pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.10151 · v4 · submitted 2025-06-11 · 🪐 quant-ph

Lieb-Mattis states for robust entangled differential phase sensing

Raphael Kaubruegger , Diego Fallas Padilla , Athreya Shankar , Christoph Hotter , Sean R. Muleady , Jacob Bringewatt , Youcef Baamara , Erfan Abbasgholinejad
show 4 more authors
Alexey V. Gorshkov Klaus M{\o}lmer James K. Thompson Ana Maria Rey
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 09:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Lieb-Mattis statesdifferential phase sensingentanglement-enhanced metrologydecoherence-free subspacescavity QEDquantum sensorsHeisenberg scalingdissipative preparation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lieb-Mattis states achieve the same asymptotic sensitivity scaling as optimal entangled states for differential phase sensing while allowing efficient preparation from unentangled atoms.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to establish that Lieb-Mattis states form a usable class of entangled resources for two-node differential phase sensors that suppress common-mode noise through decoherence-free subspaces. These states reach the sensitivity scaling of ideal optimal resources yet can be generated from initially unentangled atomic ensembles via cavity-mediated protocols, with the preparation time decreasing as the number of atoms grows. This property suits realistic sensors that operate at large particle numbers without full error correction. The authors demonstrate the approach with both unitary protocols analogous to two-mode squeezing and dissipative protocols based on collective emission, and they confirm through simulations that the methods hold at realistic cavity parameters.

Core claim

Lieb-Mattis states, when prepared in a shared cavity, deliver Heisenberg scaling via unitary entanglement generation or a square-root improvement via dissipative collective emission for differential phase estimation while remaining protected against common-mode noise. The states start from unentangled ensembles and become easier to prepare as system size increases, making them compatible with current large-N sensors that lack complete error correction.

What carries the argument

Lieb-Mattis states, a class of entangled atomic states that occupy decoherence-free subspaces for common-mode noise and support cavity-mediated preparation protocols whose duration decreases with atom number.

If this is right

  • The sensor network reaches the same sensitivity scaling as optimal entangled states without requiring full error correction.
  • Preparation time for the entangled resource shrinks as the number of atoms increases.
  • Both unitary and dissipative cavity protocols remain effective at experimentally realistic cooperativities.
  • Quantum-enhanced differential sensing becomes feasible for large particle numbers in present-day hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same states could extend to multi-node networks beyond the two-node case examined here.
  • The decreasing preparation time suggests compatibility with other time-limited quantum sensing protocols.
  • Direct comparison of achieved sensitivity versus atom number in a cavity experiment would test the scaling claims.

Load-bearing premise

Cavity interactions dominate over other decoherence channels that are not modeled in the protocols.

What would settle it

An experiment in which preparation time increases with atom number or in which the phase sensitivity fails to reach the predicted scaling at large atom numbers under realistic cavity conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10151 by Alexey V. Gorshkov, Ana Maria Rey, Athreya Shankar, Christoph Hotter, Diego Fallas Padilla, Erfan Abbasgholinejad, Jacob Bringewatt, James K. Thompson, Klaus M{\o}lmer, Raphael Kaubruegger, Sean R. Muleady, Youcef Baamara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic illustration of the differential phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Schematic of the cavity setup. Two ensembles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The optimal estimator variance, denoted as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The minimized infidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Collective emission (red curly arrows) evolves the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The estimator variance of the steady state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The optimal estimator variance attainable under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The Fisher information in Eq [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Estimator variance associated with measuring the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Energy gap between the ground and first excited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Level scheme for generating the two-mode squeezing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore a two-node, entanglement-enhanced sensor network for differential phase sensing that exploits decoherence-free subspaces to suppress common-mode noise, a primary limitation of many state-of-the-art quantum sensors. We identify a class of entangled states that, while not strictly optimal, achieve the same asymptotic sensitivity scaling as optimal states and can be prepared efficiently from initially unentangled atomic ensembles. Importantly, the preparation time decreases with increasing system size. This makes the states compatible with realistic noise processes in present-day quantum sensors that operate with large particle numbers but lack full error correction. We illustrate these ideas using two cavity-mediated preparation protocols: (i) coherent, unitary entanglement generation analogous to bosonic two-mode squeezing, yielding Heisenberg scaling; and (ii) dissipative preparation via collective emission into a shared cavity mode, providing a square-root improvement beyond the standard quantum limit. Numerical simulations show that both approaches remain effective at experimentally realistic cavity cooperativities, establishing a practical path toward scalable, quantum-enhanced differential phase sensing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript identifies Lieb-Mattis states as a practical class of entangled states for two-node differential phase sensing. These states exploit decoherence-free subspaces to suppress common-mode noise, achieve the same asymptotic sensitivity scaling as optimal entangled states (Heisenberg or sqrt(SQL) improvement), and can be prepared efficiently from unentangled atomic ensembles via two cavity-mediated protocols, with the key feature that preparation time decreases with system size N. Numerical simulations are presented to show that both the unitary (bosonic two-mode squeezing analog) and dissipative (collective emission) protocols remain effective at realistic cavity cooperativities.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a concrete, experimentally accessible route to scalable quantum-enhanced sensing in large-N atomic systems without requiring full error correction. By combining noise robustness with favorable preparation scaling, it addresses a key practical bottleneck in quantum metrology and could influence designs for cavity-QED-based sensor networks.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (Numerical Simulations): The assertion that both protocols remain effective at realistic cooperativities is load-bearing for the practical-advantage claim, yet the section provides no explicit values or scaling for individual decoherence rates (e.g., spontaneous emission γ, inhomogeneous broadening, cavity loss κ), no error bars on the reported sensitivity metrics, and no statement of data-exclusion criteria. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether collective cavity rates continue to dominate for the claimed decreasing preparation-time scaling with N.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (Dissipative Preparation): The square-root improvement beyond the SQL is derived under the assumption that the dissipative protocol preserves the DFS against all relevant noise channels. However, the analysis does not include an explicit large-N scaling argument or simulation showing that unmodeled N-linear terms (e.g., differential phase noise from inhomogeneous broadening) remain negligible compared with the collective emission rate; this directly affects whether the favorable time scaling survives in realistic devices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 caption: the plotted cooperativity range should be stated numerically in the caption for immediate readability.
  2. [§4] Notation: the definition of the differential phase φ_diff is introduced in §2 but reused without re-statement in the sensitivity expressions of §4; a brief reminder would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §5 (Numerical Simulations): The assertion that both protocols remain effective at realistic cooperativities is load-bearing for the practical-advantage claim, yet the section provides no explicit values or scaling for individual decoherence rates (e.g., spontaneous emission γ, inhomogeneous broadening, cavity loss κ), no error bars on the reported sensitivity metrics, and no statement of data-exclusion criteria. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether collective cavity rates continue to dominate for the claimed decreasing preparation-time scaling with N.

    Authors: We agree that additional details on the numerical simulations will improve verifiability. In the revised manuscript we will report the explicit values and N-scaling of the decoherence rates (γ, κ, and inhomogeneous broadening) used in the simulations, include error bars on all sensitivity metrics obtained from ensemble averages, and state the data-exclusion criteria. We will also add a supplementary analysis confirming that collective cavity rates dominate individual noise channels for the system sizes and cooperativities considered, thereby supporting the decreasing preparation-time scaling. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.2 (Dissipative Preparation): The square-root improvement beyond the SQL is derived under the assumption that the dissipative protocol preserves the DFS against all relevant noise channels. However, the analysis does not include an explicit large-N scaling argument or simulation showing that unmodeled N-linear terms (e.g., differential phase noise from inhomogeneous broadening) remain negligible compared with the collective emission rate; this directly affects whether the favorable time scaling survives in realistic devices.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit large-N scaling treatment of differential noise sources such as inhomogeneous broadening would strengthen the claim. In the revision we will add a scaling argument demonstrating that the collective emission rate grows faster than the N-linear inhomogeneous terms for the parameter regime of interest, together with a brief numerical check confirming negligibility within the plotted range. The conditions under which the DFS protection remains effective will be stated explicitly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation relies on explicit protocols and simulations

full rationale

The paper derives Lieb-Mattis states for differential phase sensing from standard spin-chain Hamiltonians and cavity QED interactions, then demonstrates preparation via two explicit protocols (unitary two-mode squeezing and dissipative collective emission) whose time scaling is computed directly from the master equation. Sensitivity scaling is obtained from the quantum Fisher information or phase variance formulas applied to the prepared states, with numerical simulations confirming robustness at finite cooperativities. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest solely on self-citation; the central results follow from the model's equations without redefining outputs as inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that Lieb-Mattis states form suitable decoherence-free subspaces for common-mode noise suppression and that cavity-mediated interactions can be engineered to dominate decoherence at realistic parameters.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Lieb-Mattis states form decoherence-free subspaces that suppress common-mode noise in two-node differential sensing
    Invoked as the basis for robustness against primary noise limitation

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5757 in / 1127 out tokens · 42946 ms · 2026-05-19T09:14:30.604001+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Multiparameter function estimation for general Hamiltonians

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Derives the ultimate quantum limit for estimating functions of multiple parameters in general Hamiltonians, showing it reduces to an optimized single-parameter quantum Cramér-Rao bound with an attaining protocol.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Hy- Q,” grant number DNRF139). CH is supported by the Carlsberg Foundation through the “Semper Ardens

    or tweezer [36] clocks, trapped ions [71], and Rydberg atoms [72, 73]. In Appendix C, we discuss a finite-range Hamiltonian that serves as a parent Hamiltonian for the target state, raising the question of whether such a Hamil- tonian can be experimentally realized and whether its ground state can be prepared, for instance by an adi- abatic ramp or a quen...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In this basis, the atomic Hamiltonian takes 14 the form HA = Ω |+A⟩ ⟨+A| − |−A⟩ ⟨−A| + |+B⟩ ⟨+B| − |−B⟩ ⟨−B| . (E4) Finally, we express the atom-light interaction Hamiltonian in an interaction picture with respect to HA and HL, which yields √ 2 g HI AL =a† ΠceA 1 gA |−A⟩ ⟨eA 1 | e−i(∆−Ω)t+ a† ΠceB gB 1 |gB 1 ⟩ ⟨+B| e−i(∆−Ω)t+ a† ΣceA 2 gA e−i(∆+δ)t √ 2 |+...

    work page

  3. [3]

    G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, and G. Tino, Nature 510, 518 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science 360, 191 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, J. Curti, M. Kim, and M. A. Kasevich, Science 375, 226 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Physical Review Letters 133, 023401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Eldredge, M

    Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Physical Review A 97, 042337 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Phys- ical review letters 120, 080501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    W. Ge, K. Jacobs, Z. Eldredge, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. Foss-Feig, Physical review letters 121, 043604 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    J. A. Gross and C. M. Caves, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 54, 014001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy 6, 043001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Bringewatt, I

    J. Bringewatt, I. Boettcher, P. Niroula, P. Bienias, and A. V. Gorshkov, Physical Review Research 3, 033011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Malitesta, A

    M. Malitesta, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Physical Review A 108, 032621 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    J. B. Fixler, G. Foster, J. McGuirk, and M. Kasevich, Science 315, 74 (2007)

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Durfee, Y

    D. Durfee, Y. Shaham, and M. Kasevich, Physical review letters 97, 240801 (2006)

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    Stray, A

    B. Stray, A. Lamb, A. Kaushik, J. Vovrosh, A. Rodgers, J. Winch, F. Hayati, D. Boddice, A. Stabrawa, A. Nigge- baum, et al. , Nature 602, 590 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Schlippert, J

    D. Schlippert, J. Hartwig, H. Albers, L. L. Richardson, C. Schubert, A. Roura, W. P. Schleich, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Physical Review Letters 112, 203002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Asenbaum, C

    P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, M. Kim, J. Curti, and M. A. Kasevich, Physical Review Letters 125, 191101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Barrett, G

    B. Barrett, G. Condon, L. Chichet, L. Antoni-Micollier, R. Arguel, M. Rabault, C. Pelluet, V. Jarlaud, A. Lan- dragin, P. Bouyer, et al. , AVS Quantum Science 4 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Jiang, R

    M. Jiang, R. P. Frutos, T. Wu, J. W. Blanchard, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Physical Review Applied 11, 024005 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Lucivero, W

    V. Lucivero, W. Lee, N. Dural, and M. Romalis, Physical Review Applied 15, 014004 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    S. Wu, G. Bao, J. Guo, J. Chen, W. Du, M. Shi, P. Yang, L. Chen, and W. Zhang, Science Advances 9, eadg1760 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Bothwell, C

    T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Nature 602, 420 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, M. C. Cambria, H. M. Lim, and S. Kolkowitz, Nature Communications 14, 4886 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Nature Physics 20, 208 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Y. Yang, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, S. Kraus, J. Hur, and J. Ye, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04538 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Pezze, A

    L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 035005 16 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Huang, M

    J. Huang, M. Zhuang, and C. Lee, Applied Physics Re- views 11 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Foster, J

    G. Foster, J. Fixler, J. McGuirk, and M. Kasevich, Optics letters 27, 951 (2002)

    work page 2002

  30. [30]

    G. Rosi, L. Cacciapuoti, F. Sorrentino, M. Menchetti, M. Prevedelli, and G. Tino, Physical Review Letters 114, 013001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Barrett, L

    B. Barrett, L. Antoni-Micollier, L. Chichet, B. Batte- lier, T. L´ eveque, A. Landragin, and P. Bouyer, Nature communications 7, 13786 (2016)

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Langlois, R

    M. Langlois, R. Caldani, A. Trimeche, S. Merlet, and F. Pereira dos Santos, Physical Review A 96, 053624 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    G. E. Marti, R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, S. L. Campbell, N. Poli, and J. Ye, Physical review letters 120, 103201 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    E. R. Elliott, D. C. Aveline, N. P. Bigelow, P. Boegel, S. Botsi, E. Charron, J. P. d’Incao, P. Engels, T. Estram- pes, N. Gaaloul, et al. , Nature 623, 502 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Physical Review A 46, R6797 (1992)

    work page 1992

  36. [36]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Physical Review A 47, 5138 (1993)

    work page 1993

  37. [37]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C.-P. Sun, and F. Nori, Physics Reports 509, 89 (2011)

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature 621, 734 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Corgier, M

    R. Corgier, M. Malitesta, L. A. Sidorenkov, F. P. D. Santos, G. Rosi, G. M. Tino, A. Smerzi, L. Salvi, and L. Pezz` e, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18256 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Altenburg, M

    S. Altenburg, M. Oszmaniec, S. W¨ olk, and O. G¨ uhne, Physical Review A 96, 042319 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Sekatski, S

    P. Sekatski, S. W¨ olk, and W. D¨ ur, Physical Review Re- search 2, 023052 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Hamann, P

    A. Hamann, P. Sekatski, and W. D¨ ur, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 025003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Hamann, P

    A. Hamann, P. Sekatski, and W. D¨ ur, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 035005 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    J. Bate, A. Hamann, M. Canteri, A. Winkler, Z. X. Koong, V. Krutyanskiy, W. D¨ ur, and B. P. Lanyon, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08940 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Physical Review A 54, R4649 (1996)

    work page 1996

  46. [46]

    Periwal, E

    A. Periwal, E. S. Cooper, P. Kunkel, J. F. Wienand, E. J. Davis, and M. Schleier-Smith, Nature 600, 630 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Letters 72, 3439 (1994)

    work page 1994

  48. [48]

    M. G. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion 7, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  49. [49]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Progress in Optics60, 345 (2015)

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Omran, H

    A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi, et al. , Science 365, 570 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Pogorelov, T

    I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Neg- nevitsky, M. Stadler, et al. , PRX quantum 2, 020343 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    G. J. Mooney, G. A. White, C. D. Hill, and L. C. Hol- lenberg, Journal of Physics Communications 5, 095004 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blan- chard, M. Bohn, et al. , Physical Review X 13, 041052 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Cable and G

    H. Cable and G. A. Durkin, Physical review letters 105, 013603 (2010)

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    Sundar, D

    B. Sundar, D. Barberena, A. P. Orioli, A. Chu, J. K. Thompson, A. M. Rey, and R. J. Lewis-Swan, Physical Review Letters 130, 113202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Mamaev, M

    M. Mamaev, M. Koppenh¨ ofer, A. Pocklington, and A. A. Clerk, Physical review letters 134, 073603 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Urizar-Lanz, P

    I. Urizar-Lanz, P. Hyllus, I. L. Egusquiza, M. W. Mitchell, and G. T´ oth, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 88, 013626 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Physical Review A 59, 141 (1999)

    work page 1999

  59. [59]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review A62, 062314 (2000)

    work page 2000

  60. [60]

    Wang and K

    X. Wang and K. Mølmer, The European Physical Journal D-Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 18, 385 (2002)

    work page 2002

  61. [61]

    Neven, J

    A. Neven, J. Martin, and T. Bastin, Physical Review A 98, 062335 (2018)

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Lin, Z.-W

    C.-J. Lin, Z.-W. Liu, V. V. Albert, and A. V. Gorshkov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20561 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    J. A. Muniz, D. Barberena, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. J. Young, J. R. Cline, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Nature 580, 602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Kurucz and K

    Z. Kurucz and K. Mølmer, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 81, 032314 (2010)

    work page 2010

  65. [65]

    B. A. Chase and J. Geremia, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 78, 052101 (2008)

    work page 2008

  66. [66]

    Z.-X. Gong, M. Xu, M. Foss-Feig, J. K. Thompson, A. M. Rey, M. Holland, and A. V. Gorshkov, arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00797 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Shammah, S

    N. Shammah, S. Ahmed, N. Lambert, S. De Liberato, and F. Nori, Physical Review A 98, 063815 (2018)

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    Nadolny, C

    T. Nadolny, C. Bruder, and M. Brunelli, Physical Review X 15, 011010 (2025)

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    Zhang, Y.-X

    Y. Zhang, Y.-X. Zhang, and K. Mølmer, New Journal of Physics 20, 112001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    S. J. Masson and S. Parkins, Physical Review Letters 122, 103601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    M. A. Norcia, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. R. Cline, B. Zhu, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Science 361, 259 (2018)

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    W. R. Milner, S. Lannig, M. Mamaev, L. Yan, A. Chu, B. Lewis, M. N. Frankel, R. B. Hutson, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13398 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Franke, S

    J. Franke, S. R. Muleady, R. Kaubruegger, F. Kranzl, R. Blatt, A. M. Rey, M. K. Joshi, and C. F. Roos, Nature 621, 740 (2023)

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, B. Ye, M. Block, M. Bintz, J. A. Boyd, D. Barredo, T. Comparin, F. Mez- zacapo, et al. , Nature 621, 728 (2023)

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    J. A. Hines, S. V. Rajagopal, G. L. Moreau, M. D. Wahrman, N. A. Lewis, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Schleier- Smith, Physical Review Letters 131, 063401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Kaubruegger, P

    R. Kaubruegger, P. Silvi, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. M. Rey, J. Ye, A. M. Kaufman, and P. Zoller, Physical review letters 123, 260505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Koczor, S

    B. Koczor, S. Endo, T. Jones, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. C. Benjamin, New Journal of Physics 22, 083038 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Kaubruegger, D

    R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, M. Schulte, K. Ham- merer, and P. Zoller, Physical review X 11, 041045 (2021). 17

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    J. Yu, S. R. Muleady, Y.-X. Wang, N. Schine, A. V. Gor- shkov, and A. M. Childs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03428 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Pi˜ neiro Orioli and A

    A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli and A. M. Rey, Physical Review Letters 123, 223601 (2019)

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.