Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 104 references

A single Rydberg atom and a single polar molecule are coherently coupled in optical tweezers, enabling non-destructive molecular readout, spin exchange, and the first entangled atom–molecule pair.

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 21:43 UTC pith:RDWKOZRY

load-bearing objection A genuine step forward for hybrid atom-molecule platforms—coherent spin exchange and a Bell-state phase witness—but the entanglement claim needs a tighter answer on postselection leakage. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15976 v1 pith:RDWKOZRY submitted 2026-07-17 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Harnessing resonant dipolar interactions in a hybrid atom-molecule quantum system

Daniel K. Ruttley , Tom R. Hepworth , Juan M. Garc\'ia-Garrido , Caleb J. H. Rich , Rosario Gonz\'alez-F\'erez , Alexander Guttridge , Simon L. Cornish This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph quant-ph
keywords hybrid quantum systemsRydberg atomspolar moleculesoptical tweezersdipolar interactionsRydberg blockadespin exchangeatom-molecule entanglement
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.

At issue is whether a single atom and a single molecule, held in separate optical tweezers, can be coupled coherently enough to move quantum information between the two. The authors show that by tuning an atomic Rydberg transition into resonance with a molecular rotational transition, the dipole–dipole interaction becomes both strong and highly state-dependent at micron-scale separations. This lets them blockade the atomic excitation when the molecule is in a particular rotational state, read out the molecular state through the atom without destroying the molecule, observe coherent spin exchange between the two particles, and prepare an entangled atom–molecule Bell pair. The measured readout fidelity is 0.91(1) and the SPAM-corrected entanglement fidelity is 0.77(3). If correct, the work establishes a coherent hybrid interface in which atoms supply fast, controllable interactions and molecules supply long-lived storage, pointing toward scalable hybrid quantum processors.

Core claim

The central claim is that resonant dipolar interactions can be engineered between an individual rubidium atom in a Rydberg state and an individual rubidium–caesium molecule, and that these interactions are strong enough and state-dependent enough to control quantum information across the two species. The resonance is achieved by tuning the atomic transition |83d>->|84p> and the molecular rotational transition |3>->|4> into coincidence at a magnetic field of 205.16(2) G. In this regime the pair states |3;83d> and |4;84p> hybridise through a dipole–dipole coupling C3/R^3 (C3/h = 1.79 MHz µm^3 theoretically, 1.36(15) MHz µm^3 measured), producing interaction-shifted eigenstates |+> and |-> sepa

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the resonant dipole–dipole coupling between the stretched pair states |3;83d> and |4;84p>, an atom–molecule resonance in which an electric-dipole transition of the atom is matched in energy with one of the molecule. The coupling Hamiltonian in this two-state subspace is H_dd = [[0, C3/R^3],[C3/R^3, h*delta]], with C3 = -d_A d_M/(4*pi*eps0), d_A = -14.5 kD and d_M = 0.82 D; at resonance (delta=0) the eigenstates are |+> = (|3;83d> + |4;84p>)/sqrt(2) and |-> = (|3;83d> - |4;84p>)/sqrt(2), with energies +C3/R^3 and -C3/R^3. This 1/R^3 interaction does the work: it shifts the Rydberg transition out of resonance when the molecule is in |3> (blockade), it drives the cohe

Load-bearing premise

The spin-exchange and entanglement results assume the atom–molecule pair stays within the two stretched pair states |3;83d> and |4;84p>; leakage into the many non-stretched molecular hyperfine states is not measured and is discarded by postselecting on molecule recovery, so if a significant fraction of the coherence leaks during the interaction, the inferred oscillations and the 0.77(3) fidelity would be overestimated.

What would settle it

Perform state-resolved microwave spectroscopy of all molecular hyperfine populations immediately after the spin-exchange interaction, without the usual postselection on molecule recovery, and compare the total recovered molecule fraction with the sum of the stretched-state populations; if a substantial fraction (more than about 10%) is missing, the two-state model is incomplete and the inferred coherences are not certified.

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

If this is right

  • The state-dependent Rydberg blockade is a working non-destructive molecular readout: fitting gives F_meas = 0.91(1), and the probability that the readout flips the molecular bit is consistent with zero (a 95% confidence lower bound on avoiding a bit-flip is 0.996).
  • Coherent spin exchange between an atom and a molecule is demonstrated; the oscillation period is set by C3/R^3 and depends on separation, consistent with a two-state dipole–dipole model including shot-to-shot fluctuations.
  • A blockade-based CNOT creates an entangled atom–molecule pair; the SPAM-corrected Bell-state fidelity is 0.77(3), with a phase-coherence fringe contrast of 0.57(1).
  • Because the particles sit in species-specific optical tweezers whose separation can be moved dynamically, the platform is directly scalable to arrays, enabling atom-mediated molecule–molecule gates and mixed-species simulations of dipolar Hamiltonians.
  • The authors identify atomic control as the main bottleneck and argue that moving the atomic qubit into the ground hyperfine manifold, combined with established high-fidelity Rydberg gates, should reduce infidelities by roughly two orders of magnitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An independent check of the leakage into non-stretched molecular hyperfine states (the paper states these are not measured and are removed by postselection on molecule recovery) would determine whether the reported spin-exchange contrast and Bell-state fidelity are biased; this is the clearest internal limitation of the current evidence.
  • The phase-transfer protocol used to infer entanglement is a lower-bound probe: full tomography with rotations that overcome the blockade (Omega_Ryd >= |U(R)|/hbar) would give a direct density-matrix fidelity and would test whether the estimated 0.77(3) holds.
  • The predicted departure of the interaction from a pure 1/R^3 law at separations below about 1 µm (charge–dipole vs point-dipole) is a testable extension: blockade or spin-exchange rates measured at shorter range should show a power-law exponent that deviates from 3.
  • The same auxiliary-atom readout could be multiplexed to projectively measure several molecular states or qudit levels through a single atom, a natural extension that the Outlook gestures at but does not demonstrate.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports experiments with a single 87Rb atom and a single 87Rb133Cs molecule held in separate optical tweezers at controlled separation R. The authors tune a Förster resonance between the pair states |3;83d⟩ and |4;84p⟩ at B=205.16 G, observe state-dependent Rydberg blockade, extract an effective dipolar coefficient C3/h=1.36(15) MHz·µm^3 from the distance dependence, demonstrate atom-mediated molecular readout with fidelity 0.91(1), observe coherent spin-exchange oscillations at three separations, and characterize atom-molecule entanglement via phase-transfer Ramsey fringes with contrast 0.57(1), reporting a SPAM-corrected Bell-state fidelity of 0.77(3). The central claim is the establishment of a coherent hybrid atom-molecule interface enabling molecular readout, spin exchange, and entanglement generation in a scalable optical-tweezer platform.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is an important experimental milestone: the first coherent spin exchange and entanglement between a neutral atom and a polar molecule in a scalable optical-tweezer platform. The readout protocol based on Rydberg blockade is a useful capability, and the paper contains careful error analysis, explicit discussion of loss channels, and falsifiable distance-dependent predictions. However, the entanglement claim rests on an indirect phase-transfer measurement rather than full state tomography, and postselection on molecule recovery may bias the inferred coherence. These issues temper the strength of the headline claims, but the underlying experimental advance is substantial and worthy of publication after revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, 'Atom-molecule entanglement'; Fig. 4] The entanglement fidelity is computed as F = (P↑↓ + P↓↑ + C)/2, with C from the phase-transfer fringe, and the methods text states: 'From the data in Fig. 3d, we estimate P↑↓ + P↓↑ = 0.88(4).' Fig. 3d shows atom-mediated readout of the |0⟩/|1⟩ molecular states, not the Bell-state components |3;5s⟩ and |2;83d⟩. There is also no Fig. 4d. The population term in the fidelity is therefore not directly measured in the entanglement sequence. Since a phase-transfer fringe alone does not distinguish a Bell state from a coherent superposition with classical correlations, the claim of generated entanglement requires either a direct measurement of the Bell-state populations in the same sequence or a clear statement of where that value is obtained.
  2. [Methods, 'Theoretical calculations'] The text states: 'We do not measure population in these states experimentally as we readout only the populations of the stretched molecular states, and so transfer to the non-stretched states appears as a lack of molecule recovery which is removed in our postselection routine.' This is a load-bearing limitation. The spin-exchange oscillations (Fig. 4b) and Bell-state coherence (Fig. 4c) are normalized relative to detected stretched states. If leakage into non-stretched hyperfine states is state-dependent or time-dependent, the conditional probabilities among the detected states are biased. The Monte Carlo model in Methods ('Modelling the spin-exchange dynamics') includes only V(R) and detuning fluctuations, with no loss or leakage channel. Please provide an experimental bound on leakage into undetected states (e.g., molecule recovery versus interaction time and initial molecular state) a
  3. [Methods, 'Modelling the spin-exchange dynamics'] The spin-exchange model uses C3/h = 1.36(15) MHz·µm^3 obtained from fitting the blockade data of the same experiment (Fig. 2d), and the parameters σ_R = 0.36(2), δ̄ = 0.29(2), and σ_δ = 0.12(4) are extracted by fitting to the spin-exchange data themselves. Thus the 'agreement' shown in Fig. 4b is not an independent, parameter-free test of the dipolar model. The authors should either determine these parameters independently (e.g., from the theoretical C3, direct measurements of R fluctuations, and magnetic-field noise) or explicitly state that the model is a fit and quantify the sensitivity of the oscillation frequency and contrast to the fitted parameters.
  4. [Main text, Fig. 4c; Methods, 'Fidelities'] The reported fidelities are internally inconsistent. The main text gives 'a SPAM-corrected entanglement fidelity of 0.77(3) and an uncorrected fidelity of 0.52(2).' The Methods text instead states: 'Combining this with the measured coherence C gives an entanglement fidelity of F = 0.77(3) when correcting for the imperfect state preparation of the molecule (this fidelity is F = 0.67(3) when not performing this correction),' and later 'Without this postselection, the corresponding entanglement fidelity is 0.60(2)... or 0.52(2).' The reader cannot identify which quantity is meant by 'uncorrected.' Please define all postselection and SPAM corrections explicitly and report a single consistent set of fidelities with the conditioning made clear. This matters because the uncorrected value 0.52(2) is only marginally above the classical threshold of 0.5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption and Methods] The manuscript refers to 'Fig. 4d' in Methods ('using the data shown in Fig. 4d') and to 'Fig. 3d' for Bell-state populations; neither reference is correct. Please fix the cross-references and add the missing panel if intended.
  2. [Eqs. (13) and (15)] The survival-probability expressions are stated without derivation. A short derivation or a reference to a standard Rydberg-blockade model would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Fig. 2d] The blue shaded region is described as the 1σ confidence interval from the fit, while the solid blue line is a prediction from the theoretical potential. Please clarify which quantities are fixed by theory and which are free scaling parameters in each curve.
  4. [Main text; Methods] The term 'SPAM-corrected' is used without definition. Please define the state-preparation-and-measurement corrections at first use and state explicitly which errors are removed by postselection and which are corrected analytically.
  5. [Data availability] The data availability statement contains a placeholder '[link to be inserted]'. This should be completed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the headline observations are direct measurements and the theoretical potentials are independent of the fitted parameters; the C3 calibration and postselection are limitations, not equation-level circularity.

full rationale

The central claims rest on direct experimental observables: atom-loss spectra (Fig. 2b), Rabi dynamics (Fig. 2c), R-dependent survival (Fig. 2d), readout correlations (Fig. 3d), spin-exchange oscillations (Fig. 4b), and phase-transfer fringes (Fig. 4c). The interaction curves in Fig. 1e are computed from the full charge-dipole Hamiltonian with standard transition dipole moments, not from the data. The R-dependent blockade is first compared to a parameter-free prediction (Methods Eq. 13 with V(R) from the calculated Born-Oppenheimer potentials); C3/h = 1.36(15) MHz um^3 is explicitly obtained by fitting those same data and is presented as a fit, not as an independent prediction. The spin-exchange model imports that fitted C3 and also fits three Monte Carlo noise parameters (sigma_R, delta_bar, sigma_delta) to the spin-exchange data themselves; this reduces the model's predictive strength, but the observed R-dependent oscillation periods and the entanglement fringe are raw outcomes and are not defined by the fit. The paper explicitly acknowledges that transfer to non-stretched hyperfine states is unmeasured and is removed by postselection ('We do not measure population in these states experimentally...'), which is a real detection/modeling limitation with potential bias for inferred fidelities, but it is not a case of a predicted quantity being equal to its own input. Self-citations are used for experimental techniques (e.g., ref. [54]) and for a caveat about hyperfine couplings (ref. [85], in preparation), but the load-bearing derivations here do not reduce to those citations. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same authors. I therefore find no circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on two fitted quantities (C3, and the three noise parameters in the Monte Carlo model) and on the assumption that undetected hyperfine leakage is fully captured by postselection. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Effective dipolar coefficient C3/h = 1.36(15) MHz·µm^3
    Fitted to the Rydberg-blockade data (Fig. 2d) assuming V(R)=C3/R^3; used as input to the spin-exchange Monte Carlo model (Methods 'Modelling the spin-exchange dynamics'). The theoretical first-principles value is 1.79 MHz·µm^3.
  • Separation fluctuation width sigma_R = 0.36(2) µm
    Free parameter in Monte Carlo fit to spin-exchange oscillations (Fig. 4b), attributed to Rydberg-atom ejection and wavefunction spread.
  • Mean detuning delta_bar = 0.29(2) MHz
    Free parameter in Monte Carlo fit, attributed to magnetic-field noise.
  • Detuning fluctuation width sigma_delta = 0.12(4) MHz
    Free parameter in Monte Carlo fit, attributed to magnetic-field noise.
  • Contrast scaling parameters = not specified
    Scaling factors accounting for experimental contrast used in Fig. 2d fits (Methods 'The R dependence of blockade').
axioms (4)
  • standard math Born-Oppenheimer approximation: the atom-molecule separation R is fixed during the calculation of the interaction potentials U(R).
    Used in Methods 'Theoretical calculations', Eq. (1)-(2). Standard for heavy-particle dynamics at low collision energy.
  • domain assumption The dipole-dipole coupling between the resonant pair states is given by V_dd(R) = C3/R^3 with C3 = -dA*dM/(4*pi*epsilon0), assuming perfect alignment of the interparticle axis with the quantisation axis (theta=0, phi=0), so that M1 and M2 terms vanish.
    Methods 'Theoretical calculations', Eq. (4)-(9). Any misalignment couples to non-stretched hyperfine states not detected.
  • domain assumption Molecular population remains within the stretched-state manifold |N> = |N, M_N=N, m_Rb=3/2, m_Cs=7/2>; microwave drive is purely sigma+; nuclear-spin projections unchanged.
    Methods 'Atomic and molecular states'.
  • domain assumption The two-level/three-level Hamiltonians in Eqs. (12) and (16) capture the dynamics; all other pair states are either uncoupled or their population is removed by postselection.
    Methods 'The R dependence of blockade' and 'Modelling the spin-exchange dynamics'. A common simplification for resonant dipolar exchange, but here it is tied to postselection of undetected states.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30959 in / 15911 out tokens · 143968 ms · 2026-08-01T21:43:11.557125+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hybrid quantum systems offer a route to combining the complementary strengths of distinct quantum platforms while mitigating their limitations. A particularly promising architecture combines neutral atoms and polar molecules: atoms provide fast, controllable interactions through excitation to Rydberg states, while molecules possess long-lived rotational states that are attractive for quantum memories and qudits. Although dipolar interactions between atoms and molecules have been observed in gas-phase and beam experiments, they have not previously been explored in a scalable optical tweezer platform that enables the controlled coherent interactions needed for quantum state transfer and entanglement. Here, we realise this goal, demonstrating coherent dipolar interactions between an individual Rydberg atom and an individual polar molecule. The separation of the particles is controlled using species-specific optical tweezers and their dipolar interactions are made strongly state-dependent by tuning two atom-molecule pair states into resonance. We exploit these interactions to demonstrate atom-mediated state readout of a molecular qubit, observe coherent spin exchange between the particles, and generate entanglement using a blockade-based controlled-NOT operation. Together, these results establish a coherent atom-molecule interface in which long-lived molecular quantum information can be rapidly mapped onto internal states of a Rydberg atom for readout or onward coherent transfer. This platform can be scaled to realise hybrid quantum processors utilising atom-mediated readout and entanglement of molecular qubits and mixed-species quantum simulators of dipolar systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15976 by Alexander Guttridge, Caleb J. H. Rich, Daniel K. Ruttley, Juan M. Garc\'ia-Garrido, Rosario Gonz\'alez-F\'erez, Simon L. Cornish, Tom R. Hepworth.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: c shows the resulting atom-survival probabil￾ity. The signal closely follows the population of the molecular state |1⟩, demonstrating successful mapping of the molecular state onto the atom. This is high￾0.0 0.5 1.0 Relative probability |1⟩ |0⟩ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Duration of pulse ( s) τ μ |0⟩ →|1⟩ 0.0 0.5 1.0 Atom-survival probability 0.0 0.5 Atom Probability Lost Recov. |0⟩ Molecule |1⟩ 0.0 0.5 Lost R… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.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

104 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Prepare |4;83d⟩ |4;83d⟩ |4;84p⟩|3;83d⟩ |3;84p⟩

  2. [2]

    Flip |83d⟩↔|84p⟩ |4;83d⟩ |4;84p⟩|3;83d⟩ |3;84p⟩

  3. [3]

    Dipolar spin exchange |4,83d⟩ |4;84p⟩|3;83d⟩ |3;84p⟩

  4. [4]

    4.Dipolar spin-exchange and entanglement of an atom and molecule

    Flip |83d⟩↔|84p⟩ |2⟩−i|3⟩ √2 Molecule Atom Rydberg pulses Bell state |2⟩→|3⟩ π/2 |0⟩→|1⟩ π |1⟩→|2⟩ π π |Ψ⟩ φ eiφ|2⟩−i|3⟩ √2 |0⟩ |5s⟩ |5s⟩ |2⟩→|3⟩ π/2 π 0 |2⟩ |3⟩ |2⟩ |1⟩ |4;83d⟩ |3;84p⟩ b FIG. 4.Dipolar spin-exchange and entanglement of an atom and molecule. a, Experimental sequence (see text) that we use to observe atom–molecule spin exchange.b, Relative...

  5. [5]

    When the particles are entangled, this phase is coherently mapped to the molecular state (large panel)

    We verify this entanglement by disentangling the particles with an atomicπpulse of varying phaseφ. When the particles are entangled, this phase is coherently mapped to the molecular state (large panel). In contrast, when the molecule are prepared in the state (|1⟩ −i|2⟩)/ √ 2, there are no resonant interactions. Therefore, we do not entangle the particles...

  6. [6]

    Wallquist, K

    M. Wallquist, K. Hammerer, P. Rabl, M. Lukin, and P. Zoller, Hybrid quantum devices and quantum engi- neering, Phys. Scr.2009, 014001 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Kurizki, P

    G. Kurizki, P. Bertet, Y. Kubo, K. Mølmer, D. Pet- rosyan, P. Rabl, and J. Schmiedmayer, Quantum tech- nologies with hybrid systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.112, 3866 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Kuznetsova, S

    E. Kuznetsova, S. T. Rittenhouse, H. R. Sadeghpour, and S. F. Yelin, Rydberg atom mediated polar molecule inter- actions: a tool for molecular-state conditional quantum gates and individual addressability, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.13, 17115 (2011)

    2011

  9. [9]

    K. Wang, C. P. Williams, L. R. B. Picard, N. Y. Yao, and K.-K. Ni, Enriching the quantum toolbox of ultracold molecules with Rydberg atoms, PRX Quantum3, 030339 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Zhang and M

    C. Zhang and M. R. Tarbutt, Quantum computation in a hybrid array of molecules and Rydberg atoms, PRX Quantum3, 030340 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Y.-H. Bai, Y. Wei, C. Zhang, W. Li, and X.-Q. Shao, Multipartite controlled-NOT gates using molecules and Rydberg atoms (2026), arXiv:2603.29349 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Murciano, N. Tantivasadakarn, and R. Finkelstein, Quantum logic control and entanglement in hybrid atom-molecule arrays (2026), arXiv:2602.12909 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Saffman, T

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

    2010

  14. [14]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    X. Wu, X. Liang, Y. Tian, F. Yang, C. Chen, Y.-C. Liu, M. K. Tey, and L. You, A concise review of Rydberg atom based quantum computation and quantum simulation*, Chin. Phys. B30, 020305 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Defenu, T

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

    2023

  17. [17]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Quantum computation and quantum simulation with ul- tracold molecules, Nat. Phys.20, 730 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Petitjean, F

    L. Petitjean, F. Gounand, and P. R. Fournier, Collisions of rubidium Rydberg-state atoms with ammonia, Phys. Rev. A33, 143 (1986)

    1986

  19. [19]

    L. Zhu, J. Luke, R. Shaham, Y.-X. Liu, and K.-K. Ni, Probing dipolar interactions between Rydberg atoms and ultracold polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 153001 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Gawlas and S

    K. Gawlas and S. D. Hogan, Rydberg-state-resolved res- onant energy transfer in cold electric-field-controlled in- trabeam collisions of NH 3 with Rydberg He atoms, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.11, 83 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Zou and S

    J. Zou and S. D. Hogan, Probing van der Waals interac- tions and detecting polar molecules by F¨ orster-resonance energy transfer with Rydberg atoms at temperatures be- low 100 mK, Phys. Rev. A106, 043111 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Kuznetsova, S

    E. Kuznetsova, S. T. Rittenhouse, H. R. Sadeghpour, and S. F. Yelin, Rydberg-atom-mediated nondestructive readout of collective rotational states in polar-molecule arrays, Phys. Rev. A94, 032325 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Zeppenfeld, Nondestructive detection of polar molecules via Rydberg atoms, EPL118, 13002 (2017)

    M. Zeppenfeld, Nondestructive detection of polar molecules via Rydberg atoms, EPL118, 13002 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Jarisch and M

    F. Jarisch and M. Zeppenfeld, State resolved investiga- tion of F¨ orster resonant energy transfer in collisions be- tween polar molecules and Rydberg atoms, New J. Phys. 20, 113044 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Patsch, M

    S. Patsch, M. Zeppenfeld, and C. P. Koch, Rydberg atom-enabled spectroscopy of polar molecules via F¨ orster 9 resonance energy transfer, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.13, 10728 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    J. T. Young, K.-K. Ni, and A. V. Gorshkov, Simultaneous nondestructive measurement of many polar molecules us- ing Rydberg atoms (2026), arXiv:2601.08921 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Kuznetsova, S

    E. Kuznetsova, S. T. Rittenhouse, I. I. Beterov, M. O. Scully, S. F. Yelin, and H. R. Sadeghpour, Effective spin- spin interactions in bilayers of Rydberg atoms and polar molecules, Phys. Rev. A98, 043609 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Dobrzyniecki and M

    J. Dobrzyniecki and M. Tomza, Quantum simulation of the central spin model with a Rydberg atom and polar molecules in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. A108, 052618 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Y. Zeng, P. Xu, X. He, Y. Liu, M. Liu, J. Wang, D. J. Papoular, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Zhan, Entangling two individual atoms of different isotopes via Rydberg blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 160502 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    Singh, C

    K. Singh, C. E. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, Mid-circuit correction of correlated phase errors using an array of spectator qubits, Science 380, 1265 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Anand, C

    S. Anand, C. E. Bradley, R. White, V. Ramesh, K. Singh, and H. Bernien, A dual-species Rydberg array, Nat. Phys. 20, 1744 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Y. Wang, R. Cimmino, K. Wang, S. Lopez, J. Li, J. M. Koh, J. N. Hall´ en, A. Matthies, N. Y. Yao, and K.-K. Ni, Multi-qubit stabilizer readout on a dual-species Rydberg array (2026), arXiv:2605.10924 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Miles, M

    J. Miles, M. T. Lichtman, A. M. Scott, J. Scott, S. A. Norrell, M. J. Bedalov, D. A. Belknap, D. C. Cole, S. Y. Eubanks, M. Gillette, P. Gokhale, J. Goldwin, M. Iliev, R. A. Jones, K. W. Kuper, D. Mason, P. T. Mitchell, J. D. Murphree, N. A. Neff-Mallon, T. W. Noel, A. G. Radnaev, I. V. Vinogradov, and M. Saffman, Qubit syn- drome measurements with a high...

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Homeier, A

    L. Homeier, A. Bohrdt, S. Linsel, E. Demler, J. C. Hal- imeh, and F. Grusdt, Realistic scheme for quantum simu- lation ofZ 2 lattice gauge theories with dynamical matter in (2 + 1)D, Commun. Phys.6, 127 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Chepiga, Tunable quantum criticality in multicom- ponent Rydberg arrays, Phys

    N. Chepiga, Tunable quantum criticality in multicom- ponent Rydberg arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 076505 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Cesa and H

    F. Cesa and H. Pichler, Universal quantum computation in globally driven Rydberg atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 170601 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    C. S. Adams, J. D. Pritchard, and J. P. Shaffer, Ryd- berg atom quantum technologies, J. Phys. B53, 012002 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Sawant, J

    R. Sawant, J. A. Blackmore, P. D. Gregory, J. Mur-Petit, D. Jaksch, J. Aldegunde, J. M. Hutson, M. R. Tarbutt, and S. L. Cornish, Ultracold polar molecules as qudits, New J. Phys.22, 013027 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    J. W. Park, Z. Z. Yan, H. Loh, S. A. Will, and M. W. Zwierlein, Second-scale nuclear spin coherence time of ultracold 23Na40K molecules, Science357, 372 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    P. D. Gregory, J. A. Blackmore, S. L. Bromley, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Robust storage qubits in ul- tracold polar molecules, Nat. Phys.17, 1149 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Burchesky, L

    S. Burchesky, L. Anderegg, Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Rotational coher- ence times of polar molecules in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 123202 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    P. D. Gregory, L. M. Fernley, A. L. Tao, S. L. Bromley, J. Stepp, Z. Zhang, S. Kotochigova, K. R. A. Hazzard, and S. L. Cornish, Second-scale rotational coherence and dipolar interactions in a gas of ultracold polar molecules, Nat. Phys.20, 415 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    D. K. Ruttley, T. R. Hepworth, A. Guttridge, and S. L. Cornish, Long-lived entanglement of molecules in magic- wavelength optical tweezers, Nature637, 827 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    T. R. Hepworth, D. K. Ruttley, F. von Gierke, P. D. Gre- gory, A. Guttridge, and S. L. Cornish, Long-lived mul- tilevel coherences and spin-1 dynamics encoded in the rotational states of ultracold molecules, Nat. Commun. 16, 7131 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Dipolar spin-exchange and entanglement between molecules in an optical tweezer ar- ray, Science382, 1138 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    C. M. Holland, Y. Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, On-demand entanglement of molecules in a reconfigurable optical tweezer array, Science382, 1143 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    L. R. B. Picard, A. J. Park, G. E. Patenotte, S. Gebret- sadkan, D. Wellnitz, A. M. Rey, and K.-K. Ni, Entangle- ment and iSW AP gate between molecular qubits, Nature 637, 821 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Y. Lu, C. M. Holland, C. L. Welsh, X.-Y. Chen, and L. W. Cheuk, Probing coherent many-body spin dy- namics in a molecular tweezer array quantum simulator (2026), arXiv:2603.19090 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    C. M. Holland, C. L. Welsh, Y. Lu, D. Wellnitz, X.- Y. Chen, A. M. Rey, and L. W. Cheuk, Creating and probing spin-squeezed states of molecules (2026), arXiv:2606.02500 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    S. S. Yu, A. Periwal, J. You, Z. Liu, Q. Lyu, Y. Cho, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, and J. M. Doyle, High-fidelity entanglement of polar molecules by dynamic geometric control (2026), arXiv:2607.13008 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    B. Zhao, A. W. Glaetzle, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Atomic Rydberg reservoirs for polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 193007 (2012)

    2012

  54. [54]

    S. D. Huber and H. P. B¨ uchler, Dipole-interaction- mediated laser cooling of polar molecules to ultracold temperatures, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 193006 (2012)

    2012

  55. [55]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. T. Rittenhouse, T. V. Tscherbul, H. R. Sadeghpour, and N. R. Hutzler, Sympathetic cooling and slowing of molecules with Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 033001 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    S. T. Rittenhouse and H. R. Sadeghpour, Ultracold gi- ant polyatomic Rydberg molecules: Coherent control of molecular orientation, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 243002 (2010)

    2010

  57. [57]

    S. T. Rittenhouse, M. Mayle, P. Schmelcher, and H. R. Sadeghpour, Ultralong-range polyatomic Rydberg molecules formed by a polar perturber, J. Phys. B44, 184005 (2011)

    2011

  58. [58]

    Gonz´ alez-F´ erez, S

    R. Gonz´ alez-F´ erez, S. T. Rittenhouse, P. Schmelcher, and H. R. Sadeghpour, A protocol to realize triatomic ultra- long range Rydberg molecules in an ultracold KRb gas, 10 J. Phys. B53, 074002 (2020)

    2020

  59. [59]

    Guttridge, D

    A. Guttridge, D. K. Ruttley, A. C. Baldock, R. Gonz´ alez- F´ erez, H. R. Sadeghpour, C. S. Adams, and S. L. Cor- nish, Observation of Rydberg blockade due to the charge- dipole interaction between an atom and a polar molecule, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 013401 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    T. G. Walker and M. Saffman, Zeros of Ryd- berg–Rydberg F¨ oster interactions, J. Phys. B38, S309 (2005)

    2005

  61. [61]

    D. K. Ruttley, A. Guttridge, T. R. Hepworth, and S. L. Cornish, Enhanced quantum control of individual ultra- cold molecules using optical tweezer arrays, PRX Quan- tum5, 020333 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    Aldegunde, B

    J. Aldegunde, B. A. Rivington, P. S. ˙Zuchowski, and J. M. Hutson, Hyperfine energy levels of alkali-metal dimers: Ground-state polar molecules in electric and magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A78, 033434 (2008)

    2008

  63. [63]

    L. R. B. Picard, G. E. Patenotte, A. J. Park, S. F. Ge- bretsadkan, and K.-K. Ni, Site-selective preparation and multistate readout of molecules in optical tweezers, PRX Quantum5, 020344 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Anderegg, L

    L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, An optical tweezer array of ultracold molecules, Science365, 1156 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    C. M. Holland, Y. Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, Bichromatic imaging of single molecules in an optical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 053202 (2023)

    2023

  66. [66]

    N. B. Vilas, P. Robichaud, C. Hallas, G. K. Li, L. An- deregg, and J. M. Doyle, An optical tweezer array of ul- tracold polyatomic molecules, Nature628, 282 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    Bluvstein, S

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

    2024

  68. [68]

    X. Mi, P. Roushan, C. Quintana, S. Mandr` a, J. Mar- shall, C. Neill, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, J. Basso, A. Bengts- son, S. Boixo, A. Bourassa, M. Broughton, B. B. Buck- ley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, A. Dunsworth, D. Eppens, C. Er...

    2021

  69. [69]

    Wei, Measurement-based quantum computation, inOxford Research Encyclopedia of Physics, edited by B

    T.-C. Wei, Measurement-based quantum computation, inOxford Research Encyclopedia of Physics, edited by B. Foster (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021)

    2021

  70. [70]

    Werschnik and E

    J. Werschnik and E. K. U. Gross, Quantum optimal con- trol theory, J. Phys. B40, R175 (2007)

    2007

  71. [71]

    M. H. Goerz, T. Calarco, and C. P. Koch, The quantum speed limit of optimal controlled phasegates for trapped neutral atoms, J. Phys. B44, 154011 (2011)

    2011

  72. [72]

    M. M. M¨ uller, D. M. Reich, M. Murphy, H. Yuan, J. Vala, K. B. Whaley, T. Calarco, and C. P. Koch, Optimiz- ing entangling quantum gates for physical systems, Phys. Rev. A84, 042315 (2011)

    2011

  73. [73]

    M. H. Goerz, E. J. Halperin, J. M. Aytac, C. P. Koch, and K. B. Whaley, Robustness of high-fidelity Rydberg gates with single-site addressability, Phys. Rev. A90, 032329 (2014)

    2014

  74. [74]

    Hughes, M

    M. Hughes, M. D. Frye, R. Sawant, G. Bhole, J. A. Jones, S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, J. M. Hutson, D. Jaksch, and J. Mur-Petit, Robust entangling gate for polar molecules using magnetic and microwave fields, Phys. Rev. A101, 062308 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Time-optimal two- and three- qubit gates for Rydberg atoms, Quantum6, 712 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    Bergonzoni, S

    M. Bergonzoni, S. Jandura, and G. Pupillo, iSW AP gate with polar molecules: Robustness criteria for entangling operations, Phys. Rev. A112, 032621 (2025)

    2025

  78. [78]

    S. J. Evered, M. Xu, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, J. P. B. Ataides, M. Kalinowski, D. Bluvstein, N. Maskara, C. Kokail, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity entangling gates and nonlocal circuits with neutral atoms (2026), arXiv:2604.25987 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  80. [80]

    Baranov, M

    M. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Condensed matter theory of dipolar quantum gases, Chem. Rev.112, 5012 (2012)

    2012

Showing first 80 references.