest-diagonal-ladder transitions as the dominant mechanism by which dipole-dipole interactions degrade single-atom circularization pulses. They derive analytically (in the hydrogenic approximation) a two-parameter linear correction to the transition frequencies (Eqs. 4.1–4.2), and use it to construct an adapted pulse (Eq. 5.1) by phase-modulating a pre-optimized single-atom pulse. The adapted pulse is shown numerically to restore circular pair-state probabilities ≥95% for two 87Rb atoms at n=52, for interatomic distances down to 6.5 μm and all angular configurations, within 65 ns and under experimental amplitude/frequency constraints. A multi-layer optimization scheme combining the analytical adaptation with Krotov's method is also proposed, extending high-fidelity operation to R > 5.9 μm.

Significance. The paper makes a valuable contribution by extending fast circularization protocols—previously developed only for single atoms—to the interacting two-atom regime, which is essential for quantum simulation and computation with circular Rydberg atoms. The analytical derivation of the correction parameters α_int and β_int (Eq. 4.2) is parameter-free, obtained from the dipole-dipole Hamiltonian and hydrogenic energy expressions without fitting to the target result. The key approximation (synchronous evolution on the M⁻=0 subspace) is validated by full numerical simulations that include pair states with M⁻ up to 28 (Appendix F, Table F.I), and the near-optimality of the analytical parameters is confirmed by the <0.1% improvement obtained from numerical optimization of α_int and β_int (Sec. V). The perturbative bounds in Appendix E provide additional support by showing that inter-ladder couplings are negligible for R well below the claimed threshold. The proposed multi-layer optimization scheme is practical and experimentally motivated, with explicit enforcement of amplitude and bandwidth constraints.

minor comments (8)
  1. There is an inconsistency in the stated distance threshold for the 95% fidelity claim: the abstract and Sec. V state 'down to 6.5 μm' / 'larger than 6.5 μm', while the conclusion (Sec. VII) states 'interatomic distances above 6.3 μm'. These should be reconciled.
  2. Sec. V, Fig. 4(b) caption: the pulse is labeled 'F_aa^{ad.freq.}' in the text but the caption refers to 'F_a^{Krotov}' in green. The caption should clarify that the green curve is the single-atom optimized pulse F_a^{opt}, not a Krotov-optimized pair pulse.
  3. Eq. (4.1): the expression for ΔE_{M+→M++2} contains terms from both the second-order Stark shift and the dipole-dipole interaction, but the separation into α_0, β_0 (non-interacting) and α_int, β_int (interaction) in Eq. (4.2) is only made explicit after the equation. A brief inline annotation of which terms in Eq. (4.1) correspond to which parameters would improve readability.
  4. Sec. III, Fig. 2(b): the inset is mentioned but the scale of the interaction-induced population trapping is not easily discernible. Consider enlarging or adding a quantitative label for the trapped population fraction.
  5. Appendix E, Table E.I: the term ∝ Ĵ^{m,1}_- Ĵ^{p(m),2}_z + Ĵ^{p(m),1}_z Ĵ^{m,2}_- lists R_min = 1.8 μm, but the text states 'Most of the terms lead to negligible couplings with the exception of the term ∝ Ĵ^{m,1}_- Ĵ^{p,2}_- + Ĵ^{p,1}_- Ĵ^{m,2}_-' with R_min = 3.1 μm. It would help to explicitly state in the table which term is the most restrictive.
  6. Sec. VI, Fig. 5(a): the y-axis label 'Circular pair state prob. p_CC' could include the target line at p_CC = 0.98 (the non-interacting maximum) for reference, to make the gap to the theoretical maximum visible.
  7. The conclusion mentions 'interatomic distances above 6.3 μm' for the adapted pulse, but Sec. VI states that Krotov's method with constraints yields differences below 1% for R > 5.7 μm. The distinction between the adapted-pulse-only threshold and the Krotov-refined threshold could be stated more sharply in the conclusion.
  8. A few typographical issues: 'circulrization' in Fig. 2(b) caption; 'longe-range' in the Introduction; 'constrains' used in place of 'constraints' in several places (e.g., Sec. VI, Appendix D).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive reading of the manuscript and for the positive assessment of our work. The referee's summary accurately captures the main contributions: the analytical derivation of the interaction-induced frequency shifts, the two-parameter phase-modulation correction, and the multi-layer optimization scheme. We note that the referee report contains no major comments, specific revision requests, or criticisms requiring point-by-point response. The recommendation is minor revision, but no specific minor points have been enumerated. We have carefully re-read the report and the manuscript in light of the referee's assessment and confirm that the manuscript already addresses the points the referee highlights as strengths: the perturbative bounds in Appendix E, the state-space convergence analysis in Appendix F (Table F.I), and the near-optimality check of the analytical parameters (Section V). We are not aware of any substantive changes the referee is requesting beyond what is already present. If the editor or referee has specific minor corrections in mind that were not included in the report as transmitted to us, we would be grateful to receive them and will incorporate them promptly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified.

full rationale

The paper's central result — the adapted pulse F_aa^{ad.freq.}(t) = F_a^{opt}(t) * exp(-i∫Δω(τ)dτ) with analytically derived parameters α_int and β_int — is not circular. The parameters α_int and β_int (Eq. 4.2) are derived from first principles: they follow from evaluating the expectation value of the dipole-dipole interaction Hamiltonian (Eq. 3.1) between hydrogenic pair states |M+⟩ on the lowest diagonal ladder, yielding a closed-form expression in terms of physical constants (e, a_0, n, ϵ_0, R, θ). No fitting to the target fidelity p_CC is involved. The adapted pulse (Eq. 5.1) is then constructed by applying a phase modulation that counteracts these analytically computed frequency shifts. The paper validates this construction by full numerical simulation of the two-atom Schrödinger equation in a Hilbert space that includes pair states with M⁻ up to 28 (Appendix F, Table F.I) — i.e., the simulation does not assume M⁻=0. The key non-circularity check is that numerically optimizing α_int and β_int yields <0.1% improvement over the analytical values for all R (Sec. V, Fig. 5), confirming the analytical parameters are near-optimal rather than being fitted post hoc to the result. The single-atom pulse F_a^{opt} is obtained via Krotov optimization targeting p_C = 99% (Sec. II), which is an independent input, not a quantity derived from the two-atom result. The M⁻=0 approximation underlying the analytical derivation is acknowledged, perturbatively bounded (Appendix E, R_min ≤ 3.1 μm), and its breakdown at short distances is transparently reported (p_CC = 62.7% at R = 4 μm). Self-citations to Refs. [10, 15] provide the single-atom pulse methodology and experimental context, but the central two-atom derivation is self-contained against the full numerical benchmark. No step in the chain reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. The correction is constructed entirely from the existing dipole-dipole Hamiltonian and hydrogenic energy expressions. The two parameters α_int and β_int are derived, not postulated. The single-atom pulse F_a^{opt} is a numerically optimized input from prior work, not an invented entity.

free parameters (3)
  • α_int = Derived analytically from Eq. (4.2); not fitted
    Linear parameter giving the constant offset of the interaction-induced frequency shift. Derived from the dipole-dipole Hamiltonian in the hydrogenic approximation. Numerical optimization yields <0.1% improvement, confirming near-optimality.
  • β_int = Derived analytically from Eq. (4.2); not fitted
    Linear parameter giving the M⁺-dependent slope of the interaction-induced frequency shift. Same derivation status as α_int.
  • F_a^{opt} (single-atom optimized pulse) = Obtained via Krotov optimization targeting p_tg = 99%
    The single-atom pulse is an input to the two-atom correction. It is numerically optimized but is not a free parameter of the analytical correction itself.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dipole-dipole interaction model: the interaction between two Rydberg atoms is described by the static dipole-dipole Hamiltonian (Eq. 3.1), neglecting retardation effects and higher multipoles.
    Invoked in Sec. III (Eq. 3.1). Valid for R > R_LR (Le Roy radius) and R in the 4–12 μm range where retardation is negligible. Standard in the Rydberg atom literature.
  • domain assumption Hydrogenic approximation for the analytical derivation: the energy levels and matrix elements of 87Rb are approximated by hydrogenic expressions for states with l ≥ 4 (i.e., outside the quantum-defect-affected low-l states).
    Invoked in Sec. IV and Appendix E. The analytical frequency shift (Eq. 4.1) is derived in the hydrogenic picture. The paper verifies this against numerical Rubidium calculations (Fig. 3c) and notes deviations only for low-M⁺ states affected by quantum defects.
  • ad hoc to paper Synchronous evolution approximation: both atoms simultaneously climb their lowest diagonal ladder, populating only pair states with m₁ = m₂ (M⁻ = 0), reducing the two-body dynamics to two simultaneous single-atom transitions.
    Invoked in Sec. V: 'the analytical derivation... rely both on the hydrogenic approximation and on the physical picture of two atoms simultaneously climbing their respective lowest diagonal ladder while populating only pair states with m₁ = m₂.' This is the key simplifying assumption that enables the analytical correction. It breaks down for strong interactions (R < 6.5 μm).
  • domain assumption Perturbative treatment of inter-ladder couplings: the dipole-dipole interaction couples the lowest diagonal ladder to upper ladders weakly enough to be neglected for R ≫ R_min.
    Invoked in Appendix E (Eq. E.4, Table E.I). The paper derives R_min values (0.8–3.1 μm) for each coupling term and notes that one term (Zeeman-split gap) requires B ≥ 50 G for R_min ≤ 2 μm, but the chosen B = 14 G is sufficient for R ≥ 4 μm.
  • domain assumption State-space truncation: the Hilbert space is truncated to the five lowest diagonal ladders of the n = 52 manifold, with a cut-off on M⁻ for the pair basis.
    Invoked in Appendix F. The truncation error is verified to be ~0.01% in p_CC compared to ten-ladder simulations, well below the targeted precision and experimental errors of ~3%.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast Pulses for High-Fidelity Circularization of Interacting Rydberg atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVJRIPBK

@misc{pith2026260705216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast Pulses for High-Fidelity Circularization of Interacting Rydberg atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVJRIPBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05216}
}
abstract

Circular states in Rydberg atoms offer a promising platform for quantum computation, quantum simulation and quantum sensing. However, the final step of their preparation - termed as circularization, a process that involves the transfer of a large amount of angular momentum quanta to the valence electron by means of radio-frequency (RF) pulses - remains as a major bottleneck for all technological applications based on interacting circular Rydberg atoms. Even though successfully implemented to circularize an atom cloud in the dilute regime, previous efforts to speed up the circularization process have focused on the single-atom case, thereby neglecting the interactions which constitute one of the main resources for quantum simulation and computation. In this theoretical work we show how interactions between two atoms disturb the efficiency of pulses designed for single atoms and identify shifts induced by the interactions on relevant transition energies as the dominant disturbance. We demonstrate that the initial efficiency of single-atom pulses can be restored by adapting them to these shifts. Our approach is based on a simple functional form depending only on two linear parameters, which we derive analytically. The adapted pulses prepare two $^{87}$Rb atoms after $65 \,$ns in a $n=52$ circular state with a fidelity of at least $95\,\%$ for interatomic distances down to $6.5\,\mu$m and for all angular configurations, while also complying experimental amplitude and frequency constraints. Finally, we show that when combining our adapted pulses with Krotov's pulse-shaping algorithm we obtain high-fidelity pulses for any pair arrangement with interatomic distances larger than $5.9\,\mu$m. This work demonstrates that fast RF pulses can circularize interacting Rydberg atoms, paving the way toward their technological application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Rydberg levels of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) A pair of Rydberg atoms with interatomic distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Main mechanism through which the interactions disturb the circularization. (a-b) Comparison between the RF pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Analytical adaptation of the single-atom pulse to two interacting atoms. (a) Frequencies associated to the transitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Final circular pair state probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. RF-pulse optimization strategy for circularizing two interacting Rubidium atoms. A pulse is first optimized in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    S. R. Cohen and J. D. Thompson, PRX Quantum2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.030322 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.030322 2021

  2. [6]

    Meinert, C

    F. Meinert, C. H¨ olzl, M. A. Nebioglu, A. D’Arnese, P. Karl, M. Dressel, and M. Scheffler, Physical Review Research2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023192 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023192 2020

  3. [7]

    Facon, E.-K

    A. Facon, E.-K. Dietsche, D. Grosso, S. Haroche, J.- M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Nature535, 18 262–265 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [8]

    E. K. Dietsche, A. Larrouy, S. Haroche, J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Nature Physics15, 326–329 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [9]

    Nussenzveig, F

    P. Nussenzveig, F. Bernardot, M. Brune, J. Hare, J. M. Raimond, S. Haroche, and W. Gawlik, Physical Review A48, 3991–3994 (1993)

    work page 1993

  6. [10]

    Larrouy, S

    A. Larrouy, S. Patsch, R. Richaud, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, C. P. Koch, and S. Gleyzes, Physical Review X10, 10.1103/physrevx.10.021058 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.021058 2020

  7. [11]

    M´ ehaignerie, Y

    P. M´ ehaignerie, Y. Machu, A. Dur´ an Hern´ andez, G. Creutzer, D. Papoular, J. Raimond, C. Sayrin, and M. Brune, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/prxquan- tum.6.010353 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquan- 2025

  8. [12]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [13]

    Shi, Quantum Science and Technology7, 023002 (2022)

    X.-F. Shi, Quantum Science and Technology7, 023002 (2022)

    2022

  2. [14]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  3. [15]

    Patsch, D

    S. Patsch, D. M. Reich, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, S. Gleyzes, and C. P. Koch, Physical Review A97, 10.1103/physreva.97.053418 (2018)

    2018 doi

  4. [16]

    V. F. Krotov and I. N. Fel’dman, Eng. Cybern.21(1983)

    1983

  5. [17]

    S. E. Sklarz and D. J. Tannor, Physical Review A66, 10.1103/physreva.66.053619 (2002)

    2002 doi

  6. [18]

    D. M. Reich, M. Ndong, and C. P. Koch, The Journal of Chemical Physics136, 10.1063/1.3691827 (2012)

    2012 doi

  7. [19]

    Signoles, E

    A. Signoles, E. Dietsche, A. Facon, D. Grosso, S. Haroche, J. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Phys- ical Review Letters118, 10.1103/physrevlett.118.253603 (2017)

    2017 doi

  8. [20]

    Jannussis, A

    A. Jannussis, A. Leodaris, and G. Brodimas, Physics Let- ters A71, 205–207 (1979)

    1979

  9. [21]

    Fern´ andez-Menchero and H

    L. Fern´ andez-Menchero and H. P. Summers, Physical Re- view A88, 10.1103/physreva.88.022509 (2013)

    2013 doi

  10. [22]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Me- chanics(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  11. [23]

    H. A. Bethe and E. E. Salpeter,Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-Electron Atoms(Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, 1957)

    1957

  12. [24]

    Kruckenhauser, R

    A. Kruckenhauser, R. van Bijnen, T. V. Zache, M. Di Lib- erto, and P. Zoller, Quantum Science and Technology8, 015020 (2022)

    2022

  13. [25]

    F. T. Arecchi, E. Courtens, R. Gilmore, and H. Thomas, Physical Review A6, 2211–2237 (1972)

    1972

  14. [26]

    B. W. Shore,The theory of coherent atomic excitation (Wiley-Interscience, 1990)

    1990

  15. [27]

    Kam, W.-M

    C.-F. Kam, W.-M. Zhang, and D.-H. Feng,Coherent States, New Insights into Quantum Mechanics with Ap- plications(Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, 2023)

    2023

  16. [28]

    Robert and M

    D. Robert and M. Combescure,Coherent States and Ap- plications in Mathematical Physics(Springer, 2021)

    2021

  17. [29]

    T. F. Gallagher,Rydberg Atoms, Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

    1994

  18. [30]

    T. F. Gallagher, Reports on Progress in Physics51, 143–188 (1988)

    1988

  19. [31]

    M. J. Seaton, Proceedings of the Physical Society88, 801–814 (1966)

    1966

  20. [32]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, EPJ Quan- tum Technology9, 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00138-x (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [33]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296–305 (2005)

    2005

  22. [34]

    N. Rach, M. M. M¨ uller, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Physical Review A92, 10.1103/physreva.92.062343 (2015)

    2015 doi

  23. [35]

    J. P. Palao and R. Kosloff, Physical Review A68, 10.1103/physreva.68.062308 (2003)

    2003 doi

  24. [36]

    M´ ehaignerie,Interactions entre atomes de Rydberg cir- culaires pi´ eg´ es pour la simulation quantique, Ph.D

    P. M´ ehaignerie,Interactions entre atomes de Rydberg cir- culaires pi´ eg´ es pour la simulation quantique, Ph.D. thesis, Sorbonne universit´ e (2023)

    2023

  25. [37]

    Deiglmayr, Physica Scripta91, 104007 (2016)

    J. Deiglmayr, Physica Scripta91, 104007 (2016)

    2016

  26. [38]

    Weber, C

    S. Weber, C. Tresp, H. Menke, A. Urvoy, O. Firstenberg, H. P. B¨ uchler, and S. Hofferberth, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics50, 133001 (2017)

    2017

  27. [39]

    R. J. Le Roy, Canadian Journal of Physics52, 246–256 (1974)

    1974

  28. [40]

    Ji, C.-C

    B. Ji, C.-C. Tsai, and W. C. Stwalley, Chemical Physics Letters236, 242–246 (1995)

    1995

  29. [41]

    M. R. Flannery, D. Vrinceanu, and V. N. Ostrovsky, Jour- nal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 38, S279–S293 (2005)

    2005

  30. [42]

    Reinhard, T

    A. Reinhard, T. C. Liebisch, B. Knuffman, and G. Raithel, Physical Review A75, 10.1103/phys- reva.75.032712 (2007)

    2007 doi

  31. [43]

    C. G. BROYDEN, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics 6, 76–90 (1970)

    1970

  32. [44]

    Fletcher, The Computer Journal13, 317–322 (1970)

    R. Fletcher, The Computer Journal13, 317–322 (1970)

    1970

  33. [45]

    Goldfarb, Mathematics of Computation24, 23–26 (1970)

    D. Goldfarb, Mathematics of Computation24, 23–26 (1970)

    1970

  34. [46]

    P. K. Mogensen, J. M. White, A. N. Riseth, T. Holy, M. Lubin, C. Salis, A. Noack, A. Levitt, C. Ortner, B. Legat, B. Johnson, C. Rackauckas, Y. Yu, K. Carls- son, D. Lin, A. Strouwen, J. Grawitter, T. Arakaki, B. Pasquier, T. R. Covert, R. Rock, M. Creel, cos- sio, J. Regier, ...

    2025

  35. [47]

    Patsch,Control of Rydberg atoms for quantum tech- nologies, Ph.D

    S. Patsch,Control of Rydberg atoms for quantum tech- nologies, Ph.D. thesis, Freie Universit¨ at Berlin (2022)

    2022

  36. [48]

    Signoles,Manipulations coh´ erentes d’´ etats de Rydberg elliptiques par dynamique Z´ enon quantique, Theses, Uni- versit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI (2014)

    A. Signoles,Manipulations coh´ erentes d’´ etats de Rydberg elliptiques par dynamique Z´ enon quantique, Theses, Uni- versit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI (2014)

    2014

  37. [49]

    B. V. Noumerov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society84, 592–602 (1924)

    1924

  38. [50]

    ˇSibali´ c, J

    N. ˇSibali´ c, J. Pritchard, C. Adams, and K. Weath- erill, Computer Physics Communications220, 319–331 (2017)

    2017

  39. [51]

    Kosloff, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry45, 145–178 (1994)

    R. Kosloff, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry45, 145–178 (1994)

    1994

  40. [52]

    Goerz, A

    M. Goerz, A. Marshall, and S. Carrasco, Quantumcon- trol.jl: A julia framework for quantum dynamics and con- trol,https://github.com/JuliaQuantumControl, ver- sion used: v0.11.1

  41. [53]

    M. M. M¨ uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 076001 (2022)

    2022

  42. [54]

    Goerz, D

    M. Goerz, D. Basilewitsch, F. Gago-Encinas, M. G. Krauss, K. P. Horn, D. M. Reich, and C. Koch, SciPost Physics7, 10.21468/scipostphys.7.6.080 (2019)

    2019 doi

  43. [55]

    M. J. Englefield,Group Theory and the Coulomb Problem (Wiley-Interscience, 1972)

    1972

  44. [56]

    Galindo and P

    A. Galindo and P. Pascual,Quantum Mechanics 19 (Springer, 1990)

    1990

  45. [57]

    Jannussis, A

    A. Jannussis, A. Leodaris, and G. Brodimas, Physics Let- ters A71, 205 (1979)

    1979

  46. [58]

    Lai, Physics Letters A83, 322 (1981)

    C. Lai, Physics Letters A83, 322 (1981)

    1981

  47. [59]

    R. G. Hulet and D. Kleppner, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1430 (1983)

    1983

  48. [60]

    J. R. Rubbmark, M. M. Kash, M. G. Littman, and D. Kleppner, Phys. Rev. A23, 3107 (1981)

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed July 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.