{"id":"3d6b4714-7f70-4cc3-9138-b6182b0c3a10","arxiv_id":"2507.17361","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"A resonantly driven Rydberg ladder can create a narrow, tunable interaction peak at a chosen interatomic distance.","lead":"This paper proposes a laser scheme that makes two Rydberg atoms interact strongly only at one chosen distance, producing a narrow peak instead of a long-range tail. The scheme could enable parallel quantum gates and programmable atom-lattice simulations if the loss from the resonant excitation can be controlled.","discovery_kind":"new_method","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The steady-state energy in Eq. 2 is treated as a conservative potential without justification; since the |p> state is populated at the resonance, loss and recoil break the force interpretation. Everything downstream depends on this unresolved mapping.","rationale":"The reader's weakest_assumption identifies precisely the same load-bearing issue: Eq. 2 defines U as a steady-state expectation value of an open, driven system, but the paper then treats it as a conservative interaction potential for forces, gates, and lattice Hamiltonians. This step is necessary for every subsequent claim, including the Lorentzian profile (Eq. 6), the width and amplitude formulas (Eqs. 8 and 9), and the proposed applications. The paper offers no adiabatic-elimination derivation, no effective two-level Hamiltonian, and no check that the mechanical force equals -grad U. The admission that the intermediate state becomes populated at the resonance makes the problem concrete: that population is a loss and heating channel, so the steady-state energy is not the energy of a closed conservative system. The proposed numerical test directly compares -dU/dr with the actual steady-state force; a discrepancy would falsify the central interpretation, while agreement would vindicate it. Because this concern is the same one that motivated the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict, I do not recommend changing the verdict; the paper needs a derivation plus the test above before the central claim can be accepted.","tokens_in":7390,"tokens_out":16700,"duration_ms":190609,"concrete_test":"Numerically solve the two-atom Lindblad master equation for the parameters of Fig. 2a (Delta/2pi = 10 MHz, Omega1/2pi = 200 kHz, Omega2/(2Delta) = 1.1, n = 100) on a dense grid of separations r around rp. Compute (i) -dU/dr from Eq. 2 and (ii) the steady-state expectation of the actual force operator F(r) = -Tr[rho dV_ij/dr], with V_ij = C6 sigma_ee sigma_ee / r^6. If |F(r) + dU/dr| exceeds roughly 10% of U0/rp anywhere near the peak, then U(r) from Eq. 2 is not a conservative potential and the quasi-contact-force interpretation is unsupported.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central claim depends on treating U(r) in Eq. 2 as a mechanical interaction potential. That mapping is never justified. A steady state of a driven Lindblad master equation is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian; Tr[rho (H_i+H_j+V_ij)] is the average rotating-frame energy of a continuously driven, open system, not a Born-Oppenheimer surface. The physical force is not generally -dU/dr: dU/dr contains a term Tr[(drho/dr)(H_i+H_j+V_ij)] that is absent from the steady-state expectation of the force operator, and spontaneous emission adds recoil and loss. The paper itself concedes (after Fig. 2b) that \"at the position of resonance, the intermediate state gets populated\"; this is exactly the dissipative channel that invalidates a conservative-potential reading. Moreover, Eq. 8 sets the peak width by the decay rate gamma, and in the closed-system limit gamma->0 no unique steady state exists. With the Fig. 2 parameters Omega1/2pi = 200 kHz >> gamma/2pi = 7.6 kHz, coherent Rabi dynamics and power broadening should dominate, further indicating that Eq. 6 is a steady-state artifact rather than a Hamiltonian interaction. No adiabatic elimination, effective-Lindblad derivation, or gate/motion simulation is provided. All claimed applications - quasi-contact forces, MBQC gates, lattice Hamiltonians, and giant molecules - inherit this unresolved step.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"The manuscript proposes a scheme to generate sharply peaked, distance-selective effective interactions between two ultracold atoms using a resonant two-photon ladder to a Rydberg state. In the regime Ω1 ≪ Ω2, the two-atom Hilbert space is decomposed into ground, single-excitation, and double-excitation manifolds; an interaction-induced degeneracy between the |gg⟩ state and the dressed two-excitation eigenstate |λ0⟩ at r = rp (Eq. 4) is claimed to produce a Lorentzian interaction peak U(r) = U0 / (1 + (r - rp)^2 / w^2) (Eq. 6). Analytic expressions for rp, w, and U0 are given in Eqs. 4, 8, and 9, and master-equation simulations are shown in Fig. 2. Three-body resonances are described in Fig. 3. The authors discuss applications to parallel gates for measurement-based quantum computing, simulation of lattice Hamiltonians, and giant diatomic molecules.","tokens_in":7710,"tokens_out":6198,"duration_ms":62387,"significance":"If the central mapping from a dissipative steady-state energy to a conservative interaction potential were justified, the proposal would be significant: it offers a laser-tunable, sharply peaked interaction with closed-form predictions for position, width, and amplitude, and it identifies parameter regimes distinct from soft-core dressing and macrodimer methods. The paper is commendable for not fitting parameters to data and for deriving the resonance condition Eq. 4 directly from the Hamiltonian rather than imposing it. However, the lack of a derivation of the conservative-potential mapping and of the Lorentzian line shape prevents the results from being used as claimed, and the applications inherit this unresolved step.","major_comments":[{"comment":"U(rij) = Tr[ρ(Hi + Hj + Vij)] is defined as the steady-state expectation value of the driven-system Hamiltonian, but the manuscript never justifies treating U as a conservative, distance-selective interaction potential. A dissipative steady state is not an eigenstate of H, and the mechanical force on slowly moving atoms is not -dU/dr: dU/dr contains a term Tr[(dρ/dr)(Hi + Hj + Vij)] that does not appear in the force-operator expectation, while spontaneous emission from the populated intermediate state adds recoil and loss. The text after Fig. 2b concedes that 'at the position of resonance, the intermediate state gets populated'; this is exactly the dissipative channel that prevents a conservative-potential reading. Since Eq. (2) is used in the Scheme and in all claimed applications (quasi-contact forces, MBQC gates, lattice Hamiltonians, giant molecules), the central claim inherits this unresolved mapping. The revision should either derive an effective closed-system Hamiltonian by adiabatic elimination with controlled approximations or simulate the coupled atom-light motion and show that a conservative force emerges.","section":"Scheme, Eq. (2)"},{"comment":"The Lorentzian line shape and its width are asserted rather than derived. Eq. (8) is obtained by requiring that a displacement w away from rp shifts λ0 by γ, but this yields only the interaction-space half-width of a resonance; whether the steady-state energy U(r) is exactly Lorentzian in r is not shown. With the Fig. 2 parameters Ω1/2π = 200 kHz and γ/2π = 7.6 kHz, the drive is not perturbative in γ, so power broadening and coherent Rabi oscillations should broaden the peak beyond Eq. (8); the numerical validation in Fig. 2a is only visual, with no quantitative comparison reported. In the limit γ → 0 the Lindblad equation has no unique steady state, so the γ-controlled profile of Eq. (6) cannot be read as an intrinsic Hamiltonian interaction.","section":"Scheme, Eqs. (6)-(8)"},{"comment":"The analytic amplitude U0 and the figure of merit Δ/γ are stated without derivation, and the claims of MHz-scale strength and 'orders-of-magnitude improvement' over macrodimer dressing are not backed by a quantitative comparison with Ref. [14] at matched parameters. A derivation of Eq. (9) and a plot or table comparing the present scheme with Ref. [14] for the same atomic species, detuning, and decoherence budget are needed to support the strength claim.","section":"Eq. (9) and Discussion"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"There are grammatical errors and typos, e.g., 'subsystem eigenstate twist rapidly and brought into degeneracy' and 'perseverence of trapping'; these should be corrected.","section":"Abstract and Introduction"},{"comment":"The Lindblad master equation for ρ is not written explicitly; please provide the complete equation including Lp and Lr so that Eq. (2) is unambiguous.","section":"Scheme, after Eq. (1)"},{"comment":"The symbol Ω is used without a subscript in Eq. (5) and the surrounding text; it should be Ω2 (or Ω1 if intended) to avoid confusion.","section":"Eq. (5)"},{"comment":"The axis label '0.11101001000U0 (kHz)' in Fig. 2a is garbled and should be replaced; the caption of Fig. 2c contains the typo 'Struntium'.","section":"Fig. 2"},{"comment":"No master-equation verification of the three-body peak is provided, and the three-atom subspace decomposition is not spelled out; this is currently a conjecture rather than a validated result.","section":"Fig. 3 and Eq. (10)"},{"comment":"Reference [15] is cited for γr, but no numerical value is given; specify the Rydberg decay rate used in the simulations.","section":"References and parameters"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The referee report is conditional on the physical interpretation of Eq. (2), which is the load-bearing step; if the author can provide a proper effective-Lindblad or quantum-trajectory derivation, the paper could become a strong contribution. The manuscript would also benefit from a clearer statement of what is genuinely new relative to the prior macrodimer and resonant-dressing literature, and the large number of self-citations (many not directly connected to the mechanism) should be trimmed."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Khazali's paper is worth a look. The genuinely new element is a resonant two-photon ladder in which the van der Waals shift brings a dressed two-atom eigenstate into degeneracy with |gg> at a specific interatomic distance, producing a narrow, off-centered peak in the average energy. That is a distinct regime from soft-core dressing and macrodimer schemes, and the analytic expressions for the peak position rp, width w, and amplitude U0 are concrete and internally consistent with the stated three-level model. The comparison with Hollerith et al. and with resonant dressing is fair. The three-body resonance extension is a useful bonus, even if it is less developed than the two-body case.\n\nThe soft spot is not minor; it is load-bearing. U(r) in Eq. 2 is Tr[rho (Hi + Hj + Vij)] for the steady state of a driven master equation with decay. The paper never shows that this quantity acts as a conservative Born-Oppenheimer potential. The mechanical force is not generally -dU/dr in an open system: the steady state itself depends on r, and spontaneous emission adds recoil and loss. The paper itself concedes that the intermediate state gets populated at the resonance, which is exactly where a conservative-potential reading breaks down. With Omega1/2pi around 200 kHz and gamma/2pi around 7.6 kHz, the dynamics near resonance are not adiabatic ground-state following; the resonance is a dissipative feature. Eq. 6 is asserted as a Lorentzian rather than derived, and the width formula in Eq. 8 rests on treating a resolved level shift as if it were a linewidth. The applications—entangling gates, lattice Hamiltonians, giant molecules—all inherit this gap.\n\nIs the mechanism salvageable? Possibly. One could formulate the interaction as a steady-state light shift, or derive an effective potential in a decoherence-free subspace and check whether the force interpretation survives. The paper does not do that. No code, data, or error analysis is included, and running the master equation with the same Hamiltonian that defines the claimed potential checks internal consistency only, not the potential interpretation. The lack of any citation to the Rydberg anti-blockade literature is also a gap, since that is the closest conceptual relative.\n\nWho is this for? Someone working on Rydberg dressing or interaction engineering will find a concrete proposal with useful formulas and a clear parameter regime. But I would not cite it as a demonstrated interaction potential until the steady-state-to-potential mapping is fixed. For peer review: yes, send it to referees. The mechanism is plausible and the analytic core is checkable; a serious referee can push the author to justify or replace the potential definition, and the paper could become much stronger.","headline":"A concrete and internally consistent proposal for distance-selective Rydberg interactions, but the central step treats a driven dissipative steady-state average as a conservative potential, and that mapping is never justified.","tokens_in":8194,"tokens_out":2139,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":23091,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"An interaction-tuned degeneracy in a two-photon Rydberg ladder makes atoms interact only at one chosen distance, with a sharply peaked, MHz-strength potential.","keywords":["distance-selective interactions","Rydberg atoms","interaction-induced resonance","two-photon ladder","Lorentzian potential","delta-shell potential","master equation","quantum gates"],"falsifier":"Hold two atoms at a variable separation $r$, drive the ladder with the parameters of Fig. 2 ($\\Delta/2\\pi=10$ MHz, $\\Omega_1=200$ kHz, $\\Omega_2/(2\\Delta)=1.1$, $n=100$), and measure the interaction either by two-atom spectroscopy or through the loss triggered by intermediate-state decay. The claim predicts a Lorentzian peak in $U(r)$ centered at the $r_p$ of Eq. 4 with the width of Eq. 8 and the depth of Eq. 9; if the measured peak position, width, or depth disagrees with those scalings, or if the loss spike at $r_p$ overwhelms the coherent energy shift, the central claim fails.","tokens_in":7168,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":16139,"duration_ms":137706,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper claims that a resonantly driven two-photon Rydberg ladder can make two ground-state atoms feel each other only at one precisely chosen interatomic separation $r_p$, giving an effective interaction $U(r)=U_0/(1+(r-r_p)^2/w^2)$ that is sharply peaked and negligible elsewhere. The peak appears because the van der Waals shift tunes a dressed doubly excited eigenstate $|\\lambda_0\\rangle$ into degeneracy with the ground state $|gg\\rangle$ at $r=r_p$, and the resulting avoided crossing shows up as a Lorentzian light shift in the steady-state energy. The position $r_p$, width $w$, and depth $U_0$ of the peak are analytic functions of the laser Rabi frequencies, the detuning, and the intermediate-state linewidth, so the interaction can be tuned without sub-wavelength positional control and can reach MHz strength. If this is right, the scheme replaces the off-resonant Rydberg macrodimer approach with a directly tunable, sharper, and stronger alternative, enabling parallel entangling gates, customizable lattice Hamiltonians, and micrometer-bond-length molecules. The paper also derives a three-body resonance condition, indicating that the mechanism extends beyond pairs to genuine many-body interactions.","feed_headline":"Laser scheme makes atoms interact at one chosen distance only","feed_subtitle":"Tunable resonance gives a sharp MHz-scale atom interaction for quantum gates and lattice simulations.","key_machinery":"The central object is the interaction-induced resonance between the ground state $|gg\\rangle$ and the lowest dressed eigenstate $|\\lambda_0\\rangle$ of the $3\\times3$ double-excitation Hamiltonian of Eq. 3. Its zero-crossing condition, $V(r_p)=2\\Delta\\Omega_2^2/(\\Omega_2^2-4\\Delta^2+\\gamma^2)$ (Eq. 4), fixes the resonant separation $r_p$ through the van der Waals law $V=C_6/r^6$, and the resulting avoided crossing generates the sharply peaked, delta-function-like light shift of Eq. 6. The width of the peak is the spatial image of the intermediate-state linewidth: a small excursion $\\delta V$ away from $V(r_p)$ shifts the $\\lambda_0$ eigenvalue by the linear lever arm of Eq. 7, which translates into the Lorentzian half width $w/r_p\\approx\\gamma(\\Omega_2^4+8\\Delta^4)/(6\\Delta\\Omega_2^2(\\Omega_2^2-4\\Delta^2+\\gamma^2))$ (Eq. 8). The peak depth $U_0$ of Eq. 9 scales as $\\Omega_1^4/\\gamma^2$, and the entire profile is evaluated as the steady-state energy of Eq. 2, with the two-atom density matrix obtained from a master equation that includes spontaneous emission from the intermediate and Rydberg levels.","core_discovery":"Each atom is driven by a resonant two-photon ladder (ground to intermediate with Rabi frequency $\\Omega_1$, intermediate to Rydberg with $\\Omega_2$, detuning $\\Delta$) with $\\Omega_1\\ll\\Omega_2$, and the two-atom steady state $\\rho$ under continuous driving defines a light-shifted energy $U(r_{ij})=\\mathrm{Tr}[\\rho(H_i+H_j+V_{ij})]$ (Eq. 2). In the double-excitation subspace, the dressed eigenstate $|\\lambda_0\\rangle$ has an eigenvalue that crosses zero when the van der Waals interaction satisfies $V(r_p)=2\\Delta\\Omega_2^2/(\\Omega_2^2-4\\Delta^2+\\gamma^2)$ (Eq. 4), placing $|\\lambda_0\\rangle$ in degeneracy with $|gg\\rangle$ at the resonant separation $r_p$. The weak $\\Omega_1$ coupling turns this degeneracy into an avoided crossing, which appears as a Lorentzian potential peak $U(r)=U_0/(1+(r-r_p)^2/w^2)$ (Eq. 6) whose width-to-position ratio is given by Eq. 8 and whose depth $U_0$ by Eq. 9, all controlled by the laser parameters and the intermediate-state linewidth. The regime of validity, $\\Omega_2>2\\Delta$ with $\\Delta>0$ or $\\Omega_2<2|\\Delta|$ with $\\Delta<0$, is the opposite of the soft-core resonant-dressing regime, and the resonant eigenstate retains little doubly excited Rydberg character, so the trapping potential is preserved and the coherent-interaction-to-loss figure of merit is $\\Delta/\\gamma$. The paper validates the analytic expressions against numerical master-equation simulations with spontaneous emission and derives a three-body resonance condition (Eq. 10) for an equilateral triangle, arguing that the scheme beats the macrodimer-based approach in sharpness, strength (MHz versus hundreds of hertz), and ease of tuning.","pith_inferences":["The paper never derives a force from $U(r)$; a direct testable extension is that the resonance should also appear as a mechanical force $F=-\\nabla U$ on atoms held near $r_p$, measurable in trap or expansion dynamics, and as a correlated loss spike from the populated intermediate state, so one experiment could check both the conservative and the dissipative signatures.","Because $U_0\\propto\\Omega_1^4$ while intermediate-state population and loss also grow with $\\Omega_1$, the scheme implies an optimal driving strength for a given tolerated decoherence rate; measuring the interaction-to-loss ratio versus $\\Omega_1$ at fixed $\\Delta$ would test that tradeoff, which the paper computes for strontium and rubidium.","The sharpness prediction $w/r_p\\propto\\gamma/\\Delta$ could be tested in any species with a two-photon ladder: routing the excitation through a longer-lived intermediate, such as a clock state, should narrow the peak at the same $r_p$.","One could ask whether pulsed or stroboscopic driving preserves the same resonance and converts the scheme into a Floquet tool for time-averaged, distance-selective Hamiltonians; the paper analyzes only continuous driving, so this remains open."],"forward_implications":["Parallel entangling gates become feasible with global pulses, because the potential acts only near the designed spacing and suppresses cross-talk between non-neighboring qubits; the paper connects this to measurement-based quantum computing and geometric entanglement filtering for surface codes.","Lattice models with customizable connectivity, such as extended Hubbard, Ising, and Su–Schrieffer–Heeger Hamiltonians, can be simulated by choosing which lattice spacings sit at the resonant distance $r_p$, since $r_p$ is dialed by the laser detuning.","The peak depth reaches the MHz scale while the off-resonant macrodimer approach is limited to a few hundred hertz, and the profile sharpens as $\\Omega_2$ moves away from the $2\\Delta$ (or $2|\\Delta|$) threshold, so the scheme removes the need for sub-wavelength positioning and motional-state control.","In the continuum limit the interaction acts as a delta-shell potential at finite radius, connecting to exactly solvable scattering models and to predicted bunching and anti-bunching of particles with off-centered contact interactions.","The three-body resonance of Eq. 10 opens a route to single-step, parallel stabilizer operations and genuine multi-qubit gates that pairwise interactions alone cannot deliver."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"The Rydberg macrodimer realization of distance-selective interactions; the off-resonant baseline this scheme compares against on sharpness, strength, and control.","marker":"[14]"},{"why":"Resonant Rydberg dressing of alkaline-earth atoms via electromagnetically induced transparency; supplies the soft-core interaction regime this work is distinct from.","marker":"[11]"},{"why":"Rydberg noisy dressing and soft-core potential construction; defines the neighboring regime and the micrometer-bond-length molecular outlook.","marker":"[12]"},{"why":"Strontium Rydberg-state lifetime measurements; supplies the Rydberg decay rate used in the master-equation simulations.","marker":"[15]"},{"why":"Fast multi-qubit gates via adiabatic evolution in dark-state manifolds; the gate framework the distance-selective interaction is designed to enable.","marker":"[17]"},{"why":"Distance-selective Rydberg interactions for discrete-time quantum walks and Floquet topological insulators; anchors the claim that customizable interaction graphs enable new lattice simulations.","marker":"[1]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Atoms feel force only at a set distance, tuned by lasers","Laser-tuned resonance gives atoms sharp, selective attraction","Rydberg atoms get controllable bonds at micrometer scale","Sharp force at one range: laser scheme for atom interactions","Resonant trick makes atoms interact only at chosen separation"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"Everything rests on treating $U(r)=\\mathrm{Tr}[\\rho(H_i+H_j+V_{ij})]$, a dissipative steady-state energy computed under continuous driving, as a genuine conservative two-body potential whose value, gradient, and profile can be used to design forces, gates, and lattice Hamiltonians, even though the resonance works by populating a lossy intermediate state.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Atoms feel force only at a set distance, tuned by lasers","Laser-tuned resonance gives atoms sharp, selective attraction","Rydberg atoms get controllable bonds at micrometer scale","Sharp force at one range: laser scheme for atom interactions","Resonant trick makes atoms interact only at chosen separation"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000286,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1769,"prompt_tokens":1119,"completion_tokens":650,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":735,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":568}},"tokens_in":735,"tokens_out":650,"duration_ms":6736,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":568,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-06T14:50:13.986132+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Hold two atoms at a variable separation $r$, drive the ladder with the parameters of Fig. 2 ($\\Delta/2\\pi=10$ MHz, $\\Omega_1=200$ kHz, $\\Omega_2/(2\\Delta)=1.1$, $n=100$), and measure the interaction either by two-atom spectroscopy or through the loss triggered by intermediate-state decay. The claim predicts a Lorentzian peak in $U(r)$ centered at the $r_p$ of Eq. 4 with the width of Eq. 8 and the depth of Eq. 9; if the measured peak position, width, or depth disagrees with those scalings, or if the loss spike at $r_p$ overwhelms the coherent energy shift, the central claim fails.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The Rydberg macrodimer realization of distance-selective interactions; the off-resonant baseline this scheme compares against on sharpness, strength, and control."},{"cited_title":"Bougas, N","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Resonant Rydberg dressing of alkaline-earth atoms via electromagnetically induced transparency; supplies the soft-core interaction regime this work is distinct from."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Rydberg noisy dressing and soft-core potential construction; defines the neighboring regime and the micrometer-bond-length molecular outlook."},{"cited_title":"Hollerith et al., Realizing distance-selective interac- tions in a Rydberg-dressed atom array, Phys","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Strontium Rydberg-state lifetime measurements; supplies the Rydberg decay rate used in the master-equation simulations."},{"cited_title":"Khazali, Universal terminal for cloud quantum com- puting, Sci","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Fast multi-qubit gates via adiabatic evolution in dark-state manifolds; the gate framework the distance-selective interaction is designed to enable."},{"cited_title":"Khazali, Discrete-time quantum-walk & Floquet topological insulators via distance-selective Rydberg- interaction, Quantum 6, 664 (2022)","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Distance-selective Rydberg interactions for discrete-time quantum walks and Floquet topological insulators; anchors the claim that customizable interaction graphs enable new lattice simulations."}],"review_version":1}