Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Variational spin-squeezing algorithms on programmable quantum sensors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A programmable quantum sensor can use variational feedback to prepare spin-squeezed states that beat standard squeezing protocols, even with realistic noise.

desk verdict A solid variational proposal for spin squeezing in tweezer clocks; the central existence claim holds, but the on-device cost function and the reported squeezing parameter are not the same quantity and need reconciling. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08343 v1 pith:YKTGK55E submitted 2019-08-22 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Raphael Kaubruegger , Pietro Silvi , Christian Kokail , Rick van Bijnen , Ana Maria Rey , Jun Ye , Adam M. Kaufman , Peter Zoller This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.-a06.30.Ft
keywords spinsqueezingvariationalquantumalgorithmprogrammablesensorRydbergdressingopticaltweezerarraysRamseyinterferometrymetrologyone-axistwisting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a way to make a programmable quantum sensor an array of strontium atoms in optical tweezers with Rydberg-dressed interactions prepare its own optimally entangled states. The idea is a variational feedback loop: the device generates a trial squeezed state from a short sequence of global gates, measures a cost function that quantifies metrological gain, and a classical optimizer adjusts the gate parameters. The authors show numerically that in square and one-dimensional arrays this loop reaches spin-squeezing levels beyond finite-range one-axis twisting, infinite-range one-axis twisting, and two-axis twisting, and that the optimized states survive stochastic filling and control noise. Because the optimization runs on the real device, the final state automatically accounts for imperfections that a purely numerical optimization would miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-squeezing parameter $\xi^2(\theta)=N(\Delta J_{\perp,\min})^2/|\langle\mathbf{J}\rangle|^2$, used as the variational cost function, together with the unitary squeezer $S(\theta)=U_n\cdots U_1$. Each layer combines two finite-range Ising interaction gates $D_z(\tau_i)$ and $D_x(\tau'_i)$, generated from Rydberg dressing by spin-echo sequences, with a global rotation $R_x(\vartheta_i)$. This ordering is the most general gate sequence that preserves the collective spin direction along $x$ through parity symmetry, so $\langle J_y\rangle=0$ by construction and the cost can be estimated from $x$- and $y$-basis measurements alone. The $D_x$ gate is what lets the circuit escape the short-time limitation of pure one-axis twisting: numerical results show that $D_x$ unwinds the non-Gaussian, S-shaped Husimi distributions that finite-range $D_z$ dynamics generates irreversibly, allowing longer interaction times and better squeezing. The optimization is performed by a derivative-free search algorithm on the device, with the cost estimated from a number of measurements that does not grow with $N$.

What would settle it

Perform the feedback-loop optimization, then measure the collective-spin covariance matrix in the $y$-$z$ plane for the optimal parameters; if the minimum-variance direction is measurably away from $y$, the cost actually optimized on the device is not the spin-squeezing parameter quoted in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that spin-squeezed states for Ramsey interferometry can be prepared variationally from the finite-range Ising interactions available in Rydberg-dressed tweezer arrays, using a circuit $S(\theta)=U_n\cdots U_1$ with each layer $U_i=D_x(\tau'_i)R_x(\vartheta_i)D_z(\tau_i)$. The circuit is deliberately built from global gates only, so the number of variational parameters, $3n$, is independent of the number of atoms $N$, and every gate commutes with parity in the $x$ direction, which keeps the collective Bloch vector along $x$ and removes the need to measure its direction. The paper claims that optimizing the spin-squeezing parameter $\xi^2$ on the device itself, using a finite number of projective measurements per parameter update, yields states whose squeezing surpasses the values reachable with finite-range one-axis twisting, infinite-range one-axis twisting, and two-axis twisting in the geometries studied, and that the improvement persists under stochastic filling and Gaussian control noise.

Load-bearing premise

The feedback loop assumes that the variance measured along the fixed $y$-axis is the same as the smallest transverse variance that defines the spin-squeezing parameter; the paper pins the Bloch vector along $x$ but never checks that the optimal squeezed axis is $y$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, a tweezer-based clock can run the optimization loop at realistic repetition rates, around $10^5$ shots, and end with a state already adapted to the device's own noise without needing a perfect model.
  • Because the parameter count $3n$ is independent of $N$, the same pulse sequence can be transferred to larger arrays; parameters optimized for the bulk can be reused on bigger systems with improved squeezing.
  • Since the relative precision of the cost estimator saturates as $N$ grows, the feedback loop does not need more measurements per evaluation at larger system sizes.
  • The optimal circuit depth is set by the noise level: deeper circuits give better ideal squeezing, but noise-affected results identify a finite optimal depth $n$.
  • The method extends beyond squeezing to variationally optimizing other metrological cost functions, such as Fisher information, as the authors outline in their outlook.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the cost-function alignment can be tested by computing, for the optimized states, the minimal transverse variance over all directions perpendicular to the $x$-axis and comparing it with the $y$-basis estimator; a mismatch would indicate the feedback loop should measure a rotated quadrature.
  • Going beyond the paper, the same layer structure could be run with the squeezing axis treated as a variational parameter, or with a penalty that enforces a chosen Bloch-vector length, extending the penalized-cost idea the paper only touches on.
  • Going beyond the paper, because the number of parameters is independent of $N$, the ansatz is a candidate for scalable variational metrology on other programmable platforms where finite-range interactions are available, such as molecule arrays or optical lattices.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid classical-quantum variational algorithm for generating spin-squeezed states on programmable Rydberg-dressed tweezer arrays. The central object is a shallow circuit S(θ)=U_n...U_1 with layers U_i=D_x(τ'_i)R_x(ϑ_i)D_z(τ_i), built from global rotation gates and Ising interaction gates with a finite-range Rydberg-dressed potential. The authors argue that the parity symmetry P_x keeps the collective Bloch vector along x, and that the number of variational parameters is independent of N. They present three sets of results: (i) a simulated on-device feedback loop with shot noise on a 4x4 array; (ii) exact numerical optimizations for 4x4 arrays as a function of interaction radius and circuit depth, reporting squeezing beyond finite-range OAT, infinite-range OAT, and TAT; and (iii) MPS simulations for 1D chains up to N=150, showing moderate improvement with system size and stronger improvement with depth. Robustness to stochastic filling and to Gaussian control noise is also studied. The supplemental material contains a detailed discussion of the pulse decomposition, Husimi-function visualization, measurement scaling, and a penalty-modified cost function.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would establish a practical variational route to entangled-state preparation for metrology on tweezer-based optical clocks, with an experimentally concrete platform and a feedback loop that adapts to device noise. The work has genuine strengths: the exact small-system optimizations are a non-circular comparison against independent protocols (fOAT, OAT, TAT); the shot-noise emulation and the filling/noise robustness tests are concrete; the SM gives a full decomposition of each layer into Rydberg-dressing pulses and a useful measurement-scaling analysis; and the number of variational parameters scales as 3n, independent of N. However, the central on-device claim currently rests on an unverified identification between the experimentally estimated cost and the rotationally invariant squeezing parameter used in the benchmarks, and the 1D MPS results lack convergence evidence. Both issues are fixable in revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [2D arrays: single optimization run with shot noise; Eq. (1); Fig. 4] The simulated on-device feedback loop minimizes ξ²(θ_i)=N⟨J_y²⟩/⟨J_x⟩², whereas the exact optimization results in Figs. 3 and 4 are reported for the rotationally invariant spin-squeezing parameter of Eq. (1), as explicitly labeled in Fig. 4. Parity P_x only guarantees ⟨J_y⟩=⟨J_z⟩=0, not that the minimum transverse variance lies along y; the D_x gates twist the y–z plane and no final R_x rotation is included in the ansatz to align the squeezed quadrature with y. The device-level optimization therefore minimizes a different quantity from the one compared against OAT/TAT/fOAT, so the claimed on-device enhancement is not directly supported by the present figures. Please either add a final rotation and estimate the full transverse covariance matrix, or provide y-cost versions of all benchmark curves, including the reference protocols, so that the comparison is made on the same cost function.
  2. [1D arrays; SM 'Measurement scaling with system size'] The MPS simulations for 1D chains (Fig. 3, top right panel, and SM Fig. 10) do not report bond dimensions or truncation errors. For finite-range Ising dynamics at R_C/a=3, entanglement can grow with N, and a fixed bond dimension could artifactually flatten the ξ²(N) curve and support the parameter-transfer claim. Please provide convergence checks of ξ² with respect to bond dimension for the largest system sizes studied, or state the truncation error for each data point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Material, 'Design of the variational circuit'] The statement that the allowed gates preserving the axis are 'R_z, D_x, D_z' conflicts with the main-text claim that gates commuting with P_x reduce rotations to R_x; R_z does not preserve the x-axis. Please correct this typo or clarify the intended set of allowed gates.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The labels A and B for the OAT reference lines are not defined in the caption; please define them there or in a legend so that the figure is self-contained.
  3. [2D arrays: single optimization run with shot noise] The relation between '100 runs for a single cost function evaluation' and the total budget of roughly 10^5 runs is not stated explicitly; adding one sentence would make the optimization trajectory in Fig. 1 easier to interpret.
  4. [SM, 'Measurement scaling with system size'] The claim that the number of measurements per cost evaluation does not increase with N is derived for a particular optimally squeezed state; for generic trial states with small ⟨J_x⟩, the relative error of the ratio can be large. Please qualify the statement accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central variational optimization is self-contained and benchmarked against external OAT/TAT/fOAT protocols.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is numerical: a fixed-depth variational circuit S(θ)=∏[D_x(τ')R_x(ϑ)D_z(τ)] is optimized over its parameters to minimize the spin-squeezing parameter, and the resulting optimized values are compared with externally defined protocols (Kitagawa–Ueda OAT/TAT and Gil et al. fOAT). The optimized ξ² values are outputs of numerical search, not inputs: the cost function and the reported metric are the same independently defined metrological quantity, which is standard variational optimization rather than circularity. The ansatz is a stated design choice, and the claim that Eq. (3) is the 'most general' sequence satisfying the authors' self-imposed requirements is an internal design statement, not a result borrowed from prior work. The only self-citation is Ref. [19] for the DIRECT optimizer implementation; that is a methodological detail, the optimizer is an established external algorithm, and the citation is not load-bearing for the physical conclusions. The distinction between the rotationally invariant ξ² used in the exact results and the y-variance estimator used in the simulated feedback loop is a possible validity gap for the on-device claim, but it is not a reduction of a prediction to its inputs: the simulated cost is still an independently measurable quantity, and the benchmark comparisons are external. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces by construction to its own definition. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for its main numerical claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main numerical results rest on the Rydberg-dressing Hamiltonian, the spin-echo gate decomposition, the expressivity of the global-pulse ansatz, and the identity between the measured y-variance cost and the true squeezing parameter. The variational angles are optimized numerically and are not tabulated, which is the main free-parameter content. No new physical entities are introduced. Several assumptions are standard for this platform but are asserted rather than proven, which is why the soundness score is not higher.

free parameters (2)
  • Variational angles θ = {τ_i, ϑ_i, τ'_i} for n layers = reported graphically only, not tabulated
    The numerical demonstrations are obtained by optimizing these 3n angles against the spin-squeezing cost. They are outputs of the optimization rather than pre-existing constants, but any reproduction needs their values, and the paper does not provide them in machine-readable form.
  • Penalty threshold x̄ = N/√8 = N/√8
    Introduced in the supplemental modified cost function to prevent the optimized state from developing a vanishing Bloch vector length. It is chosen from a known Heisenberg-scaling criterion rather than measured, and it affects the robustness study but not the main squeezing curves.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rydberg dressing produces the pure Ising Hamiltonian H_D = sum V_ij s_i^z s_j^z + sum δ_i s_i^z with the soft-core potential V_ij of Eq. (2).
    All numerics and gate design substitute this Hamiltonian for the real physical interaction. If additional terms such as excitation exchange, blockade effects, or position-dependent laser imperfections dominate, the simulated performance may not transfer.
  • domain assumption The spin-echo pulse sequence in Eq. (4) exactly cancels single-particle light shifts and implements the desired D_z(τ) gate.
    The pulse decomposition assumes perfect π rotations and no dephasing during the echo sequence. Imperfect echo pulses would introduce residual single-particle terms not captured in the model.
  • ad hoc to paper The ansatz in Eq. (3) is the most general gate sequence satisfying the parity and global-gate requirements, so no better global-pulse sequence is needed.
    The supplemental material gives a symmetry-based motivation but no formal completeness proof. If the ansatz is not expressive enough, the reported squeezing values may be lower bounds rather than near-optimal performance.
  • domain assumption The experimentally measured cost N⟨J_y²⟩/⟨J_x⟩² equals the true spin-squeezing parameter of Eq. (1), which is the minimum transverse variance.
    The paper shows that the Bloch vector stays along x by parity symmetry, but it does not show that the squeezed quadrature is oriented along y. This is the main load-bearing assumption in the experimental feedback-loop protocol.
  • domain assumption Exact diagonalization and matrix product state simulations faithfully represent the dynamics for the studied geometries, including the 1D chains up to N=150.
    The paper does not report MPS bond dimensions or truncation errors. For shallow circuits with finite-range interactions the method is likely reliable, but the absence of convergence data is a gap in the numerical evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational spin-squeezing algorithms on programmable quantum sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKTGK55E

@misc{pith2026190808343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational spin-squeezing algorithms on programmable quantum sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKTGK55E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08343}
}
read the original abstract

Arrays of atoms trapped in optical tweezers combine features of programmable analog quantum simulators with atomic quantum sensors. Here we propose variational quantum algorithms, tailored for tweezer arrays as programmable quantum sensors, capable of generating entangled states on-demand for precision metrology. The scheme is designed to generate metrological enhancement by optimizing it in a feedback loop on the quantum device itself, thus preparing the best entangled states given the available quantum resources. We apply our ideas to generate spin-squeezed states on Sr atom tweezer arrays, where finite-range interactions are generated through Rydberg dressing. The complexity of experimental variational optimization of our quantum circuits is expected to scale favorably with system size. We numerically show our approach to be robust to noise, and surpassing known protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hybrid classical-quantum optimization on a pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum circuit representing the variational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exact optimization results for circuit depths from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real-time dynamics of optimized pulse sequences, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Populations pj of the many-body wavefunc￾tion, over the various eigenspaces j of the total angular mo￾mentum J 2 , plotted in real-time for an optimal pulse se￾quence. The system is a triangular lattice with N = 12 atoms, interaction radius Rc = 1.3 and circuit de…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Total interaction times T = P i (τi + τ 0 i ) of the optimal gate circuits for the exact optimization. Curves in two panels correspond to the optimal results in the two top panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Husimi-distributions of the three largest angular momentum shells, for the same optimized gate sequence shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variational optimization of the spin-squeezing in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Exact optimization results of the modified cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: relative squeezing error for the optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. An atomic array optical clock with single-atom readout

    physics.atom-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An optical clock made from a 40-atom strontium tweezer array with single-atom readout reaches 2.5×10^-15/√τ stability and agrees with a detailed Monte Carlo simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de Léséleuc, T. Macrì, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Nature 534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nature551, 579 EP (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Anderegg, L

    L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y. Bao, S. Burch- esky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, arXiv:1902.00497 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Cooper, J

    A. Cooper, J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. Endres, Phys. Rev. X8, 041055 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, and A. M. Kaufman, Phys. Rev. X8, 041054 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Saskin, J

    S. Saskin, J. T. Wilson, B. Grinkemeyer, and J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 143002 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, and M. Endres, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 173201 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, E. Oelker, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, arXiv:1904.10934 (2019)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, A. L. Shaw, J. P. Covey, V. Schkolnik, T. H. Yoon, J. R. Williams, and M. En- dres, arXiv:1908.05619 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M.KitagawaandM.Ueda,Phys.Rev.A 47,5138(1993)

    1993

  3. [11]

    L. I. R. Gil, R. Mukherjee, E. M. Bridge, M. P. A. Jones, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 103601 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Rahmani, T

    A. Rahmani, T. Kitagawa, E. Demler, and C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. A87, 043607 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhorn, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, P. Mueller, W. Riess, G. Salis, J. Smolin, I. Tavernelli, and K. Temme, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 030503 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Nature569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    N. Klco, E. Dumitrescu, A. McCaskey, T. Morris, R. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. Savage, arXiv:1803.03326 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pichler, S.-T

    H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, L. Zhou, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, arXiv:1808.10816 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    P. J. J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jef- frey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quin...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Performing occasional re-optimization steps, via local search algorithm starting from the previous optimal so- lution, can account for low frequency noise, fluctuating at timescales longer than the optimization runtime (slow drifts in the experimental quantities)

  18. [26]

    D.J.Wineland, J.J.Bollinger, W.M.Itano, F.L.Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C. J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q. A. Turchette, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and C. Monroe, Nature404, 256 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Leibfried, E

    D. Leibfried, E. Knill, S. Seidelin, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. Chiaverini, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, R. Reichle, and D. J. Wineland, Nature438, 639 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. Hänsel, M. Hen- nrich, and R.Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130506(2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Science 352, 1297 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Estève, C

    J. Estève, C. Gross, A. Weller, S. Giovanazzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature455, 1216 EP (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    M. F. Riedel, P. Böhi, Y. Li, T. W. Hänsch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, Nature464, 1170 EP (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Lücke, M

    B. Lücke, M. Scherer, J. Kruse, L. Pezzé, F. Deuret- zbacher, P. Hyllus, O. Topic, J.Peise, W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, L. Santos, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, Science334, 773 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    C. D. Hamley, C. S. Gerving, T. M. Hoang, E. M. Book- jans, and M. S. Chapman, Nature Physics 8, 305 EP (2012). 6

    2012

  27. [35]

    Berrada, S

    T. Berrada, S. van Frank, R. Bücker, T. Schumm, J.-F. Schaff, and J. Schmiedmayer, Nature Communications 4, 2077 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Zou, L.-N

    Y.-Q. Zou, L.-N. Wu, Q. Liu, X.-Y. Luo, S.-F. Guo, J.-H. Cao, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 6381 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Appel, P

    J. Appel, P. J. Windpassinger, D. Oblak, U. B. Hoff, N. Kjærgaard, and E. S. Polzik, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences106, 10960 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, and V. Vuletić, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 073602 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Z. Chen, J. G. Bohnet, J. M. Weiner, K. C. Cox, and J. K. Thompson, Phys. Rev. A89, 043837 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    R. J. Sewell, M. Napolitano, N. Behbood, G. Colangelo, F. Martin Ciurana, and M. W. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021045 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Barontini, L

    G. Barontini, L. Hohmann, F. Haas, J. Estève, and J. Reichel, Science349, 1317 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature529, 505 EP (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Y. C. Liu, Z. F. Xu, G. R. Jin, and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 013601 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Shen and L.-M

    C. Shen and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. A 87, 051801 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Zhang, X.-F

    J.-Y. Zhang, X.-F. Zhou, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-W. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A90, 013604 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Pichler, T

    T. Pichler, T. Caneva, S. Montangero, M. D. Lukin, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. A93, 013851 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Bouchoule and K

    I. Bouchoule and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A65, 041803 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Brif and A

    C. Brif and A. Mann, Phys. Rev. A54, 4505 (1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    A. S. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4431 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    S. L. Campbell, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, A. Goban, N. Darkwah Oppong, R. L. McNally, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, W. Zhang, B. J. Bloom, and J. Ye, Science 358, 90 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Henkel, R

    N. Henkel, R. Nath, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 195302 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Pupillo, A

    G. Pupillo, A. Micheli, M. Boninsegni, I. Lesanovsky, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 223002 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Honer, H

    J. Honer, H. Weimer, T. Pfau, and H. P. Büchler, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 160404 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    J. E. Johnson and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. A82, 033412 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Y.-Y. Jau, A. M. Hankin, T. Keating, I. H. Deutsch, and G. W. Biedermann, Nature Physics12, 71 EP (2015), article

    2015

  49. [57]

    Zeiher, R

    J. Zeiher, R. van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J.-y. Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature Physics12, 1095 EP (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Zeiher, J.-y

    J. Zeiher, J.-y. Choi, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Pohl, R. van Bijnen, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Phys. Rev. X7, 041063 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    A. D. Bounds, N. C. Jackson, R. K. Hanley, R. Faoro, E. M. Bridge, P. Huillery, and M. P. A. Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 183401 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Arias, G

    A. Arias, G. Lochead, T. M. Wintermantel, S. Helmrich, and S. Whitlock, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 053601 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Sci- ence 345, 424 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    D. R. Jones, C. D. Perttunen, and B. E. Stuckman, JournalofOptimizationTheoryandApplications 79,157 (1993)

    1993

  55. [63]

    Finkel and C

    D. Finkel and C. Kelley, N. C. State Univ.14 (2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    P. E. Nicholas, Proceedings of the INFORMS Computing Society Conference14, 47 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    H.Liu, S.Xu, X.Wang, J.Wu, andY.Song,Engineering Optimization 47, 1441 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  59. [67]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Tóth, Phys

    G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Foss-Feig, Z.-X

    M. Foss-Feig, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. W. Clark, arXiv:1612.07805 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, C. Karrasch, J. E. Moore, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B91, 165112 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  64. [72]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, MIT- CTP/4610 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    Farhi and A

    E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, arXiv:1602.07674 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, arXiv:1812.01041 (2018). 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Below we collect the supplemental material forVaria- tional spin-squeezing on programmable quantum sensors, which is organized as follows: In section I, we intro- duce t...

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.