Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Single-atom resolved collective spectroscopy of a one-dimensional atomic array

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Collective frequency shifts in a 30-atom chain evolve during Ramsey spectroscopy, linking strong-pulse behavior to the low-excitation collective Lamb shift.

desk verdict First observation of a time-dependent collective Lamb shift in a 1D atomic array, with a new single-atom readout; the main claim survives the systematic-error concern, but a non-interacting control would have made it airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02541 v2 pith:UL4RUFH7 submitted 2024-12-03 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

Britton Hofer , Damien Bloch , Giulio Biagioni , Nathan Bonvalet , Antoine Browaeys , Igor Ferrier-Barbut This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords collectiveLambshiftRamseyspectroscopyone-dimensionalatomicarrayresonantdipole-dipoleinteractionsmean-fieldapproximationsingle-atomresolvedreadoutdysprosiumopticaltweezerslatticeclockshifts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper uses a 30-atom one-dimensional dysprosium array with single-atom state readout to watch how cooperative resonant dipole-dipole interactions shift the atomic transition. In low-intensity steady-state spectroscopy it measures the collective Lamb shift versus interatomic spacing, and it observes how excitation builds up along the chain atom by atom. In Ramsey spectroscopy, with pulse areas up to 3π/4 and wait times comparable to the excited-state lifetime, it finds that the shift of the central fringe changes with the free-evolution time. The paper's central result is an analytical mean-field formula for this time-dependent Ramsey shift that connects the strong-pulse regime to the familiar low-excitation collective shift. If correct, it gives a direct physical handle on density-dependent frequency shifts in ordered optical-lattice clocks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the instantaneous precession rate of each atomic Bloch vector in the field radiated by the other atoms. In a mean-field treatment truncated at first order in the dipole-dipole couplings, the rate is $\dot{\phi}(t) = -\delta^0_{\rm spectro}\cos\theta(t)$, with $\theta(t)$ the instantaneous excitation angle set by spontaneous decay. Averaging this rate over the Ramsey wait time gives the central formula; this integration of the time-dependent precession, rather than a static line shift, is what carries the argument. The supporting machinery is the single-shot shelving readout on the broad 421 nm line, which projects each atom's internal state and reveals the per-site excitation pattern.

What would settle it

Measure the Ramsey shift on the same array at a shorter spacing, e.g. $d = 2\lambda$ (1.25 $\mu$m), where the paper itself expects beyond-mean-field effects, and compare the full curve of $\delta_{\rm Ramsey}$ versus $T_{\rm Ramsey}$ to the central formula; a systematic departure that grows with pulse area and density would show the mean-field integration is incomplete. A more direct test would be to measure the two-atom correlation function during the wait time and check whether it stays factorizable as the mean-field approximation requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the collective frequency shift seen in Ramsey spectroscopy on a 30-atom one-dimensional array is not constant but evolves during the wait time between the two pulses, and that its evolution is captured by $\delta_{\rm Ramsey} = \delta^0_{\rm spectro}\left[1 - \frac{(1 - e^{-\Gamma T_{\rm Ramsey}})(1-\cos\theta_0)}{\Gamma T_{\rm Ramsey}}\right]$. Here $\delta^0_{\rm spectro}$ is the low-excitation, linear-regime spectroscopic shift, $\Gamma$ the excited-state linewidth, $T_{\rm Ramsey}$ the free-evolution time, and $\theta_0$ the first pulse area. The formula interpolates between $\delta_{\rm Ramsey} = -\delta^0_{\rm spectro}\cos\theta_0$ at short times and $\delta^0_{\rm spectro}$ at long times, so the shift measured in a Ramsey clock naturally converges to the linear-optics collective Lamb shift as the excited-state population decays. Single-atom-resolved readout is what makes the comparison direct: the excitation distribution along the chain is measured per atom, not inferred from scattered light. The authors treat this as establishing, experimentally, a connection between the large-excitation and low-excitation regimes of the collective Lamb shift.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that a mean-field description, in which each atom feels only the average field of the others and quantum correlations are neglected, is accurate for 30 atoms spaced by about 2.2 wavelengths; the analytical formula and all simulated curves inherit this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In an optical-lattice clock operating with Ramsey interrogation, the density-dependent clock shift is not simply a constant offset; its value during the interrogation depends on pulse area and wait time, and it approaches the low-excitation shift once the excited-state population has decayed.
  • The same single-atom-resolved readout can map how resonant dipole-dipole interactions redistribute excitation along a chain, showing the effective focusing of the drive as the field propagates through the array.
  • At fixed spacing, increasing the drive Rabi frequency suppresses the steady-state collective shift approximately as $1/(1 + 2\Omega^2/\Gamma^2)$, because the average atomic dipole shrinks as the drive strengthens.
  • The measured time-dependent Ramsey shift agrees with mean-field master-equation simulations, supporting the use of such treatments for ordered arrays at spacings around $2.2\lambda$ in the regime studied.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the central formula is derived to first order in the interactions, one can use it as a quantitative benchmark by pushing to shorter spacings or larger arrays, where beyond-mean-field correlations are expected; deviations would define where the mean-field picture breaks down.
  • The per-atom excitation gradient measured along the chain could serve as a local field-strength meter, extending this technique to diagnose cooperative scattering in other geometries such as two-dimensional arrays.
  • With repumping restored, the readout is lossless in principle and could enable repeated interrogation cycles, allowing measurements of correlations between successive Ramsey shots and direct tests of factorizability at the two-atom level.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment on a one-dimensional array of 30 dysprosium atoms with single-atom resolved state readout, used to study resonant dipole-dipole interactions. In the low-intensity (linear) regime, the authors measure the collective Lamb shift versus interatomic spacing, observe the single-atom excitation distribution along the chain, and show that the steady-state shift is suppressed as the drive Rabi frequency increases. In the nonlinear regime, they perform Ramsey spectroscopy and report a time-dependent collective frequency shift that interpolates between the large-excitation short-time shift and the low-excitation linear-regime shift. The central analytical result is Eq. (2), derived in a mean-field approximation, which gives the Ramsey shift as a function of the waiting time and pulse area. The appendices contain detailed mean-field derivations, simulations including positional disorder, and characterizations of the state readout.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide the first single-atom-resolved measurement of the excitation distribution in an ordered array under resonant dipole-dipole interactions, and the first experimental observation of a time-dependent collective Lamb shift in Ramsey spectroscopy, with direct relevance to optical-lattice clocks. The single-shot shelving readout on a narrow intercombination transition is a notable technical achievement, and the data are made available. The derivation of Eq. (2) is parameter-free, with δ0_spectro computed from the known dipole-dipole interaction, and the mean-field simulations include thermal disorder and no fitted parameters for the prediction line. However, the central Ramsey observation is weakened by the manuscript's own admission of unmodeled systematics (footnote 47) and the absence of a non-interacting control, which leaves the time-dependent shift vulnerable to an instrumental phase-offset artifact.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.B, Fig. 5, footnote 47] The central claim of a time-dependent collective Ramsey shift is not cleanly separated from instrumental phase errors. The analysis extracts the shift from the central-fringe position; any phase offset φ0 acquired during the pulses or early free evolution is converted into an apparent frequency shift φ0/TRamsey. Since φ0 can depend on pulse area (e.g., through a frequency chirp during the pulse), this artifact can reproduce the qualitative pulse-area- and time-dependence in Fig. 5(b). Footnote 47 explicitly concedes that an AOM frequency chirp and weak Doppler kicks are present and not accounted for in the simulations. No non-interacting control (single atom or d≫λ) is reported for the Ramsey sequence, and no independent chirp calibration is given. Please provide such a control or a quantitative bound on the phase offset, or otherwise demonstrate that the observed time dependence is not of instrumental origin.
  2. [§IV.B, Eq. (2)] The sign of the short-time Ramsey shift is inconsistent. The main text states that for TRamsey ≪ 1/Γ one obtains δRamsey = −δ0_spectro cosθ0 [19], but Eq. (2) evaluated in the limit T→0 gives δRamsey = +δ0_spectro cosθ0. The subsequent sentence that integrating φ̇ = −δ0_spectro cosθ(t) yields Eq. (2) is also inconsistent, since the integral of a negative rate gives a negative shift. The appendix (F) derivation, with α = ΔL − δ0 Sθ(T), leads to the positive sign. Please correct the sign in the main text and in the expression for φ̇, or explain the sign convention unambiguously.
  3. [§IV.B, footnote 45] The Ramsey data were acquired without the axial lattice, because the lattice turn-off produced systematic shifts in Ramsey interferometry (footnote 45). This also changes δ0_spectro relative to the steady-state measurements that used the lattice. Consequently, the comparison with the low-excitation shift in Fig. 5(b) is made through a simulated value for the no-lattice configuration rather than a direct measurement at the same conditions. Please state explicitly the positional disorder parameters used in the Ramsey simulations, and show how the predicted curves in Fig. 5(b) depend on them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.A] The word 'frive' in 'increasing the frive Rabi frequency' should read 'drive'.
  2. [§IV.B] The symbol θ0 is used both for the pulse area and for the Bloch angle; please define the connection clearly to avoid confusion between the initial pulse area and the time-varying angle θ(t).
  3. [§IV.B, footnote 46] The statement that the probe beam has 'mostly σ− and σ+ polarization components' should be reconciled with the earlier description of the drive as σ−; please clarify how the two-level isolation is maintained in the Ramsey measurements given the additional σ+ component.
  4. [Fig. 5(b) caption] The dashed-dotted orange line is described as the predicted δ0_spectro shift calculated in the low-intensity regime; it would be helpful to quote the numerical value and its uncertainty in the caption, rather than only referring to the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (2) is a parameter-free first-order mean-field derivation, and the input shift is independently computed from the dipole-dipole interaction rather than fitted to the Ramsey data.

full rationale

The paper's central Ramsey result, Eq. (2), is derived in Appendix F by solving the mean-field Bloch equations to first order in the dipole-dipole coupling V_ij, starting from the non-interacting Bloch-vector solution and computing the accumulated phase of the total dipole. The same expression is independently recovered by numerical mean-field integration shown as solid lines in Fig. 5(b). The quantity δ0_spectro entering Eq. (2) is not fitted to the Ramsey data: it is calculated from the known dipole-dipole interaction tensor and the measured atomic geometry, as indicated by the dashed-dotted orange line in Fig. 5(b). The steady-state shifts in Figs. 2 and 4 are extracted as free fit parameters, but those are the reported observables, not inputs that force the Ramsey prediction. Self-citations such as [10], [30], and [31] concern the experimental platform and a previously reported shift-suppression effect; they are consistent with, but not load-bearing for, the present derivation, which is self-contained. Footnote 47 discloses unmodeled AOM chirp and Doppler systematics; this is an experimental systematic risk, not circularity, because no quantity in Eq. (2) is defined in terms of the measured Ramsey shift. The derivation therefore does not reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central calculation rests on standard quantum-optics master equations plus a mean-field factorization of correlations. No free parameters enter the Ramsey prediction; the line shift is fitted only as an extracted observable.

free parameters (1)
  • delta_spectro (collective line shift) = varies with d (1.25-4.5 um) and Omega; see Figs. 2 and 4
    Extracted as a free parameter when fitting the skewed Lorentzian profile (Eq. S2) to experimental spectra. It is the measured observable compared to the analytic prediction, not an ad hoc input.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Markovian master equation with resonant dipole-dipole interactions and collective dissipation (Appendix E)
    Standard open quantum system description for atoms interacting with the vacuum field.
  • domain assumption Mean-field factorization of atomic correlations, <sigma_i sigma_j> about <sigma_i><sigma_j> (Appendix D, Eq. S1)
    Central approximation used in simulations and in the Ramsey derivation. Justified for weak interactions at d > 2 lambda but not exact.
  • standard math First-order perturbation theory in the dipole-dipole coupling V_ij for the Ramsey shift (Appendix F)
    The derivation of Eq. (2) truncates at first order in V_ij; valid for small shifts relative to Gamma.
  • domain assumption Isolation of a two-level system on the 626 nm sigma- transition (footnote 46)
    Other Zeeman transitions are detuned by about 13 MHz; for very short Ramsey times the detuning becomes comparable, so the data excludes T_Ramsey < 0.8 us.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-atom resolved collective spectroscopy of a one-dimensional atomic array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UL4RUFH7

@misc{pith2026241202541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-atom resolved collective spectroscopy of a one-dimensional atomic array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UL4RUFH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02541}
}
read the original abstract

Ordered atomic arrays feature an enhanced collective optical response compared to random atomic ensembles due to constructive interference in resonant dipole-dipole interactions. One consequence is the existence of a large shift of the transition with respect to the bare atomic frequency. In the linear optics regime (low light intensity), one observes a spectroscopic shift of the Lorentzian atomic line often called the collective Lamb shift. For stronger driving, many excitations are present in the system rendering the calculation of this shift theoretically challenging, but its understanding is important for instance when performing Ramsey spectroscopy in optical clocks. Here we report on the study of the collective optical response of a one-dimensional array of 30 dysprosium atoms. We drive the atoms on the narrow intercombination transition isolating a 2-level system, and measure the atomic state with single-shot state readout using a broad transition. In the linear optics regime, we measure the shift of the resonance in steady state due to dipole interactions, and measure how this shift depends on the interatomic distance. We further resolve at the single atom level how the excitation is distributed over the array. Then, on the same transition we perform Ramsey spectroscopy \emph{i.\,e.}~away from the linear regime. We observe a time-dependent shift, that allows us to draw the connection between the collective Lamb shift observed in the linear optics regime and in the large-excitation case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Position-resolved excited state fraction where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Collective frequency shift of a 1D chain of 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Frequency shift of the maximum of the excitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.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. Probing subradiant dynamics in cold atomic ensembles via population and emitted light measurements

    physics.atom-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Direct imaging of excited-state population during subradiant decay in a cold 174Yb cloud reveals decay scaling with optical depth that matches scattered-light data and two-level dipole simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    D. E. Chang, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling dipole-dipole frequency shifts in a lattice-based opti- cal atomic clock, Phys. Rev. A 69, 023810 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [1]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  3. [2]

    Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collec- tive spontaneous emission, Physics Reports 93, 301 (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [3]

    Allen and J

    L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical resonance and two- level atoms (Dover, 1987)

    work page 1987

  5. [4]

    Friedberg, S

    R. Friedberg, S. Hartmann, and J. Manassah, Fre- quency shifts in emission and absorption by resonant systems ot two-level atoms, Physics Reports 7, 101 (1973)

    work page 1973

  6. [5]

    Z. Meir, O. Schwartz, E. Shahmoon, D. Oron, and R. Ozeri, Cooperative lamb shift in a mesoscopic atomic array, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 193002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    S. L. Bromley, B. Zhu, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, T. Both- well, J. Schachenmayer, T. L. Nicholson, R. Kaiser, S. F. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Collec- tive atomic scattering and motional effects in a dense coherent medium, Nature Communications 7, 11039 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Jennewein, M

    S. Jennewein, M. Besbes, N. J. Schilder, S. D. Jenk- ins, C. Sauvan, J. Ruostekoski, J.-J. Greffet, Y . R. P. Sortais, and A. Browaeys, Coherent scattering of near- resonant light by a dense microscopic cold atomic cloud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 233601 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Corman, J

    L. Corman, J. L. Ville, R. Saint-Jalm, M. Aidels- burger, T. Bienaim ´e, S. Nascimb `ene, J. Dalibard, and J. Beugnon, Transmission of near-resonant light through a dense slab of cold atoms, Phys. Rev. A 96, 053629 (2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    Peyrot, Y

    T. Peyrot, Y . R. P. Sortais, A. Browaeys, A. Sargsyan, D. Sarkisyan, J. Keaveney, I. G. Hughes, and C. S. Adams, Collective lamb shift of a nanoscale atomic vapor layer within a sapphire cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 243401 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Glicenstein, G

    A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, N. ˇSibali´c, L. Brossard, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Collective shift in resonant light scattering by a one-dimensional atomic chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 253602 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Skljarow, H

    A. Skljarow, H. K¨ubler, C. S. Adams, T. Pfau, R. L¨ow, and H. Alaeian, Purcell-enhanced dipolar interactions in nanostructures, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023073 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Vatr ´e, R

    R. Vatr ´e, R. Lopes, J. Beugnon, and F. Gerbier, Res- onant light scattering by a slab of ultracold atoms (2024), arXiv:2409.04148 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. 11

    2024

  6. [13]

    M. O. Scully, Collective lamb shift in single pho- ton dicke superradiance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 143601 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    R ¨ohlsberger, K

    R. R ¨ohlsberger, K. Schlage, B. Sahoo, S. Couet, and R. R ¨uffer, Collective lamb shift in single-photon su- perradiance, Science 328, 1248 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    S. J. Roof, K. J. Kemp, M. D. Havey, and I. M. Sokolov, Observation of single-photon superradiance and the cooperative lamb shift in an extended sample of cold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 073003 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    T. Ido, T. H. Loftus, M. M. Boyd, A. D. Ludlow, K. W. Holman, and J. Ye, Precision spectroscopy and density-dependent frequency shifts in ultracold sr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 153001 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    Javanainen, J

    J. Javanainen, J. Ruostekoski, Y . Li, and S.-M. Yoo, Shifts of a resonance line in a dense atomic sample, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 113603 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    B. Zhu, J. Cooper, J. Ye, and A. M. Rey, Light scatter- ing from dense cold atomic media, Phys. Rev. A 94, 023612 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Cidrim, A

    A. Cidrim, A. Pi ˜neiro Orioli, C. Sanner, R. B. Hut- son, J. Ye, R. Bachelard, and A. M. Rey, Dipole-dipole frequency shifts in multilevel atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 013401 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    R. B. Hutson, W. R. Milner, L. Yan, J. Ye, and C. San- ner, Observation of millihertz-level cooperative lamb shifts in an optical atomic clock, Science 383, 384 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Kr ¨amer, L

    S. Kr ¨amer, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, Optimized geometries for future generation optical lattice clocks, Europhysics Letters 114, 14003 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Facchinetti, S

    G. Facchinetti, S. D. Jenkins, and J. Ruostekoski, Storing light with subradiant correlations in arrays of atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 243601 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Facchinetti and J

    G. Facchinetti and J. Ruostekoski, Interaction of light with planar lattices of atoms: Reflection, transmis- sion, and cooperative magnetometry, Phys. Rev. A97, 023833 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    R. J. Bettles, S. A. Gardiner, and C. S. Adams, Coop- erative eigenmodes and scattering in one-dimensional atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. A 94, 043844 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Shahmoon, D

    E. Shahmoon, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Cooperative resonances in light scattering from two-dimensional atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 113601 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    selective radiance

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Exponential improve- ment in photon storage fidelities using subradiance and “selective radiance” in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zei- her, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, A subradiant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer, Nature 583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Srakaew, P

    K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, A subwavelength atomic array switched by a single rydberg atom, Na- ture Physics 19, 714 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Bloch, B

    D. Bloch, B. Hofer, S. R. Cohen, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Trapping and imaging single dyspro- sium atoms in optical tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 203401 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Bloch, B

    D. Bloch, B. Hofer, S. R. Cohen, M. Lepers, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Anisotropic po- larizability of dy at 532 nm on the intercombination transition, Phys. Rev. A 110, 033103 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V . Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assem- bly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, N. Schine, A. M. Childs, and A. M. Kaufman, Tweezer-programmable 2d quan- tum walks in a hubbard-regime lattice, Science 377, 885 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spec- tra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2024, Novem- ber 13]. National Institute of Standards and Technol- ogy, Gaithersburg, MD. (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Kiffner, M

    M. Kiffner, M. Macovei, J. Evers, and C. Keitel, Chap- ter 3 - vacuum-induced processes in multilevel atoms (Elsevier, 2010) pp. 85–197

    2010

  28. [36]

    Glicenstein, A

    A. Glicenstein, A. Apoorva, D. B. Orenes, H. Letel- lier, A. M. G. de Melo, R. Saint-Jalm, and R. Kaiser, In-situ measurements of light diffusion in an optically dense atomic ensemble (2024), arXiv:2409.11117 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nagourney, J

    W. Nagourney, J. Sandberg, and H. Dehmelt, Shelved optical electron amplifier: Observation of quantum jumps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2797 (1986)

    1986

  30. [38]

    Sauter, W

    T. Sauter, W. Neuhauser, R. Blatt, and P. E. Toschek, Observation of quantum jumps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1696 (1986)

    1986

  31. [39]

    R. T. Sutherland and F. Robicheaux, Collective dipole- dipole interactions in an atomic array, Physical Re- view A 94, 10.1103/physreva.94.013847 (2016)

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    R. T. Sutherland and F. Robicheaux, Superradiance in inverted multilevel atomic clouds, Physical Review A 95, 10.1103/physreva.95.033839 (2017)

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Ruostekoski and J

    J. Ruostekoski and J. Javanainen, Quantum field the- ory of cooperative atom response: Low light intensity, Phys. Rev. A 55, 513 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    Zhang and K

    Y .-X. Zhang and K. Mølmer, Theory of subradiant states of a one-dimensional two-level atom chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 203605 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Henriet, J

    L. Henriet, J. S. Douglas, D. E. Chang, and A. Al- brecht, Critical open-system dynamics in a one- dimensional optical-lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023802 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V . Iorsh, A. V . Poshakinskiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Waveguide quan- tum electrodynamics: Collective radiance and photon- photon correlations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    This inhomogeneous broad- ening plays a much stronger role in Ramsey interfer- ometry in comparison to the slow steady-state experi- ments presented above

    When using the lattice for measuring the shift of the Ramsey fringes, we observed systematic shifts which we ascribe to a slow turn-off of the inhomo- geneous lattice potential. This inhomogeneous broad- ening plays a much stronger role in Ramsey interfer- ometry in comparison...

  38. [46]

    The probe beam has linear vertical polarization and propagates parallel to the magnetic field, it thus has mostly σ − and σ + polarization components

  39. [47]

    These systematics would distort the datasets identically, they are not accounted for in simulations

    Some experimental shift might be due to systematic errors which are hard to model, such as a small fre- quency chirp in the fast-turn on of the AOM or a weak Doppler shift imparted on atoms during the interro- gation. These systematics would distort the datasets identically, t...

  40. [48]

    5 is lower than the shift in the linear regime predicted on Fig

    We note that the value of δ 0 spectro on Fig. 5 is lower than the shift in the linear regime predicted on Fig. 2 because the experimental parameters are slightly dif- ferent due to the absence of the lattice for these mea- surements

  41. [49]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules, Nature Physics 17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body sig- natures of collective decay in atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 263601 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Plankensteiner, L

    D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, H. Ritsch, and C. Genes, Selective protected state preparation of cou- pled dissipative quantum emitters, Scientific Reports 5, 10.1038/srep16231 (2015)

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    Olmos, D

    B. Olmos, D. Yu, and I. Lesanovsky, Steady-state properties of a driven atomic ensemble with nonlocal dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023616 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    C. D. Parmee and N. R. Cooper, Phases of driven two- level systems with nonlocal dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053616 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    C. D. Parmee and J. Ruostekoski, Signatures of op- tical phase transitions in superradiant and subradi- ant atomic arrays, Communications Physics 3, 205 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Zhang, S

    V . Zhang, S. Ostermann, O. Rubies-Bigorda, and S. F. Yelin, Emergent limit cycles, chaos, and bista- bility in driven-dissipative atomic arrays (2024), arXiv:2406.19168 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    K. E. Ballantine and J. Ruostekoski, Quantum single- photon control, storage, and entanglement generation with planar atomic arrays, PRX Quantum 2, 040362 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Rubies-Bigorda, V

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, V . Walther, T. L. Patti, and S. F. Yelin, Photon control and coherent interactions via lat- tice dark states in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013110 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Fayard, I

    N. Fayard, I. Ferrier-Barbut, A. Browaeys, and J.-J. Greffet, Optical control of collective states in one- dimensional ordered atomic chains beyond the linear regime, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023116 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    10.5281/zenodo.15856809 (2025)

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Steck, Quantum and Atom Optics (2007)

    D. Steck, Quantum and Atom Optics (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    T. S. do Espirito Santo, P. Weiss, A. Cipris, R. Kaiser, W. Guerin, R. Bachelard, and J. Schachenmayer, Col- lective excitation dynamics of a cold atom cloud, Phys. Rev. A 101, 013617 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.