pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08536 · v1 · pith:UBNPCK7Znew · submitted 2026-06-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Cascaded Rydberg antiblockade: Multi-atom excitation dynamics and entanglement

Jin-Lei Wu , Jun Wu , Pei-Yao Song , Yan Wang , Ya Gao , Xue-Ke Song , Shi-Lei Su This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 18:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Rydberg antiblockadeFloquet modulationDicke-state latticesynthetic dimensionSu-Schrieffer-Heeger modelshortcut to adiabaticitymultipartite entanglementquantum simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Global periodic driving synthesizes an effective Hamiltonian enabling perfect state transfer across a five-site Dicke-state lattice in four Rydberg atoms.

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

The paper proposes a cascaded Rydberg antiblockade regime induced by Floquet modulation on four fully connected atoms. This regime creates a synthetic five-site Dicke-state lattice in collective spin space where an effective Hamiltonian supports perfect state transfer along multiple programmable pathways ranging from stepwise nearest-neighbor jumps to single-step transitions. The same platform simulates a dynamic Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model that realizes topologically inspired full antiblockade transfer robust to disorder and uses shortcut-to-adiabaticity techniques to produce high-fidelity twin-Fock and GHZ entangled states on sub-microsecond timescales. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction supplies a controllable synthetic dimension for quantum simulation and multipartite entanglement without depending on slow adiabatic ramps.

Core claim

By applying a global periodic driving to four fully connected Rydberg atoms we synthesize an effective Hamiltonian in the Dicke-state lattice that enables perfect state transfer across the five-site lattice with multiple programmable pathways from stepwise nearest-neighbor jumps to a single-step transition. This DSL platform further allows simulation of a dynamic Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model where soft quantum control achieves topologically inspired full Rydberg antiblockade from the all-ground to the fully excited state with enhanced robustness against disorder. Incorporating the shortcut to adiabaticity technique generates high-fidelity entangled twin-Fock and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger sta

What carries the argument

The Floquet-modulated cascaded Rydberg antiblockade regime that creates the five-site Dicke-state lattice and its effective Hamiltonian for programmable state transfer.

If this is right

  • Perfect state transfer becomes achievable across the five-site DSL via multiple programmable pathways including stepwise and single-step routes.
  • The dynamic Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model enables topologically inspired full Rydberg antiblockade with enhanced robustness against disorder.
  • Shortcut-to-adiabaticity protocols generate high-fidelity twin-Fock and GHZ states on sub-microsecond timescales.
  • The synthetic Dicke-state lattice supplies a flexible programmable platform for quantum simulation and multipartite entanglement engineering in Rydberg arrays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The programmable pathways could be used to design specific multi-qubit operations or error-protected transfer protocols.
  • Robustness to disorder may translate into practical advantages when the scheme is implemented in arrays with realistic imperfections.
  • The Floquet construction might be adapted to other platforms with collective interactions to create analogous synthetic dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The rotating-wave approximation holds and the Floquet modulation frequency is much larger than the interaction strengths without significant higher-order corrections or decoherence during the protocol.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies the proposed global periodic driving to four Rydberg atoms and measures whether the population transfer from the all-ground state to the fully excited state reaches near-unit fidelity as predicted by the effective Hamiltonian or shows clear deviations when the modulation frequency is lowered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08536 by Jin-Lei Wu, Jun Wu, Pei-Yao Song, Shi-Lei Su, Xue-Ke Song, Ya Gao, Yan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of a bilayer neutral atom array, with one layer holding single atoms assembled at sites in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Complete Rabi-like oscillations between two adjacent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Full RAB processes through population transfers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Population of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Instantaneous energy spectrum of the five-site DSL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Population of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effect of the relative vdW interaction error strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a cascaded Rydberg antiblockade (RAB) regime via a Floquet modulation in four fully connected interacting atoms, which establishes a new synthetic dimension, Dicke-state lattice (DSL), in the space of collective spin excitations. By applying a global periodic driving, we synthesize an effective Hamiltonian that enables perfect state transfer across the five-site DSL with multiple programmable pathways from stepwise nearest-neighbor jumps to a single-step transition. This DSL platform further allows us to simulate a dynamic Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model, where soft quantum control is employed to achieve topologically inspired full RAB $|0000\rangle \to |1111\rangle$ with enhanced robustness against disorder. Moreover, by incorporating the shortcut to adiabaticity technique, we generate high-fidelity entangled twin-Fock and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states on the four atoms within sub-microsecond timescales, outperforming the speed limits of conventional adiabatic protocols. Our work demonstrates a flexible and programmable synthetic dimension for quantum simulation and multipartite entanglement engineering in Rydberg atom arrays, paving the way for the future development of quantum information processing.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cascaded Rydberg antiblockade regime realized via global Floquet modulation on four fully connected atoms. This creates a synthetic five-site Dicke-state lattice (DSL) in the space of collective excitations, enabling an effective Hamiltonian that supports perfect state transfer along multiple programmable pathways (stepwise nearest-neighbor or single-step). The DSL is further used to simulate a dynamic Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model with soft quantum control for robust full antiblockade, and shortcut-to-adiabaticity protocols are applied to generate high-fidelity twin-Fock and GHZ states on sub-microsecond timescales.

Significance. If the effective-Hamiltonian derivations hold under realistic conditions, the work introduces a programmable synthetic dimension for Rydberg arrays that combines topological robustness with fast entanglement engineering, offering a concrete route to multipartite entangled states and quantum simulation beyond conventional adiabatic limits.

major comments (3)
  1. [effective Hamiltonian derivation (Floquet section)] The central claim of perfect state transfer on the five-site DSL (abstract and the effective-Hamiltonian section) rests on the high-frequency rotating-wave approximation for the Floquet drive. No explicit bounds on the modulation frequency ω relative to the Rydberg interaction V or driving amplitude are supplied, nor is an analytic error estimate or Magnus-expansion remainder provided; this scale separation is load-bearing for the asserted exact pathways and must be verified.
  2. [results on state transfer and entanglement generation] No numerical integration of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or fidelity calculations under finite modulation strength and decoherence are presented to benchmark the effective model against the full driven Hamiltonian. This absence directly affects the reliability of the programmable-pathway and SSH-simulation claims.
  3. [shortcut-to-adiabaticity subsection] The shortcut-to-adiabaticity protocol for twin-Fock and GHZ generation (final section) is stated to outperform conventional adiabatic limits, yet no comparison of the required driving parameters or resulting fidelity under the same noise model is given, leaving the speed-up claim unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [model section] Notation for the collective spin operators and the DSL site indexing should be introduced with an explicit table or diagram early in the manuscript for clarity.
  2. [abstract] The abstract states 'four fully connected interacting atoms' while the DSL is five-site; a brief sentence reconciling the mapping would help readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analysis and numerical benchmarks as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [effective Hamiltonian derivation (Floquet section)] The central claim of perfect state transfer on the five-site DSL (abstract and the effective-Hamiltonian section) rests on the high-frequency rotating-wave approximation for the Floquet drive. No explicit bounds on the modulation frequency ω relative to the Rydberg interaction V or driving amplitude are supplied, nor is an analytic error estimate or Magnus-expansion remainder provided; this scale separation is load-bearing for the asserted exact pathways and must be verified.

    Authors: We agree that explicit bounds on the modulation frequency and an error estimate are necessary to rigorously support the high-frequency approximation. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated paragraph deriving the validity condition via a second-order Magnus expansion, yielding an error bound O((V/ω)^2 + (Ω/ω)^2) where Ω is the drive amplitude, together with the requirement ω ≫ max(V, Ω). We also include a brief numerical check confirming convergence of the effective model for the parameters used in the main text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [results on state transfer and entanglement generation] No numerical integration of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or fidelity calculations under finite modulation strength and decoherence are presented to benchmark the effective model against the full driven Hamiltonian. This absence directly affects the reliability of the programmable-pathway and SSH-simulation claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge that direct benchmarking against the full time-dependent Hamiltonian is required to substantiate the effective-model predictions. The revised manuscript now contains new numerical results obtained by integrating the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the driven four-atom system, both with and without phenomenological decoherence. Additional figures report state-transfer fidelities (>0.98) and SSH-model dynamics under finite ω, confirming that the programmable pathways and topological features remain accurate within the stated parameter regime. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [shortcut-to-adiabaticity subsection] The shortcut-to-adiabaticity protocol for twin-Fock and GHZ generation (final section) is stated to outperform conventional adiabatic limits, yet no comparison of the required driving parameters or resulting fidelity under the same noise model is given, leaving the speed-up claim unquantified.

    Authors: We agree that a side-by-side comparison under identical noise conditions is needed to quantify the speed-up. The revised version includes a new table and accompanying plots that compare evolution time, peak Rabi frequency, and final fidelity for the shortcut-to-adiabaticity protocol versus conventional adiabatic ramps, all evaluated under the same Rydberg-decay and dephasing model. The results show a factor-of-three reduction in gate time while maintaining fidelities above 0.97, thereby substantiating the claimed advantage. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: effective Hamiltonian derived via standard Floquet/RWA methods independent of target PST or entanglement outcomes

full rationale

The paper's central derivation synthesizes an effective Hamiltonian from global periodic driving under the rotating-wave approximation and high-frequency limit (ω ≫ interaction strengths). This is a conventional Floquet-engineering step whose validity rests on stated scale-separation assumptions rather than on the target perfect state transfer, SSH simulation, or entanglement fidelities. No equations reduce the claimed PST pathways or entangled-state generation to a fit, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the outcomes follow from the constructed effective model once the RWA is accepted. The manuscript contains no load-bearing self-citations that would render the uniqueness or form of the DSL or cascaded RAB circular. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The proposal rests on the validity of the Floquet effective-Hamiltonian approximation, the perfect connectivity of the four atoms, and the absence of decoherence during the sub-microsecond protocols; no explicit free parameters are fitted in the abstract, but the modulation amplitude and frequency are chosen to realize the desired lattice.

free parameters (1)
  • Floquet modulation amplitude and frequency
    Chosen to open the synthetic dimension and realize the desired effective couplings; values are not numerically specified in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation holds for the periodic driving
    Invoked to derive the effective Hamiltonian for the Dicke-state lattice.
  • domain assumption Four atoms are fully connected with uniform Rydberg interactions
    Required for the five-site DSL to form without additional site-dependent terms.
invented entities (1)
  • Dicke-state lattice (DSL) no independent evidence
    purpose: Synthetic dimension in collective excitation space
    New lattice constructed via Floquet driving; no independent experimental evidence provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5741 in / 1457 out tokens · 16011 ms · 2026-06-27T18:28:34.142292+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references

  1. [1]

    We then can use the STA scheme, similar to the process of generating the twin-Fock state|2,0⟩, to transfer|2,0⟩to the GHZ state of four atoms. To com- plete the generation of GHZ state, we connect the process of generating the twin-Fock state from the fully ground state|2,−2⟩(setting the durationT 1 = 0.22µs) to the process of transferring|2,0⟩to the GHZ ...

  2. [2]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Nature551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    J. Yao, L. Lin, and M. Bukov, Phys. Rev. X11, 031070 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Y. Yao, L. Xiang, Z. Guo, Z. Bao, Y.-F. Yang, Z. Song, H. Shi, X. Zhu, F. Jin, J. Chen, S. Xu, Z. Zhu, F. Shen, N. Wang, C. Zhang, Y. Wu, Y. Zou, P. Zhang, H. Li, Z. Wang, C. Song, C. Cheng, R. Mondaini, H. Wang, J. Q. You, S.-Y. Zhu, L. Ying, and Q. Guo, Nat. Phys. 19, 1459 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Q. Wang, Y. Liang, Z. Wang, S. Guan, P. Yang, P. Zhang, G. Li, and T. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 264211 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Y.-T. Lee, B. Pokharel, J. Cohn, A. Schleife, and A. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 050603 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Zhang, T.-Y

    Z.-Y. Zhang, T.-Y. Zhang, Z.-K. Liu, D.-S. Ding, and B.-S. Shi, Acta Phys. Sin.69, 180301 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, AVS Quantum Sci.3, 023501 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    X. Wu, X. Liang, Y. Tian, F. Yang, C. Chen, Y.-C. Liu, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Chin. Phys. B30, 020305 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Shi, Quantum Sci

    X.-F. Shi, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 023002 (2022). 9

    2022

  13. [13]

    Shao, S.-L

    X.-Q. Shao, S.-L. Su, L. Li, R. Nath, J.-H. Wu, and W. Li, Appl. Phys. Rev.11, 031320 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    S. X. Li, W. L. Mu, J. B. You, and X. Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. A109, 062603 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Tang, X.-X

    H.-Y. Tang, X.-X. Li, J.-B. You, and X.-Q. Shao, APL Quantum1, 036109 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Y. Zeng, P. Xu, X. He, Y. Liu, M. Liu, J. Wang, D. J. Papoular, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Zhan, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 160502 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    An, B.-W

    Z.-Y. An, B.-W. Lu, J. Li, C.-W. Yang, L. Li, X.-H. Bao, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 230803 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Fromonteil, D

    C. Fromonteil, D. Bluvstein, and H. Pichler, PRX Quan- tum4, 020335 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    S.-L. Su, C. Wang, P.-Y. Song, and G. Chen, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 040302 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Sun, Sci

    Y. Sun, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 120311 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    C. F. Sun, X. Y. Chen, W. L. Mu, G. C. Wang, J. B. You, and X. Q. Shao, EPJ Quantum Technol.11, 34 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    C. Ates, T. Pohl, T. Pattard, and J. M. Rost, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 023002 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    T. E. Lee, H. H¨ affner, and M. C. Cross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 023602 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    F. M. Gambetta, C. Zhang, M. Hennrich, I. Lesanovsky, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 133602 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Su, F.-Q

    S.-L. Su, F.-Q. Guo, J.-L. Wu, Z. Jin, X. Q. Shao, and S. Zhang, Europhys. Lett.131, 53001 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Liu, Z.-C

    F. Liu, Z.-C. Yang, P. Bienias, T. Iadecola, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 013603 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    X. X. Li, D. X. Li, and X. Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. A109, 042604 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    F. Q. Guo, S.-L. Su, W. Li, and X. Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. A111, 022420 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Eckardt, Rev

    A. Eckardt, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 011004 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y. Kim, A. Hashim, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, B. Bhandari, D. Das, R. K. Naik, J. M. Kreikebaum, A. N. Jordan, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Nat. Phys. 20, 240 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    L. Zhou, B. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Lu, Q. Li, X. Xie, N. Lydick, R. Hao, C. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y.-H. Chou, S. R. Forrest, and H. Deng, Nat. Commun.15, 7782 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Basak, Y

    S. Basak, Y. Chougale, and R. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 123204 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    L. Zhao, M. D. K. Lee, M. M. Aliyu, and H. Loh, Nat. Commun.14, 7128 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    S. K. Mallavarapu, A. Niranjan, W. Li, S. W¨ uster, and R. Nath, Phys. Rev. A103, 023335 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Y. Wei, M. Artoni, G. C. La Rocca, J. H. Wu, and X. Q. Shao, Phys. Rev. A113, 032812 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Wu, S.-L

    J.-L. Wu, S.-L. Su, Y. Wang, J. Song, Y. Xia, and Y.-Y. Jiang, Opt. Lett.45, 1200 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    J.-L. Wu, Y. Wang, J.-X. Han, Y.-K. Feng, S.-L. Su, Y. Xia, Y. Jiang, and J. Song, Photon. Res.9, 814 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    J.-L. Wu, Y. Wang, J.-X. Han, S.-L. Su, Y. Xia, Y. Jiang, and J. Song, Phys. Rev. A103, 012601 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    J.-L. Wu, Y. Wang, J.-X. Han, S.-L. Su, Y. Xia, J. Song, and Y. Jiang, Adv. Quantum Technol.5, 2200042 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Wu, J.-L

    J. Wu, J.-L. Wu, F.-Q. Guo, B.-B. Liu, S.-L. Su, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, npj Quantum Inf.11, 118 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    R. Li, D. Yu, S.-L. Su, and J. Qian, Phys. Rev. A101, 042328 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    J.-L. Wu, Y. Wang, J.-X. Han, Y. Jiang, J. Song, Y. Xia, S.-L. Su, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 064031 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    S. L. Su, H. Z. Shen, E. Liang, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A98, 032306 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    T. H. Xing, X. Wu, and G. F. Xu, Phys. Rev. A101, 012306 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    S.-L. Su, Y. Gao, E. Liang, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022319 (2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    S. Bai, X. Tian, X. Han, Y. Jiao, J. Wu, J. Zhao, and S. Jia, New J. Phys.22, 013004 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    Boada, A

    O. Boada, A. Celi, J. I. Latorre, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 133001 (2012)

    2012

  49. [49]

    Ozawa and H

    T. Ozawa and H. M. Price, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 349 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Ehrhardt, S

    M. Ehrhardt, S. Weidemann, L. J. Maczewsky, M. Hein- rich, and A. Szameit, Laser Photon. Rev.17, 2200518 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Arg¨ uello-Luengo, U

    J. Arg¨ uello-Luengo, U. Bhattacharya, A. Celi, R. W. Chhajlany, T. Grass, M. P lodzie´ n, D. Rakshit, T. Sala- mon, P. Stornati, L. Tarruell, and M. Lewenstein, Com- mun. Phys.7, 143 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    D. Yu, W. Song, L. Wang, R. Srikanth, S. K. Sridhar, T. Chen, C. Huang, G. Li, X. Qiao, X. Wu, Z. Dong, Y. He, M. Xiao, X. Chen, A. Dutt, B. Gadway, and L. Yuan, Photon. Insights4, R06 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  54. [54]

    J. F. Haase, Z.-Y. Wang, J. Casanova, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 050402 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    Y. Wang, X. Zhang, T. A. Corcovilos, A. Kumar, and D. S. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 043003 (2015)

    2015

  57. [57]

    Y. Wang, A. Kumar, T.-Y. Wu, and D. S. Weiss, Science 352, 1562 (2016)

    2016

  58. [58]

    Barredo, V

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Nature561, 79 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Kumar, T.-Y

    A. Kumar, T.-Y. Wu, F. Giraldo, and D. S. Weiss, Na- ture561, 83 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    Z. Meng, L. Wang, W. Han, F. Liu, K. Wen, C. Gao, P. Wang, C. Chin, and J. Zhang, Nature615, 231 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 123603 (2018)

    2018

  62. [62]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    H. Zhou, X. Chen, X. Nie, J. Bian, Y. Ji, Z. Li, and X. Peng, Sci. Bull.64, 888 (2019)

    2019

  64. [64]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    Farhi and S

    E. Farhi and S. Gutmann, Phys. Rev. A58, 915 (1998)

    1998

  66. [66]

    Christandl, N

    M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert, and A. J. Landahl, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 187902 (2004)

    2004

  67. [67]

    X. Li, Y. Ma, J. Han, T. Chen, Y. Xu, W. Cai, H. Wang, Y. Song, Z.-Y. Xue, Z.-q. Yin, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054009 (2018). 10

    2018

  68. [68]

    Qi, G.-L

    L. Qi, G.-L. Wang, S. Liu, S. Zhang, and H.-F. Wang, Opt. Lett.45, 2018 (2020)

    2018

  69. [69]

    F. Mei, G. Chen, L. Tian, S.-L. Zhu, and S. Jia, Phys. Rev. A98, 012331 (2018)

    2018

  70. [70]

    Guo, J.-L

    J.-K. Guo, J.-L. Wu, J. Cao, S. Zhang, and S.-L. Su, Phys. Rev. A110, 043510 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Yin and X.-Q

    H.-D. Yin and X.-Q. Shao, Opt. Lett.46, 2541 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    X. Li, X. Shao, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 044042 (2022)

    2022

  73. [73]

    Q. Wu, J. Xing, and H. Yin, EPJ Quantum Technol.11, 1 (2024)

    2024

  74. [74]

    J.-L. Wu, S. Tang, Y. Wang, X. Wang, J.-X. Han, C. L¨ u, J. Song, S.-L. Su, Y. Xia, and Y. Jiang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.65, 220311 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    Wu, K.-H

    J.-L. Wu, K.-H. Xiao, X. Ni, J.-K. Guo, X.-L. Zhang, Q.- D. Chen, Y. Wang, Z.-Z. Li, S.-L. Su, Z.-N. Tian, and H.-B. Sun, Nat. Commun.17, 966 (2025)

    2025

  76. [76]

    Zheng, Y.-H

    R.-H. Zheng, Y.-H. Kang, D. Ran, Z.-C. Shi, and Y. Xia, Phys. Rev. A101, 012345 (2020)

    2020

  77. [77]

    Haase, G

    T. Haase, G. Alber, and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. A103, 032427 (2021)

    2021

  78. [78]

    Haase, G

    T. Haase, G. Alber, and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033087 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c and J. K. Nauth, Phys. Rev. A106, 052613 (2022)

    2022

  80. [80]

    J. K. Nauth and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. A106, 032605 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.