Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Different Phases in a Dissipative Rydberg Lattice : Roles of Occupancy and On-site Interaction

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

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

Pith's one-line read In a dissipative Rydberg lattice with several atoms per site, the on-site interaction strength U controls whether the steady state is uniform or an antiferromagnet-like density wave, with an oscillatory mean-field subphase and V-dependent s

desk verdict The density-wave order is real and well supported, but the U-driven phase diagram is an exact reparametrization of the known detuning-driven case, and the weak-universality claim rests on scaling forms that miss the critical point. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07528 v1 pith:YFXREJVI submitted 2025-09-09 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Suvechha Indu , Aniruddha Biswas , Raka Dasgupta This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph PACS 67.85.-d42.50.Gy3.67.-a03.67.Bg05.40.-a05.70.Fh05.90.+m
keywords Rydberglatticedissipativeopenquantumsystemmean-fieldapproximationdensity-waveorderantiferromagneticon-siteinteractionweakuniversalityBose-Hubbardmodel
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

The paper studies a dissipative optical lattice in which several bosonic Rydberg atoms occupy each site (a zero-hopping Bose-Hubbard-like chain) and asks what steady-state pattern of Rydberg excitations forms under laser driving and spontaneous decay. Its central claim is that the on-site interaction strength U, equivalently the modified detuning Delta_m = Delta + U(N-1), controls whether the lattice is uniformly excited or develops an antiferromagnet-like staggered density wave of excitations. Mean-field dynamics also reveals an oscillatory subphase of the density-wave state, although the small one-dimensional quantum simulation does not reproduce it. The paper further claims that unequal atom numbers on alternating sublattices stabilize and widen the density-wave region, and that the order parameter near the transition obeys scaling forms whose effective exponents grow linearly with the Rydberg interaction V, a signature of weak universality. If correct, this gives an experimentally accessible knob for producing ordered, potentially entanglement-relevant states in a dissipative many-body Rydberg system.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the superatom plus two-sublattice mean-field ansatz: each multi-atom site is treated as a two-level system with at most one Rydberg excitation, and the lattice is assumed to split into two sublattices, each described by a single excitation imbalance omega_i. The order parameter theta = |omega_1 - omega_2|/2 then carries the entire phase classification. A companion fixed-point analysis of the mean-field equations identifies which branches are stable, explaining the uniform, density-wave, and oscillatory phases; the semi-classical Monte Carlo reconstruction uses the two-site excitation probability derived from the effective detuning Delta_m = Delta + U(N-1).

What would settle it

Take a larger (16-24 site) 1D or 2D dissipative Rydberg Bose-Hubbard simulation with fixed Omega, Delta, and V, sweep U through the predicted density-wave window, and compute the steady-state odd-even spatial correlation S_r and order parameter theta. If S_r never alternates in sign and theta stays flat near zero in the predicted U range, the density-wave claim fails. For the oscillatory phase, look for non-decaying irregular population oscillations with no nearby stable fixed point in a system larger than eight sites; if none appear at the predicted U, that phase is a mean-field artefact. In

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By writing each multi-atom site as a superatom with at most one Rydberg excitation, and applying a two-sublattice mean-field ansatz, the authors derive four coupled equations for the excitation imbalances and coherences on the two sublattices. The order parameter theta = |omega_1 - omega_2|/2 separates the steady states: theta near zero for the uniform phase, positive for a staggered density-wave phase, within which a fluctuating, unstable oscillatory subclass appears when no stable fixed point exists. Fixed-point analysis and correlation functions support this picture: the uniform phase has nearly zero spatial correlations, while the density-wave phase shows alternating-sign correlations th

Load-bearing premise

The phase classification assumes the steady state always splits into two uniform sublattices, each sharing one excitation value; if the true state has longer-period waves, domain walls, or coexistence, or if mean-field is wrong in the relevant dimensions, the phase diagram, oscillatory region, and scaling fits lose their basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sweeping the on-site interaction U (equivalently the modified detuning Delta_m = Delta + U(N-1)) switches the steady state between uniform and antiferromagnet-like density-wave order in the Rydberg excitation distribution.
  • The density-wave region is wider when the two sublattices are loaded with different atom numbers, and the peak order parameter is marginally larger, so selective loading is a practical way to stabilize the ordered state.
  • Within the density-wave region at the mean-field level there is an oscillatory subclass with no stable fixed points and weak alternating-sign correlations; the small one-dimensional quantum simulation does not capture it.
  • Near the uniform-to-density-wave transition and near the point of maximum order, the order parameter follows scale-free forms whose effective exponents beta and n increase linearly with the Rydberg interaction V, which the authors read as a signature of weak universality.
  • In a small one-dimensional lattice the order parameter peaks near Delta_m = 0 and the transition is a smooth crossover rather than a sharp one, with the ordered window widening as the dissipation rate gamma is lowered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the oscillatory phase is real, it should reappear as non-decaying staggered population oscillations in larger 1D or 2D simulations; the eight-site run may simply be too small to host it, so its absence there does not settle the question.
  • The fitted forms beta = 0.025V + 0.45 and n = 0.017V + 0.585 imply that the Rydberg interaction itself, not just U, could be used to dial the effective scaling behaviour; this is a testable prediction for higher-dimensional tensor-network or quantum-trajectory simulations.
  • Unequal sublattice populations create an alternating effective detuning Delta + U(N_j - 1), so selective loading effectively engineers a staggered-field Rydberg system, an avenue the paper notes but does not exploit for time-reversal or localization effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a zero-hopping Bose-Hubbard-type chain of Rydberg 'superatoms' with two internal states, spontaneous emission, and nearest-neighbor Rydberg interactions, described by the Lindblad master equation. A mean-field decoupling reduces the lattice dynamics to two coupled ODEs for the two sublattice magnetizations (Eqs. 6-9), assuming a bipartite sublattice ansatz. The paper reports uniform/paramagnetic, antiferromagnetic/density-wave, and (mean-field-only) oscillatory phases as a function of the on-site interaction U, using the order parameter theta = |omega_1 - omega_2|/2 (Eq. 10). It analyzes fixed-point stability, semiclassical Monte Carlo correlation functions, and an 8-site Pulser simulation with depolarizing noise. It also proposes empirical scaling forms near the transition and at maximal antiferromagnetic order, with effective exponents beta = 0.025V + 0.45 and n = 0.017V + 0.585, interpreted as a signature of weak universality.

Significance. If the bipartite mean-field reduction is valid in 2D/3D, the paper provides a simple demonstration that density-wave order appears in a window of effective detuning in a multi-boson dissipative Rydberg lattice. The comparison with the 8-site Pulser simulation gives a genuine, though limited, cross-check for the density-wave phase, and the fixed-point analysis is a useful diagnostic. Credit is due for honestly stating that the oscillatory phase is only seen in mean field, and for making the numerical simulation reproducible via the open-source Pulser package. However, the paper's central framing overstates the novelty: the U-dependence is equivalent to a detuning shift through Eq. 11, the two-sublattice ansatz is imposed rather than derived, the quantum simulation uses depolarizing noise rather than the spontaneous-emission dissipator of Eq. 3, and the weak-universality claim rests on empirical fits with no theoretical underpinning. The core observation is plausible, but the manuscript requires substantial revision to support its advertised conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, after Eq. (5); Eq. (10)] The bipartite ansatz, in which all sites in each sublattice share a single omega_1 or omega_2, is imposed before solving the lattice equations. The site-resolved mean-field equations (4)-(5) can in principle admit longer-period density waves, stripes, or domain-wall states. The order parameter theta = |omega_1 - omega_2|/2 presupposes exactly two uniform sublattices, so the phase diagram in Fig. 2 may be an artifact of this truncation. This is load-bearing for the central phase classification and should be tested, e.g., by a linear stability analysis of the full site-resolved equations or by allowing a period-3/period-4 ansatz.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (11); Sec. VI] The paper itself shows that the Hamiltonian of Eq. 1 is dynamically equivalent to Eq. 11 with Delta_m = Delta + U(N_j - 1). Consequently, tuning U is exactly equivalent to tuning the detuning in the single-species dissipative Rydberg lattice studied in Refs. [29,30]. The claim in Sec. VI that 'it is the on-site interaction U that serves as the driving parameter' and that this is 'fundamentally different' from earlier detuning-driven transitions is therefore not supported. The manuscript should either reframe the results as a multi-boson realization of the known detuning-driven density-wave transition, or identify a genuinely occupancy-dependent effect beyond the linear shift in Delta_m.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (18)-(19) and Figs. 17-21] The 'weak universality' claim is not established. The scaling forms are empirical fits whose normalization points (U_T, U_m, theta_m, u_1m) are taken from the same mean-field data, so the observed collapse is partly built in. The authors admit that beta and n are not conventional critical exponents and that Eq. 18 is inaccurate near (u1,theta)=(0,0). A signature of weak universality requires more than a linear dependence of a fitted exponent on V; it requires a theoretical justification or at least a demonstration of universal scaling ratios or correlation-length behavior. This claim should be substantially weakened or removed unless additional evidence is provided.
  4. [Sec. V] The Pulser simulation uses a depolarizing noise model rather than the spontaneous-emission dissipator of Eq. 3, and it treats only eight sites in one dimension. This cannot quantitatively validate the mean-field phase diagram claimed for 2D/3D, nor can it address the oscillatory phase. The statement that the oscillatory region is absent because 'one cannot capture its signature with such a small number of sites' is not a substitute for a controlled check (e.g., a tensor-network simulation of the actual Lindblad master equation). The comparison in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 is indicative but not a full validation of the model.
  5. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (12)] The semiclassical Monte Carlo procedure starts from mean-field omega values and then rearranges configurations using an ad hoc transition probability P taken from the single-atom result of Ref. [47]. This rearrangement is not derived from the master equation of the multi-boson system. The correlation functions obtained from this procedure therefore do not provide an independent confirmation of the mean-field phases; they are, at best, a consistency check. This limitation should be stated clearly, and the correlations should be compared with an exact small-system calculation where possible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (11)] The sign convention for U = U_GG - U_EG and its relation to Delta_m is confusing. Since U can be negative, the text should explicitly state how a negative U shifts the effective detuning, especially when discussing 'large absolute values' of U.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption lists values V=5,6,8,10,12,14 but does not label which color corresponds to which V in the text. Add an explicit legend or color list.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (12)] The quantity P is called a 'transition probability' but is not normalized over outcomes. Clarify whether P is a rate or a probability per unit time, and specify the parameter regime in which P < 1 is guaranteed.
  4. [Throughout] Several typos and grammatical issues need correction, e.g., 'possess' for 'possess', 'principle quantum number' for 'principal quantum number', 'rols' for 'roles', and the double comma in the Fig. 13 caption.
  5. [Sec. VI] The text says 'we could not find traditional critical exponents here' but later uses the word 'criticality' in the section title. This inconsistency should be resolved; the scaling forms should be clearly distinguished from true critical exponents.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phase classification reduces to the imposed two-sublattice ansatz and to a detuning shift; scaling exponents are fitted from mean-field curves.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II (after Eq. 5) and Sec. III B (Eq. 10)]
    "It is observed that the system arranges itself in the form of a bipartite lattice, comprising sublattices 1 and 2. ... We construct an order parameter for this system to distinguish between the phases: θ= |ω1−ω 2|/2"

    The bipartite lattice is imposed before solving the full site-resolved mean-field equations (4)–(5). By reducing to the two-mode equations (6)–(9), any non-uniform steady state is forced to be a two-sublattice state. The order parameter θ is explicitly defined as the difference of the two sublattice averages, so a non-zero θ automatically means 'antiferromagnet-like' order. Thus the paper's central claim that the system can be 'either uniform or antiferromagnet-like in terms of the Rydberg excitation distribution' is not a derived result but a direct consequence of the ansatz. Longer-period density waves, domain walls, or other patterns are excluded by construction.

  2. renaming known result [Sec. IV A, Eq. 11]
    "we note that we can recast our Hamiltonian (Eq.1) in a form without any explicit on-site interaction term. In this case, the on-site interaction U is incorporated in a modified detuning term: Δ_m = Δ +U(N_j−1). ... The Hamiltonians in Eq. 1 and Eq. 11 both produce the same dynamics."

    In the mean-field equations (8)–(9), the on-site interaction U appears only in the combination Δ + U(N_i−1). Equation 11 makes this explicit: varying U is exactly equivalent to varying the effective detuning Δ_m. The abstract and conclusions highlight 'depending on the on-site interaction strength' as the controlling parameter, but the phase diagram as a function of U is identical to the known detuning-driven phase diagram of a dissipative Rydberg lattice. The new 'role of occupancy' therefore reduces—by the paper's own Eq. 11—to a shift of the detuning, which is the established control parameter for the antiferromagnetic/density-wave transition in Refs. [29,30].

full rationale

The paper's central classification of uniform vs. antiferromagnetic-like phases is self-definitional: the two-sublattice ansatz is introduced as an 'observation' and the order parameter θ measures only the difference between those two sublattices. Any non-uniform state not commensurate with a bipartite structure cannot appear, so the 'prediction' of antiferromagnetic order is built into the input. In addition, Eq. 11 shows that the on-site interaction U acts only through a modified detuning Δ_m = Δ + U(N−1), so sweeping U is a reparametrization of the known detuning-driven transition; the 'role of on-site interaction' is not an independent mechanism. The claimed scaling exponents (β = 0.025V + 0.45, n = 0.017V + 0.585) are extracted by fitting the mean-field order-parameter curves, and the 'weak universality' conclusion is an interpretation of those fits rather than a parameter-free prediction. The 8-site Pulser simulation provides independent evidence for density-wave order, but it is in 1D, with depolarizing noise rather than the spontaneous-emission dissipator of Eq. 3, and cannot validate the mean-field phase diagram or the universal scaling. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems are present. Overall, the core phase diagram and the universality claim are substantially shaped by the imposed ansatz and the detuning equivalence, giving partial circularity (score 6).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling choices: the superatom two-level reduction, the two-sublattice ansatz, the nearest-neighbor-only Rydberg interaction, the mean-field decoupling, and a semi-classical configuration generator. The scaling claims additionally rest on fitted exponents and empirical scaling forms. The dissipation channel in the numerics differs from the analytic master equation. None of these individually is fatal, but together they mean the paper's strongest conclusions, the oscillatory phase and weak universality, are not independently grounded.

free parameters (4)
  • scaling exponent beta(V) = beta = 0.025V + 0.45
    Fitted to mean-field theta vs U data for each Rydberg interaction V (Fig. 18), then used in the scaling form Eq. 18 and the weak-universality claim.
  • scaling exponent n(V) = n = 0.017V + 0.585
    Fitted to the theta vs U curves (Fig. 20), then used in Eq. 19 and the collapse f1(theta) in Fig. 21.
  • normalization points U_T, U_m, theta_m, u1m = extracted per V from mean-field curves
    theta_tilde = theta/theta_m and u1, u2 are normalized by data-derived critical and maximum points, so the scaling forms are not parameter-free.
  • Monte Carlo transition probability P = P = Omega^2 / (2 Omega^2 + 1/4 + (Delta_m + V)^2)
    Ad hoc probability used in Sec. IV A to reject adjacent Rydberg excitations in the semi-classical configuration generator; stated without derivation in Eq. 12.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption At most one Rydberg excitation per site (blockade), reducing each site to a two-level superatom
    Invoked in Sec. II to construct the Hamiltonian Eq. 1; relies on the Rydberg blockade radius exceeding the on-site size, following the superatom treatment of [47].
  • domain assumption Two-sublattice ansatz with uniform omega_1 and omega_2 on each sublattice
    Sec. II after Eq. 5: "the system arranges itself in the form of a bipartite lattice". Every phase classification in the paper uses theta = |omega_1 - omega_2|/2 (Eq. 10).
  • domain assumption Nearest-neighbor Rydberg interaction only, V = z V0/2
    Sec. II: "V0 is assumed to act among atoms that belong to nearest-neighbor sites only". Prior work [30] shows the long-range tail of the Rydberg interaction matters for antiferromagnetic order.
  • domain assumption Mean-field decoupling of the Rydberg interaction term
    Sec. II: the interaction bias is replaced by |E><E|_j otimes sum_k rho_k,ee. Standard MFT, reliable only in high dimensions, as the paper itself concedes in Sec. V.
  • ad hoc to paper Semi-classical Monte Carlo configurations match mean-field omega values and are rearranged with probability P
    Sec. IV A: a random Ising-like configuration is generated at the mean-field magnetization and "marginally modified" so adjacent excitations do not exceed P in Eq. 12. This is a synthetic construction, not a full quantum calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper Depolarizing noise in the Pulser simulation is equivalent to the spontaneous-emission master equation Eq. 3
    Sec. V: the simulation uses "a depolarizing noise model, with noise strengths equivalent to decay rates (gamma)", but Eq. 3 has |G><E| jump operators (amplitude damping), a different dissipation channel; the equivalence is asserted, not shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Scaling forms Eq. 18 and Eq. 19 hold
    Sec. VI: "It is empirically found that there is a scaling relation". The forms are not derived and the paper admits Eq. 18 is inaccurate near u1 = 0.
invented entities (1)
  • Oscillatory phase (aperiodic non-uniform population dynamics)
    purpose: Classified as a subclass of the density-wave-ordered phase in Sec. III A and Fig. 1(c)
    Observed only in mean-field solutions. The paper explicitly states the 1D numerical simulation does not capture it, so its status as a physical phase rests on mean-field dynamics alone, with no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Different Phases in a Dissipative Rydberg Lattice : Roles of Occupancy and On-site Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFXREJVI

@misc{pith2026250907528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Different Phases in a Dissipative Rydberg Lattice : Roles of Occupancy and On-site Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFXREJVI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07528}
}
read the original abstract

We study a two-level dissipative non-equilibrium bosonic Rydberg system in an optical lattice, where multiple atoms can occupy a single site. The system is treated using two different approaches: solution of the master equation using a mean-field approximation, and direct numerical simulation of an equivalent quantum model. It is found that, depending on the on-site interaction strength, the system can either be uniform or have an antiferromagnet-like density-wave structure in terms of the Rydberg excitation distribution. Our mean-field treatment detects an interesting oscillatory phase as well, but the numerical simulation in 1D does not capture it. The origin of all these phases are investigated by studying the spatial correlations, and by calculating the fixed points of the dynamics. It is observed that an initial population difference across the sublattices helps to enhance the density-wave order. The scaling behavior of the system is also analyzed and a signature of weak universality is obtained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07528 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Three phases, (a) Uniform Phase, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The ground and the excited state populations for two sub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. The correlation with (a) even ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Correlations in the three phases, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fixed Points for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Here, Figs. 11 (a), (b) and (c) correspond to γ values (a) -4 -2 0 2 4 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 Δm S r (b) -4 -2 0 2 4 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 Δm S r (c) -4 -2 0 2 4 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 Δm S r FIG. 11. S r vs. ∆m plots for r = 2 (blue) and …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Uniform phase to antiferromagnetic: continuous phase tran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. antiferromagnetic phase to uniform: discontinuous phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Oscillatory phase to antiferromagnetic phase: continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. The exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. The exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_20.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. The order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. The exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_23.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, nature415, 39 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [1]

    The coefficientβhere, in a sense, plays the role of a traditional critical exponent

    Here,c 1 =(2/u 1m)β is a constant, but its value depends on the Rydberg interaction strengthV. The coefficientβhere, in a sense, plays the role of a traditional critical exponent. However, as Eq. 18 is not very accurate in a small segment nearu 1 =0, and this notation of the critical exponent holds whenu 1 is small, but not exactly nearu 1 =0. Again, eθ/c...

    work page

  3. [2]

    This can be also be expressed asf1(θ)≈(1− eθ)/(0.017V+0.585)= u2 2 FIG. 21. Scaling form off1(θ) vs. eUwith the parameters∆ = 1,Ω =3,N=4,V=6 (dark blue), 8 (cyan), 10 (red), 12 (purple), 14 (green). This is shown in Fig. 21, wheref1(θ) vs.u 2 plots are presented for fixed∆andΩ; and a range ofVvalues. It is observed that the points collapse on a single par...

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and com- puting with rydberg-interacting qubits, A VS Quantum Science 3(2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V . Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye,et al., Quantum simulation of 2d antifer- romagnets with hundreds of rydberg atoms, Nature595, 233 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    H. Kim, Y . Park, K. Kim, H.-S. Sim, and J. Ahn, Detailed bal- ance of thermalization dynamics in rydberg-atom quantum sim- ulators, Physical review letters120, 180502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in rydberg atom quantum simulators, Physical Review X10, 021041 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Weimer, A

    H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Orús, Simulation meth- ods for open quantum many-body systems, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015008 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. Müller, I. Lesanovsky, P. Zoller, and H. P. Büch- ler, A rydberg quantum simulator, Nature Physics6, 382 (2010)

    2010

  2. [9]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. De Léséleuc, T. Macrì, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two-dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models, Na- ture534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    K. Kim, F. Yang, K. Mølmer, and J. Ahn, Realization of an ex- tremely anisotropic heisenberg magnet in rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review X14, 011025 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum informa- tion with rydberg atoms, Reviews of modern physics82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  5. [12]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Dipole blockade and quantum information processing in mesoscopic atomic ensembles, Physical review letters87, 037901 (2001)

    2001

  6. [13]

    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 quan- tum computation and quantum simulation, Chinese Physics B 30, 020305 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    S. R. Cohen and J. D. Thompson, Quantum computing with circular rydberg atoms, PRX Quantum2, 030322 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    J. M. Auger, S. Bergamini, and D. E. Browne, Blueprint for fault-tolerant quantum computation with rydberg atoms, Physi- cal Review A96, 052320 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    I. I. Ryabtsev, I. I. Beterov, D. B. Tretyakov, V . M. Entin, and E. A. Yakshina, Spectroscopy of cold rubidium rydberg atoms for applications in quantum information, Physics-Uspekhi59, 196 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. Yavuz, T. Walker, and M. Saffman, Observation of rydberg blockade between two atoms, Nature Physics5, 110 (2009)

    2009

  11. [18]

    T. F. Gallagher and P. Pillet, Dipole–dipole interactions of rydberg atoms, Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics56, 161 (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    Gaëtan, Y

    A. Gaëtan, Y . Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Obser- vation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the rydberg blockade regime, Nature Physics5, 115 (2009)

    2009

  13. [20]

    R. Côté, A. Russell, E. E. Eyler, and P. L. Gould, Quantum ran- dom walk with rydberg atoms in an optical lattice, New Journal of Physics8, 156 (2006)

    2006

  14. [21]

    T. Wilk, A. Gaëtan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y . Miroshnychenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using rydberg blockade, Physical review letters 104, 010502 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Isenhower, A. Gill, T. Walker, and M. Saffman, Deterministic entanglement of two neutral atoms via rydberg blockade, Physical Review A Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics82, 030306 (2010)

    2010

  16. [23]

    T. G. Walker and M. Saffman, Consequences of zeeman degen- eracy for the van der waals blockade between rydberg atoms, Physical Review A Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics77, 032723 (2008)

    2008

  17. [24]

    Theis, F

    L. Theis, F. Motzoi, F. Wilhelm, and M. Saffman, High-fidelity rydberg-blockade entangling gate using shaped, analytic pulses, Physical Review A94, 032306 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    I. S. Madjarov, J. P. Covey, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, A. Kale, A. Cooper, H. Pichler, V . Schkolnik, J. R. Williams, and M. En- dres, High-fidelity entanglement and detection of alkaline-earth rydberg atoms, Nature Physics16, 857 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Saffman and K

    M. Saffman and K. Mølmer, Efficient multiparticle entangle- ment via asymmetric rydberg blockade, Physical review letters 102, 240502 (2009)

    2009

  20. [27]

    Isenhower, E

    L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. Zhang, A. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. Walker, and M. Saffman, Demonstration of a neu- tral atom controlled-not quantum gate, Physical review letters 104, 010503 (2010)

    2010

  21. [28]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti ´c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity control and entanglement of rydberg-atom qubits, Physical review letters121, 123603 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    Comparat and P

    D. Comparat and P. Pillet, Dipole blockade in a cold rydberg atomic sample, JOSA B27, A208 (2010)

    2010

  23. [30]

    Kübler, J

    H. Kübler, J. Shaffer, T. Baluktsian, R. Löw, and T. Pfau, Co- herent excitation of rydberg atoms in micrometre-sized atomic vapour cells, Nature Photonics4, 112 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    T. E. Lee, H. Häffner, and M. Cross, Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a nonequilibrium lattice of rydberg atoms, Physical Review A Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 031402 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    Hoening, W

    M. Hoening, W. Abdussalam, M. Fleischhauer, and T. Pohl, An- tiferromagnetic long-range order in dissipative rydberg lattices, Physical Review A90, 021603 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    Carr and M

    A. Carr and M. Saffman, Preparation of entangled and antifer- romagnetic states by dissipative rydberg pumping, Physical re- view letters111, 033607 (2013)

    2013

  27. [34]

    W. Lee, M. Kim, H. Jo, Y . Song, and J. Ahn, Coherent and dissipative dynamics of entangled few-body systems of rydberg atoms, Physical Review A99, 043404 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalattore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  29. [36]

    Mondal, D

    S. Mondal, D. Sen, and K. Sengupta, Non-equilibrium dynam- ics of quantum systems: order parameter evolution, defect gen- eration, and qubit transfer, Quantum quenching, annealing and computation , 21 (2010)

    2010

  30. [37]

    Gritsev, P

    V . Gritsev, P. Barmettler, and E. Demler, Scaling approach 13 to quantum non-equilibrium dynamics of many-body systems, New journal of Physics12, 113005 (2010)

    2010

  31. [38]

    D. B. Rao and K. Mølmer, Dark entangled steady states of in- teracting rydberg atoms, Physical review letters111, 033606 (2013)

    2013

  32. [39]

    Chen, Z.-C

    Y .-H. Chen, Z.-C. Shi, J. Song, Y . Xia, and S.-B. Zheng, Ac- celerated and noise-resistant generation of high-fidelity steady- state entanglement with rydberg atoms, Physical Review A97, 032328 (2018)

    2018

  33. [40]

    R. Li, D. Yu, S.-L. Su, and J. Qian, Periodically driven fa- cilitated high-efficiency dissipative entanglement with rydberg atoms, Physical Review A101, 042328 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    H. Zeng, W. Zhang, and F. Lin, Nonclassical bose-einstein con- densate, Physical Review A52, 2155 (1995)

    1995

  35. [42]

    J. Qian, G. Dong, L. Zhou, and W. Zhang, Phase diagram of rydberg atoms in a nonequilibrium optical lattice, Physical Re- view A85, 065401 (2012)

    2012

  36. [43]

    Löw,A versatile setup for experiments with Rubidium Bose Einstein condensates: From optical lattices to Rydberg matter (Verlag Dr

    R. Löw,A versatile setup for experiments with Rubidium Bose Einstein condensates: From optical lattices to Rydberg matter (Verlag Dr. Hut, 2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    S. E. Anderson, K. Younge, and G. Raithel, Trapping rydberg atoms in an optical lattice, Physical review letters107, 263001 (2011)

    2011

  38. [45]

    Thomas, C

    O. Thomas, C. Lippe, T. Eichert, and H. Ott, Experimental re- alization of a rydberg optical feshbach resonance in a quantum many-body system, Nature communications9, 2238 (2018)

    2018

  39. [46]

    Ramos, K

    A. Ramos, K. Moore, and G. Raithel, Measuring the rydberg constant using circular rydberg atoms in an intensity-modulated optical lattice, Physical Review A96, 032513 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Greiner,Ultracold quantum gases in three-dimensional op- tical lattice potentials, Ph.D

    M. Greiner,Ultracold quantum gases in three-dimensional op- tical lattice potentials, Ph.D. thesis, lmu (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    Petrosyan, M

    D. Petrosyan, M. Höning, and M. Fleischhauer, Spatial corre- lations of rydberg excitations in optically driven atomic ensem- bles, Physical Review A87, 053414 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    V . R. Overbeck and H. Weimer, Time evolution of open quantum many-body systems, Physical Review A93, 012106 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Plimak, M

    L. Plimak, M. Olsen, and M. Fleischhauer, Occupation number and fluctuations in the finite-temperature bose-hubbard model, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 70, 013611 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    Yang and J.-B

    S. Yang and J.-B. Xu, Density-wave-ordered phases of rydberg atoms on a honeycomb lattice, Physical Review E106, 034121 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Samajdar, W

    R. Samajdar, W. W. Ho, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Quantum phases of rydberg atoms on a kagome lattice, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2015785118 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Samajdar, W

    R. Samajdar, W. W. Ho, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Complex density wave orders and quantum phase transitions in a model of square-lattice rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review Letters124, 103601 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    C.-J. Lin, V . Calvera, and T. H. Hsieh, Quantum many-body scar states in two-dimensional rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review B101, 220304 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Silvério, S

    H. Silvério, S. Grijalva, C. Dalyac, L. Leclerc, P. J. Karalekas, N. Shammah, M. Beji, L.-P. Henry, and L. Henriet, Pulser: An open-source package for the design of pulse sequences in pro- grammable neutral-atom arrays, Quantum6, 629 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    R. A. Macêdo and R. G. Pereira, Fractonic criticality in rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review B110, 085144 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    I. A. Maceira, N. Chepiga, and F. Mila, Conformal and chiral phase transitions in rydberg chains, Physical Review Research 4, 043102 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Menon, A

    A. Menon, A. Chattopadhyay, K. Sengupta, and A. Sen, Emer- gent ashkin-teller criticality in a constrained boson model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12107 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. S. Garcia and N. Chepiga, Numerical investigation of quan- tum phases and phase transitions in a two-leg ladder of rydberg atoms, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05494 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. Wang, E. Lv, X. Li, Y . Jin, and W. Li, Quantum supercriti- cality in the ising model and rydberg atom array, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05455 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    N. Khan, P. Sarkar, A. Midya, P. Mandal, and P. Mohanty, Con- tinuously varying critical exponents beyond weak universality, Scientific reports7, 45004 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    I. Sau, A. Sen, and D. Banerjee, Weak universality induced by q=±2 e charges at the deconfinement transition of a (2+1)- dimensional u (1) lattice gauge theory, Physical Review Letters 130, 071901 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Furlan and M

    M. Furlan and M. Gubinelli, Weak universality for a class of 3d stochastic reaction–diffusion models, Probability Theory and Related Fields173, 1099 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Mukherjee and P

    I. Mukherjee and P. Mohanty, Hidden superuniversality in sys- tems with continuous variation of critical exponents, Physical Review B108, 174417 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Pare- des, and I. Bloch, Realization of the hofstadter hamiltonian with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Physical review letters111, 185301 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, S. Nascimbene, S. Trotzky, Y .-A. Chen, and I. Bloch, Experimental realization of strong effective magnetic fields in an optical lattice, Physical review letters107, 255301 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    S. Peil, J. V . Porto, B. L. Tolra, J. Obrecht, B. King, M. Sub- botin, S. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Patterned loading of a bose-einstein condensate into an optical lattice, Physical Re- view A67, 051603 (2003)

    2003

  61. [69]

    Schreiber, S

    M. Schreiber, S. S. Hodgman, P. Bordia, H. P. Lüschen, M. H. Fischer, R. V osk, E. Altman, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Ob- servation of many-body localization of interacting fermions in a quasirandom optical lattice, Science349, 842 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Mukherjee, A

    B. Mukherjee, A. Sen, and K. Sengupta, Periodically driven ry- dberg chains with staggered detuning, Physical Review B106, 064305 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Sarkar, M

    M. Sarkar, M. Pal, A. Sen, and K. Sengupta, Quantum order-by- disorder induced phase transition in rydberg ladders with stag- gered detuning, SciPost Physics14, 004 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Ohashi and A

    Y . Ohashi and A. Griffin, Single-particle excitations in a trapped gas of fermi atoms in the bcs-bec crossover region, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics72, 013601 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Feshbach reso- nances in ultracold gases, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Albus, F

    A. Albus, F. Illuminati, and J. Eisert, Mixtures of bosonic and fermionic atoms in optical lattices, Physical Review A68, 023606 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

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