Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Comparison of Different Rydberg Atom-Based Microwave Electrometry Techniques

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under identical experimental conditions, polarization spectroscopy achieves the lowest minimum measurable microwave electric field among three Rydberg-atom electrometry techniques.

desk verdict Useful same-condition comparison of three electrometry techniques, but the ranking rests on comparing different observables with an arbitrary threshold, so the exact numbers are weaker than they look. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20201 v1 pith:RJIWFVUN submitted 2025-04-28 physics.atom-ph

Eliel Leandro Alves Junior , Manuel Alejandro Lefrán Torres , Jorge Douglas Massayuki Kondo , Luis Gustavo Marcassa This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords RydbergatomsmicrowaveelectrometryAutler-Townessplittingelectromagneticallyinducedtransparencypolarizationspectroscopyamplitudemodulationauxiliaryfieldrubidiumvaporcell
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 compares three Rydberg-atom-based microwave electrometry techniques in a single rubidium vapor-cell setup, using the same Rydberg states ($68S_{1/2}$, $68P_{3/2}$, $67P_{3/2}$) and the same laser and microwave conditions for all three. The authors find that polarization spectroscopy has the lowest minimum measurable microwave electric field amplitude, $0.18 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm with a Gaussian coupling beam and $0.17 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm with a Laguerre-Gauss beam, versus $0.40 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm for the auxiliary microwave field technique and $0.27 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm for microwave amplitude modulation. This matters because earlier demonstrations of each technique were made in different atoms, at different frequencies, and with different powers, so their sensitivities could not be directly compared. The paper concludes that polarization spectroscopy is the best of the three, and that all three require a calibration step and can therefore serve as secondary standards.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Autler-Townes splitting in a Rydberg electromagnetically induced transparency spectrum: the splitting of an EIT transmission feature caused by a resonant microwave field, with the splitting size proportional to the field's Rabi frequency and hence its electric-field amplitude. Each technique reads this splitting through a different spectral feature: the frequency separation $\Delta f_{\mathrm{m}}$ for the auxiliary-field method, the separation between two symmetric peaks $\Delta f_{\mathrm{sho}}$ for amplitude modulation, and the dispersive peak separation $\Delta P_{\mathrm{SEIT-AT}}$ for polarization spectroscopy. Polarization spectroscopy obtains its dispersive signal by circularly polarizing the coupling laser and subtracting two photodiode signals, which converts the EIT feature into a dispersion-shaped curve whose extrema can be located precisely; a zero-order vortex half-wave retarder converts the Gaussian coupling beam to a Laguerre-Gauss $LG_1^0$ mode at 97% efficiency. The paper uses identical interpolation and peak-finding routines across all three techniques, then calibrates field amplitude against the measured splitting with two linear fits; the crossing point of the fits sets the minimum measurable field.

What would settle it

Take one microwave field amplitude, record all three signals under identical conditions, and analyze every signal with a single common observable (for example, the two-peak separation $\Delta f_{\mathrm{sho}}$ after the same interpolation), then repeat at several amplitudes below 1 mV/cm. If polarization spectroscopy no longer yields the smallest resolvable field, the reported ranking depends on the choice of spectral observable rather than on the technique itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a five-level atomic ladder ($5S_{1/2} \to 5P_{3/2} \to 68S_{1/2}$ with the target microwave coupling $68S_{1/2} \to 67P_{3/2}$ at 12.455 GHz and an auxiliary coupling $68S_{1/2} \to 68P_{3/2}$ at 11.666 GHz), the authors measured the Autler-Townes splitting as the signal for each technique: $\Delta f_{\mathrm{m}}$ for the auxiliary microwave field technique, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{sho}}$ for microwave amplitude modulation, and $\Delta P_{\mathrm{SEIT-AT}}$ for polarization spectroscopy. In each case they averaged ten spectra, performed identical cubic-spline interpolation, found the relevant spectral extrema, and plotted the chosen splitting against the known microwave field amplitude. The intersection of two linear fits defines the minimum measurable field. On this basis polarization spectroscopy gives the smallest value, $0.18 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm, and the Laguerre-Gauss variant gives $0.17 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm; the auxiliary-field and amplitude-modulation techniques give $0.40 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm and $0.27 \pm 0.02$ mV/cm, respectively. The paper states that the polarization-spectroscopy result is about four times better than the earlier demonstration of that technique, and that the amplitude-modulation result is better than the original implementation because a two-peak observable, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{sho}}$, was used instead of the original zero-crossing observable.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the three different spectral features chosen as signals—$\Delta f_{\mathrm{m}}$, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{sho}}$, and $\Delta P_{\mathrm{SEIT-AT}}$—are equally fair measures of the minimum detectable field; if one feature is intrinsically easier to resolve or fit than another, the ranking could be an artifact of the metric rather than a property of the technique.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a rubidium vapor cell at these transitions, polarization spectroscopy is the method that resolves the weakest microwave fields among the three tested.
  • Using the two-peak observable $\Delta f_{\mathrm{sho}}$ instead of the original zero-crossing metric improves the amplitude-modulation result, so the choice of signal extraction matters for sensitivity.
  • All three techniques require calibration of their Autler-Townes splitting against a known field, so in this configuration they act as secondary standards rather than absolute probes.
  • Because the minimum detectable field is set by the low-field flattening of the splitting curve, reducing EIT linewidth or improving the fitting procedure should lower the floor for all three techniques.
  • The Laguerre-Gauss coupling beam gives no statistically significant sensitivity gain over a Gaussian beam, although it reduces the zero-field offset of the polarization-spectroscopy observable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ranking may partly reflect the choice of spectral observable rather than the technique itself, since each technique was paired with a different Autler-Townes metric; a neutral re-analysis with a single common observable for all three signals would test this.
  • If the metric is the dominant factor, a hybrid approach—polarization spectroscopy read out with the $\Delta f_{\mathrm{sho}}$ two-peak observable—might resolve still weaker fields than any method tested here.
  • The reduced zero-field offset seen with the Laguerre-Gauss coupling beam suggests that structured coupling beams may lower background noise floors; sweeping the beam's topological charge could reveal whether this effect is tunable.
  • The paper's explanation for its better-than-previous numbers is its use of a smaller field-fitting range (≤1 mV/cm) and linear fits; applying the same analysis range to published data from other groups could make future sensitivity comparisons more meaningful.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental comparison of three Rydberg-atom-based microwave electrometry techniques—auxiliary microwave field, microwave amplitude modulation, and polarization spectroscopy—performed on the same 85Rb five-level ladder (5S1/2–5P3/2–68S1/2–67P3/2/68P3/2) with the same probe and coupling lasers and the same target microwave transition at 12.455 GHz. For each technique the authors record EIT/AT spectra, extract a technique-specific Autler-Townes splitting (Δfm, Δfsho, or ΔPSEIT−AT), and define the minimum measurable microwave field as the intersection of two linear fits to the splitting-versus-field data over a range ≤1 mV/cm. They report minimum fields of 0.40±0.02 mV/cm (auxiliary field), 0.27±0.02 mV/cm (amplitude modulation), and 0.18±0.02 mV/cm (polarization spectroscopy with Gaussian coupling), with 0.17±0.02 mV/cm for a Laguerre-Gauss coupling beam. The paper concludes that polarization spectroscopy gives the best result, while acknowledging that all techniques require calibration and that the fitting range affects the inferred minimum.

Significance. If the reported comparison were based on a common detection criterion, the paper would provide a practically useful head-to-head benchmark of three electrometry methods in a single apparatus, which is valuable for users choosing a technique. Strengths include the matched Rydberg states and laser parameters, the transparent description of signal processing (cubic-spline interpolation and peak finding), and the direct calibration of AT splitting against microwave power. The main weakness is that the compared quantity is not defined identically across techniques: each method uses a different observable and the threshold comes from an intersection of linear fits rather than from a common noise-floor criterion. As the authors themselves note in Section 4, the inferred minimum depends on the choice of linear versus log-log fitting and the fitting range. Thus the numerical ranking should be treated with caution until a common sensitivity metric is adopted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 3–5] The ranking is not a comparison of like with like. The authors explicitly use a different AT-splitting observable for each technique (Δfm for the auxiliary-field method, Δfsho for amplitude modulation, and ΔPSEIT−AT for polarization spectroscopy), and for amplitude modulation they replace the original ΔfAM with Δfsho from Hao et al. Because these observables have different zero-field baselines and different slopes near threshold, the intersection-of-two-linear-fits estimator does not measure a common physical detection limit; a steeper fitted slope can make a technique look better without any improvement in underlying sensitivity. The manuscript should either adopt a single common detection criterion (for example, the field at which the observable deviates from its zero-field baseline by a specified multiple of the noise) or explicitly present the numbers as technique-specific fit parameters and refrain from ranking the techniques.
  2. [Section 4] The authors state that the inferred minimum field is smaller in a linear plot than in a log-log plot and attribute this to the smaller electric-field fitting range (≤1 mV/cm). This admission shows that the reported values depend on the arbitrary choice of fit function and range. Since Figs. 4 and 5 do not include a noise floor or an SNR threshold, the quoted 0.18/0.17/0.27/0.40 mV/cm values are not robust measures of detectability. A sensitivity analysis over fit ranges and fit forms is needed before these numbers can support the claimed cross-technique ranking.
  3. [Sections 2 and 3] The quoted uncertainties (0.02 mV/cm) are stated as standard deviations of ten spectra, but the microwave-field calibration chain—generator power, combiner, horn antenna, free-space propagation, and cell position—is not given an uncertainty budget. Without an estimate of systematic uncertainty, the differences among the techniques (0.18 vs 0.27 vs 0.40 mV/cm) cannot be distinguished from calibration offsets. The authors should provide a systematic error estimate or temper the comparative claims accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs Conclusions] The abstract says the three techniques have 'similar' minimum measurable field with a 'slightly better' result for polarization spectroscopy, while the Conclusions state that polarization spectroscopy 'allows for the best minimum measurable MW electric field amplitude'; please harmonize this wording.
  2. [Section 2] The claim of 'the same experimental conditions' should be qualified: for polarization spectroscopy the coupling beam is circularly polarized and the signal is the difference of two photodiode signals, whereas the other two techniques use linearly polarized coupling and a single-detector EIT signal; additionally, the lock-in modulation is applied to the coupling beam in two cases and to the microwave field in the third.
  3. [Introduction] The sentence 'has created an exciting research domain with various [5–8]' is incomplete; a noun such as 'applications' appears to be missing.
  4. [Section 2] The Rabi frequencies Ωp and Ωc are described as 'calculated'; please state whether they were independently verified, since the microwave-field calibration ultimately relies on the same AT-splitting model.
  5. [Section 3] Please add a table summarizing the observable, fit range, fit form, and threshold for each technique; this would make the comparison much easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the comparison is experimental, all sensitivities are measured and externally calibrated, and the differing observables are a stated limitation rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper makes no theoretical derivation that could reduce to its own inputs. The minimum measurable microwave electric field amplitudes are extracted from the intersection of two linear fits to measured observable-versus-field curves (Figs. 4 and 5), after the microwave field is calibrated by AT splitting in the linear regime. These values are not predictions from a model whose output was presupposed. The only apparent concern is that the three techniques use different AT-splitting observables: the paper states, "Here we have used the AT splitting defined in each different work: (a) Δfm from [27]; (b) Δfsho from [33] and (c) ΔPSEIT−AT from [29]", and for the amplitude-modulation arm the authors deliberately replace Liu et al.'s ΔfAM with Hao et al.'s Δfsho. This makes the numerical thresholds not perfectly commensurable, and the ranking could in principle be influenced by observable choice. The paper itself flags in Section 4 that the extracted minimum depends on whether linear or log-log fits are used. However, this is an experimental-design limitation, not circular reasoning: the measured observables are not defined in terms of the final ranking, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Citations to the authors' earlier polarization-spectroscopy papers [29,30] are ordinary method citations; the measurements and fits are performed in this paper. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited.

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

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its results rest on standard Rydberg-EIT physics and on the calibration assumption that AT splitting maps linearly to electric field; the fitted line parameters are the only quantities extracted from data that determine the reported minimum fields.

free parameters (4)
  • Linear fit parameters (low- and high-field regimes) for Δfm in auxiliary-field technique
    The minimum measurable field (0.40 mV/cm) is the intersection of these fitted lines in Figure 4(a).
  • Linear fit parameters (low- and high-field regimes) for Δfsho in amplitude-modulation technique
    The minimum measurable field (0.27 mV/cm) is the intersection of these fitted lines in Figure 4(b).
  • Linear fit parameters for ΔPSEIT-AT with Gaussian coupling beam
    Intersection in Figure 5(a) yields 0.18 mV/cm.
  • Linear fit parameters for ΔPSEIT-AT with Laguerre-Gauss coupling beam
    Intersection in Figure 5(b) yields 0.17 mV/cm.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Autler-Townes splitting is proportional to the MW Rabi frequency, and therefore to the electric field, in the linear low-field regime.
    Used in Section 3 to calibrate MW field and to interpret the splitting as a field measure.
  • domain assumption The MW field at the vapor cell is a plane wave due to the 82 cm distance from the horn antenna.
    Section 2 setup; this converts MW power to field amplitude without independent field calibration.
  • domain assumption The EIT linewidth sets the floor for resolvable AT splitting.
    Section 1 introduction; motivates why techniques aim to increase splitting or reduce linewidth.
  • domain assumption The rubidium atomic level structure and dipole matrix elements for 68S1/2, 68P3/2, and 67P3/2 are as known.
    Background for calculating Rabi frequencies and transition frequencies in Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of Different Rydberg Atom-Based Microwave Electrometry Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJIWFVUN

@misc{pith2026250420201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of Different Rydberg Atom-Based Microwave Electrometry Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJIWFVUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20201}
}
abstract

In this study, we have compared different Rydberg atom-based microwave electrometry techniques under the same experimental conditions and using the same Rydberg states ($68S_{1/2}$, $68P_{3/2}$ and $67P_{3/2}$). The comparison was carried out for the following techniques: i) Auxiliary microwave field, ii) Microwave amplitude modulation, and iii) Polarization spectroscopy. Our results indicate that all three techniques have a similar minimum measurable microwave electric field. A slightly better result can be obtained by performing polarization spectroscopy using a Laguerre-Gauss coupling laser beam.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) (a) Scheme of the five-level atom. Le [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Typical EIT spectra as functions of coupling laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Typical EIT spectra as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) ∆fm and (b) ∆fsho as a function of the amplitude of the electric field. The lines are two linear fit functions, whose intersection, allows the determination of the minimum measurable MW electric field amplitude, which is 0.40 ± 0.02 mV/cm and 0.27 ± 0.02 mV/cm for …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ∆P SEIT −AT as functions of the applied electric field using polarization spectroscopy with (a) Gaussian and (b) Laguerre-Gauss coupling laser beam. The minimum measurable MW electric field am￾plitude is 0.18 ± 0.02 mV/cm for Gaussian coupling beam and 0.17 ± 0.02 mV/c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rydberg atoms

    Thomas Gallagher. Rydberg atoms. 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Rydberg Physics

    Nikola ˇSibali´ c and Charles S Adams. Rydberg Physics. 2399-2891. IOP Publishing, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Electromagnetically induced trans- parency: Optics in coherent media

    Michael Fleischhauer, Atac Imamoglu, and Jonathan P Mar angos. Electromagnetically induced trans- parency: Optics in coherent media. Reviews of modern physics , 77(2):633, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Electromagnetically induced tran sparency

    Jonathan P Marangos. Electromagnetically induced tran sparency. Journal of Modern Optics , 45(3):471– 503, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    A. K. Mohapatra, T. R. Jackson, and C. S. Adams. Coherent o ptical detection of highly excited rydberg states using electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 98:113003, Mar 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Rydberg atom quantum technologies

    Charles S Adams, Jonathan D Pritchard, and James P Shaffer. Rydberg atom quantum technologies. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics , 53(1):012002, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Adams, and Kevin J

    Christopher Carr, Monsit Tanasittikosol, Armen Sargsy an, David Sarkisyan, Charles S. Adams, and Kevin J. Weatherill. Three-photon electromagnetically in duced transparency using rydberg states. Opt. Lett., 37(18):3858–3860, Sep 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Electromagnetically induced trans- parency with rydberg atoms

    David Petrosyan, Johannes Otterbach, and Michael Fleis chhauer. Electromagnetically induced trans- parency with rydberg atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 107:213601, Nov 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Microwave electrometry with rydberg atoms in a vapou r cell using bright atomic resonances

    Jonathon A Sedlacek, Arne Schwettmann, Harald K¨ ubler, Robert L¨ ow, Tilman Pfau, and James P Shaffer. Microwave electrometry with rydberg atoms in a vapou r cell using bright atomic resonances. Nature physics, 8(11):819–824, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Electric field metrology for si traceabil ity: Systematic measurement uncertainties in electromagnetically induced transparency in atomic vapor

    Christopher L Holloway, Matt T Simons, Joshua A Gordon, Andrew Dienstfrey, David A Anderson, and Georg Raithel. Electric field metrology for si traceabil ity: Systematic measurement uncertainties in electromagnetically induced transparency in atomic vapor . Journal of Applied P...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Broadband rydberg atom-based electric-field probe for si-traceable, self-calibrated me asurements

    Christopher L Holloway, Joshua A Gordon, Steven Jefferts , Andrew Schwarzkopf, David A Anderson, Stephanie A Miller, Nithiwadee Thaicharoen, and Georg Rait hel. Broadband rydberg atom-based electric-field probe for si-traceable, self-calibrated me asurements. IEEE Transactions o...

    2014

  4. [12]

    Sub-wa velength imaging and field mapping via electromagnetically induced transparency and autler-tow nes splitting in rydberg atoms

    Christopher L Holloway, Joshua A Gordon, Andrew Schwar zkopf, David A Anderson, Stephanie A Miller, Nithiwadee Thaicharoen, and Georg Raithel. Sub-wa velength imaging and field mapping via electromagnetically induced transparency and autler-tow nes splitting in rydberg atoms. A...

    2014

  5. [13]

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. K¨ ubler, and J. P. Sha ffer. Atom-based vector microwave electrom- etry using rubidium rydberg atoms in a vapor cell. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 111:063001, Aug 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Microwave dressing of rydberg dark states

    M Tanasittikosol, JD Pritchard, D Maxwell, Alexandre G auguet, KJ Weatherill, RM Potvliege, and CS Adams. Microwave dressing of rydberg dark states. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics , 44(18):184020, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Atom based rf electric field sensing

    Haoquan Fan, Santosh Kumar, Jonathon Sedlacek, Harald K¨ ubler, Shaya Karimkashi, and James P Shaffer. Atom based rf electric field sensing. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 48(20):202001, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    D. A. Anderson, S. A. Miller, G. Raithel, J. A. Gordon, M. L. Butler, and C. L. Holloway. Optical measurements of strong microwave fields with rydberg atoms i n a vapor cell. Phys. Rev. Appl. , 5:034003, Mar 2016. 9

    2016

  9. [17]

    D. A. Anderson, A. Schwarzkopf, S. A. Miller, N. Thaicha roen, G. Raithel, J. A. Gordon, and C. L. Holloway. Two-photon microwave transitions and strong-fie ld effects in a room-temperature rydberg- atom gas. Phys. Rev. A , 90:043419, Oct 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Simultaneous use of cs and rb rydberg atoms for dipole moment assessment and rf electric field meas urements via electromagnetically induced transparency

    Matt T Simons, Joshua A Gordon, and Christopher L Hollow ay. Simultaneous use of cs and rb rydberg atoms for dipole moment assessment and rf electric field meas urements via electromagnetically induced transparency. Journal of Applied Physics , 120(12):123103, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    A quantum-based power standard: Using rydberg atoms for a si-traceable radio-frequency power measurement technique in rectangul ar waveguides

    Christopher L Holloway, Matthew T Simons, Marcus D Kaut z, Abdulaziz H Haddab, Joshua A Gordon, and Thomas P Crowley. A quantum-based power standard: Using rydberg atoms for a si-traceable radio-frequency power measurement technique in rectangul ar waveguides. Applied Physics ...

    2018

  12. [20]

    John, and Wansheng Su

    Matthew T Simons, Marcus D Kautz, Christopher L Hollowa y, David A Anderson, Georg Raithel, Daniel Stack, Marc C St. John, and Wansheng Su. Electromagne tically induced transparency (eit) and autler-townes (at) splitting in the presence of band-limit ed white gaussian noise. J...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Digital communication with rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields

    David H Meyer, Kevin C Cox, Fredrik K Fatemi, and Paul D Ku nz. Digital communication with rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields. Applied Physics Letters , 112(21):211108, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    H. Q. Fan, S. Kumar, R. Daschner, H. K¨ ubler, and J. P. Sha ffer. Subwavelength microwave electric-field imaging using rydberg atoms inside atomic vapor cells. Opt. Lett. , 39(10):3030–3033, May 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    The autler-townes effect revi sited

    Claude N Cohen-Tannoudji. The autler-townes effect revi sited. Amazing Light , pages 109–123, 1996

    1996

  16. [24]

    Objectively discerning autler-townes splitting from electromagnetically induced transparency

    Petr M Anisimov, Jonathan P Dowling, and Barry C Sanders . Objectively discerning autler-townes splitting from electromagnetically induced transparency . Physical review letters , 107(16):163604, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Electromagnetically induced tran sparency and autler-townes splitting: Two similar but distinct phenomena in two categories of three-l evel atomic systems

    Tony Y Abi-Salloum. Electromagnetically induced tran sparency and autler-townes splitting: Two similar but distinct phenomena in two categories of three-l evel atomic systems. Physical Review A , 81(5):053836, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Atomic su- perheterodyne receiver based on microwave-dressed rydber g spectroscopy

    Mingyong Jing, Ying Hu, Jie Ma, Hao Zhang, Linjie Zhang, Liantuan Xiao, and Suotang Jia. Atomic su- perheterodyne receiver based on microwave-dressed rydber g spectroscopy. Nature Physics, 16:911–915, Sep 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Span shift an d extension of quantum microwave electrometry with rydberg atoms dressed by an auxiliary mic rowave field

    Feng-Dong Jia, Xiu-Bin Liu, Jiong Mei, Yong-Hong Yu, Hu ai-Yu Zhang, Zhao-Qing Lin, Hai-Yue Dong, Jian Zhang, Feng Xie, and Zhi-Ping Zhong. Span shift an d extension of quantum microwave electrometry with rydberg atoms dressed by an auxiliary mic rowave field. Phys. Rev. A , 10...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Using amplitude modulation of the mi crowave field to improve the sensitivity of Rydberg-atom based microwave electrometry

    Xiubin Liu, Fengdong Jia, Huaiyu Zhang, Jiong Mei, Yong hong Yu, Weichen Liang, Jian Zhang, Feng Xie, and Zhiping Zhong. Using amplitude modulation of the mi crowave field to improve the sensitivity of Rydberg-atom based microwave electrometry. AIP Advances, 11(8):085127, 08 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Rydberg atom-based microwave elect rometry using polarization spectroscopy

    Naomy Duarte Gomes, Vinicius Marrara Pepino, Ben-Hur V iana Borges, Daniel Varela Magalh˜ aes, Reginaldo de Jesus Napolitano, Manuel Alejandro Lefr´ an Torres, Jorge Douglas Massayuki Kondo, and Luis Gustavo Marcassa. Rydberg atom-based microwave elect rometry using polarizati...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Polarization spectroscopy applied to elect romagnetically induced transparency in hot rydberg atoms using a laguerre–gaussian beam

    Naomy Duarte Gomes, B´ arbara da Fonseca Magnani, Jorge Douglas Massayuki Kondo, and Luis Gus- tavo Marcassa. Polarization spectroscopy applied to elect romagnetically induced transparency in hot rydberg atoms using a laguerre–gaussian beam. Atoms, 10(2):58, 2022. 10

    2022

  23. [31]

    Affordable medium-finesse optical cavity for diode laser stabilization

    David Rodriguez Fernandez, Manuel Alejandro Lefran To rres, Marcos Roberto Cardoso, Jorge Dou- glas Massayuki Kondo, Mark Saffman, and Luis Gustavo Marcassa . Affordable medium-finesse optical cavity for diode laser stabilization. Applied Physics B , 130:60, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, A ndrew R. J. Nelson...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Micro wave electrometry with rydberg atoms in a vapor cell using microwave amplitude modulation

    Jian-Hai Hao, Feng-Dong Jia, Yue Cui, Yu-Han Wang, Fei Z hou, Xiu-Bin Liu, Jian Zhang, Feng Xie, Jin-Hai Bai, Jian-Qi You, Yu Wang, and Zhi-Ping Zhong. Micro wave electrometry with rydberg atoms in a vapor cell using microwave amplitude modulation. Chinese Physics B , 33(5):05...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.