Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Superheterodyne Rydberg S-band receiver with a multi-tone local oscillator based on an atomic transition loop

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A phase-sensitive S-band Rydberg receiver works without a local oscillator at the signal frequency, using a closed loop of three microwave fields whose signal phase is recovered at the beat…

desk verdict A genuine first demonstration of a fully microwave transition loop, but the missing PIM control makes the central 'no on-frequency LO' claim untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11418 v3 pith:C2KFSOW5 submitted 2025-01-20 physics.optics physics.atom-phquant-ph

Jan Nowosielski , Mateusz Mazelanik , Wojciech Wasilewski , Micha{l} Parniak This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords Rydbergatomssuperheterodynereceiverphase-sensitivedetectionatomictransitionloopmicrowaveelectrometryS-bandnoise-equivalentfield
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

Rydberg-atom receivers usually need a strong local oscillator at the signal frequency to perform phase-sensitive superheterodyne detection, and that oscillator can disturb the very signal being measured. This paper proposes and demonstrates an alternative where three microwave fields form a closed atomic transition loop, so the local-oscillator role is played by two auxiliary tones and the signal phase is recovered at the beat note $f_{\mathrm{OPT}}=f_{\mathrm{SIG}}+f_{\mathrm{DRS}}-2f_{\mathrm{CPL}}$. The receiver operates in the S-band near 2.5 GHz, the band used by Wi-Fi, and reaches a noise-equivalent field of $(3.2\pm0.3)\,\mu\mathrm{V\,cm}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Hz}^{-1/2}$ without radiating a same-frequency local oscillator. In the weak-field regime the phase-dependent probe spectra match a time-dependent Lindblad-equation model, while in the strong-field regime the mismatch is attributed to Stark shifts of degenerate Rydberg levels.

What carries the argument

The central object is the closed atomic transition loop formed by three microwave fields acting on the $32F_{7/2}$, $32G_{9/2}$, and $32H_{11/2}$ Rydberg levels: the signal field at $f_{\mathrm{SIG}}$, a dressing field at $f_{\mathrm{DRS}}$, and a coupling field at $f_{\mathrm{CPL}}$ that drives a two-photon transition modeled as a single effective Rabi frequency. The loop phase $\varphi(t)=2\pi f_{\mathrm{OPT}}t$, with $f_{\mathrm{OPT}}=f_{\mathrm{SIG}}+f_{\mathrm{DRS}}-2f_{\mathrm{CPL}}$, converts the signal phase into a time-varying modulation of the probe transmission. The quantitative comparison is carried by the Lindblad master equation with a conditional Hamiltonian and Doppler averaging, with the loop phase referenced to a common synthesizer clock for deterministic control.

What would settle it

Directly measure the two-photon $32F_{7/2}\to32H_{11/2}$ Rabi frequency with resolved spectroscopy while the loop is not closed, then use that independently measured value in the time-dependent Lindblad calculation and compare with the weak-field transmission data; a mismatch would show the effective-single-transition model is doing the work, not the physics. Alternatively, repeat the strong-field measurement with the Rydberg degeneracy lifted by a magnetic field; if the residual mismatch remains, the Stark-shift attribution is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that phase-sensitive detection of an S-band microwave field can be realized with a fully microwave transition loop, eliminating the need for a local oscillator at the signal frequency. In the loop, the signal field drives $32F_{7/2}\to32G_{9/2}$, a dressing field drives $32G_{9/2}\to32H_{11/2}$, and a coupling field drives $32F_{7/2}\to32H_{11/2}$ through an effective two-photon transition. When all fields are on resonance, probe transmission depends only on the relative phase of the fields; when frequencies are mismatched, that phase rotates at $f_{\mathrm{OPT}}$, and signal modulation is recovered by demodulating the photodiode signal at the beat note. The authors show that in the weak-field regime the measured phase-dependent probe transmission agrees with the time-dependent Lindblad model, and they characterize the receiver with a noise-equivalent field of $(3.2\pm0.3)\,\mu\mathrm{V\,cm}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Hz}^{-1/2}$, a saturation amplitude of $(7.5\pm0.2)\,\mathrm{mV\,cm}^{-1}$, and a measured atomic response range in the S-band.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-photon coupling step can be replaced by a single effective transition between two states, with the Stark shifts of nearby Rydberg levels negligible; if those fields are not weak enough for that reduction, the matching prediction is no longer valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Rydberg receiver can perform phase-sensitive superheterodyne detection without a strong local oscillator at the signal frequency, removing a source of self-interference and enabling stealthier, all-optical field monitoring.
  • The scheme operates at S-band frequencies around 2.5 GHz, so it can receive Wi-Fi-band signals without radiating a local oscillator in that band.
  • The demonstrated noise-equivalent field of $(3.2\pm0.3)\,\mu\mathrm{V\,cm}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Hz}^{-1/2}$ and saturation amplitude of $(7.5\pm0.2)\,\mathrm{mV\,cm}^{-1}$ define a usable dynamic range for weak-field sensing.
  • The atomic response falls to the shot-noise level at about $\pm20$ MHz of optical-signal detuning when the signal frequency is swept, and extends over roughly 2450 to 2550 MHz when the beat note is held at 5 MHz, bounding the receiver's instantaneous demodulation bandwidth.
  • Time-dependent Lindblad simulations with the two-photon transition treated as a single effective Rabi frequency predict the phase-dependence of probe transmission in the weak-field regime, providing a design tool for other closed-loop Rydberg receivers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The loop condition is frequency-agnostic, which suggests the scheme could be ported to other microwave bands simply by choosing different Rydberg states; the authors do not make this generalization.
  • The authors' own proposal to lift the Rydberg degeneracy with a magnetic field is a direct test of whether the single-effective-transition model can be extended from weak to strong fields; this paper stops at attributing the strong-field mismatch to Stark shifts.
  • Because the noise floor is measured to be probe shot noise, increasing probe power or using squeezed light could plausibly push the noise-equivalent field below $3.2\,\mu\mathrm{V\,cm}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Hz}^{-1/2}$; that route is left unexplored.
  • A free-running version without a common reference clock would reveal whether the atomic loop itself can phase-lock the three tones, a step the authors do not address.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a Rydberg-vapor superheterodyne receiver at S-band that uses three microwave fields (SIG, DRS, and CPL) forming a closed atomic transition loop, with the aim of achieving phase-sensitive detection without a direct on-frequency local oscillator. The authors measure phase-dependent probe transmission, compare it with time-dependent Lindblad-equation calculations, calibrate the SIG field amplitude, and report a noise-equivalent field of (3.2±0.3) µV cm^-1 Hz^-1/2 and a saturation amplitude of (7.5±0.2) mV cm^-1. They also characterize the atomic response as a function of f_OPT and of SIG frequency at fixed f_OPT.

Significance. If the transition-loop mechanism is firmly established, the work is significant: it extends closed-loop phase-sensitive detection to an all-microwave implementation without a direct on-frequency LO, which is attractive for stealthy, all-optical sensing. The reported sensitivity is competitive, and the calibration procedure is transparent. The authors have also deposited replication data, which is good practice. However, the central claim currently requires excluding a classical passive-intermodulation alternative, and the theoretical comparison is partly an in-sample fit; these issues weaken the significance until they are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.2] The central claim that phase-sensitive detection is achieved without an on-frequency local oscillator is not yet protected against a classical passive-intermodulation (PIM) confound. With f_CPL=1512.2 MHz and f_DRS=510.4 MHz (Sec. 2.2), a third-order nonlinearity in the splitter, cabling, or antenna produces 2 f_CPL - f_DRS = 2514.0 MHz, which is exactly the SIG transition resonance. For the calibration at f_OPT=5 MHz (Sec. 3.2), the SIG is set near 2519 MHz, so this spurious tone beats with SIG at 5 MHz with phase φ_SIG - (2φ_CPL - φ_DRS), identical to the claimed loop phase; the identity holds for every f_OPT because f_OPT = f_SIG + f_DRS - 2 f_CPL. The manuscript reports no control measurement: no spectrum-analyzer search for a 2514 MHz tone with only CPL and DRS enabled, no measurement of the MW spectrum at the antenna, no empty-cell or probe-blocked control, and no power-scaling test that would distinguish an atomic three-photon loop from heterodyne detection on a PIM-generated LO. Since the novelty of the paper is precisely the absence of an on-frequency LO, this alternative must be excluded before the central claim can be accepted.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'theoretical prediction' overstates what is demonstrated. The Rabi frequencies Ω_SIG, Ω_DRS, and Ω_CPL used in the time-dependent Lindblad calculation are obtained by fitting the same model to steady-state transmission spectra of the same atomic system (Sec. 3.1). The agreement in Fig. 2 is therefore an in-sample consistency check, not an independent prediction. To support the predictive claim in the abstract, the authors should either calibrate the MW field amplitudes independently (e.g., from the synthesizer power budget, antenna coupling, and known dipole moments) or explicitly describe the comparison as a fit with the number of fitted parameters stated.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3)] The reduction of the two-photon CPL transition to a single effective two-level coupling with Rabi frequency Ω_CPL is a significant approximation whose validity is not quantitatively established, particularly because the intermediate state (32G) is resonantly coupled by the SIG and DRS fields in the loop. In addition, the strong-field mismatch in Fig. 3 is attributed to Stark shifts of degenerate Rydberg states rather than included in the model. As written, the model cannot be used to extrapolate receiver performance beyond the fitted parameter range. Please provide the adiabatic-elimination conditions for the effective two-photon description and either model the Stark shifts or give a quantitative bound for the regime in which they are negligible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence 'the frequency range spanning from −145 MHz to −145 MHz' should presumably read 'from −145 MHz to +145 MHz'; please correct.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] There is a typographical error: 'beams waist size equal to 𝑤 = 300 µm..' has a double period.
  3. [Fig. 4] The vertical axis label 'Electric field amplitude [ Vcm 1]' is missing superscripts and units; it should be typeset correctly (e.g., 'µV cm^-1' or 'V cm^-1').
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that the noise floor 'was checked to be the shot-noise of the probe laser' should include a brief description of how this was verified (e.g., scaling with probe power or comparison to a calibrated photodetector).
  5. [Sec. 3.3] In the fixed-f_OPT case, the text says 'detuning both fields' without specifying the relation between the SIG and CPL detunings that keeps f_OPT constant; please state it explicitly.
  6. [Eq. (3) and Eq. (4)] The phase convention for φ(t) and the detunings in Eq. (4) should be defined in one place; in particular, the absence of an explicit Δ_DRS in Eq. (4) is confusing and should be clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial in-sample fit: the time-dependent 'predictions' reuse Rabi frequencies fitted to the same atom-light system, but the central phase-sensitive detection claim is directly measured and not reduced to the fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1, 'Comparison with theoretical predictions']
    "the Rabi frequencies of both those fields were found beforehand by fitting the transmission spectra to the steady state solution of the Lindblad equation for this path of the energy level loop. The effective Rabi frequency of the two-photon transition induced by the CPL was then found by fitting the solution of the Lindblad equation to the resonant case of the closed loop with all the MW fields turned on. Using the found values, we performed the calculations for the time-dependent case."

    The 'predictions' of the time-dependent spectra are not independent of the model inputs: all three microwave Rabi frequencies are obtained by fitting the same Lindblad model to steady-state transmission spectra of the same atom-light system, including the resonant closed-loop case. The time-dependent calculation then reuses those same fitted parameters, so agreement in the weak-field regime is an in-sample consistency check rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The phase-dependent modulation is not itself directly fitted, so the reduction is partial, but the paper's wording that 'the theoretical prediction fits experimental data properly' overstates the independence of the test.

full rationale

The central experimental claim—phase-sensitive S-band detection using a multi-tone loop with no on-frequency local oscillator—is grounded in direct measurements of the photodiode signal at the beat note, including demodulated phase dependence and noise-floor calibration. Those measurements are not derived from the theoretical model, so the core result does not reduce to its own inputs. The main circularity-adjacent issue is in Sec. 3.1: the model's Rabi frequencies are fitted to steady-state spectra of the same atomic system, and the same parameters are then used to generate time-dependent spectra that are called 'predictions.' This is a legitimate consistency check but not a fully independent prediction, and the weak-field agreement is partly an in-sample fit. The self-citations (Refs. [32], [33]) are methodological and not load-bearing for the central claim. The acknowledged strong-field mismatch due to unmodeled Stark shifts is a limitation, not a circular step. The skeptic's intermodulation confound—2 f_CPL - f_DRS = 2514 MHz equals the stated f_SIG, so a classical third-order product beats with SIG at exactly f_OPT—is a serious external-correctness risk, but it is a confound, not a circular reduction of the paper's derivation to its inputs. Overall, the paper is largely self-contained, with partial in-sample fitting lowering the score modestly.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central demonstration rests on experimental measurements, but the model comparison uses several fitted parameters (Rabi frequencies and detunings), and the model invokes an effective single-transition description of the two-photon CPL path. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Ω_SIG (signal Rabi frequency) = 2π·10.5 MHz (weak), 2π·14 MHz (strong)
    Found by fitting steady-state Lindblad transmission spectra before computing time-dependent predictions (Sec. 3.1).
  • Ω_DRS (dressing Rabi frequency) = 2π·7.8 MHz (weak), 2π·10.1 MHz (strong)
    Same fitting procedure as Ω_SIG (Sec. 3.1).
  • Ω_CPL (effective two-photon Rabi frequency) = 2π·0.5 MHz (weak), 2π·1.8 MHz (strong)
    Found by fitting the steady-state Lindblad solution to the resonant closed-loop case (Sec. 3.1).
  • probe detuning for measurements = -3 MHz
    Chosen to maximize atomic response to MW fields (Sec. 2.2).
  • model detuning Δ = -5 MHz for both SIG and DRS
    Detuned 'to get better fits of the transmission spectra' (Sec. 3.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with conditional Hamiltonian describes the atomic dynamics including Doppler averaging.
    Standard open-quantum-system model for room-temperature vapor; details delegated to ref [32].
  • ad hoc to paper The two-photon CPL transition can be modeled as a single effective two-level transition with effective Rabi frequency Ω_CPL.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1: 'For computational simplicity, the two-photon transition was assumed to be a single transition between two states.'
  • ad hoc to paper Stark shifts of degenerate Rydberg states are negligible in the weak-field regime and are the only cause of strong-field mismatch.
    Used to explain deviations in Fig. 3 without modifying the model (Sec. 3.1, Sec. 4).
  • domain assumption All microwave synthesizers share a common reference such that the phase between fields is stable and controllable.
    Required for the loop phase φ(t)=2π f_OPT t to be a clean beat; described in Sec. 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superheterodyne Rydberg S-band receiver with a multi-tone local oscillator based on an atomic transition loop." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C2KFSOW5

@misc{pith2026250111418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superheterodyne Rydberg S-band receiver with a multi-tone local oscillator based on an atomic transition loop},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C2KFSOW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11418}
}
read the original abstract

Atomic-vapor sensors based on Rydberg atoms now face a transition towards practical applications, with several outstanding challenges. To achieve the best sensitivities, a superheterodyne mode of operation is desired, which requires the presence of a local oscillator in the vapor cell. This local oscillator hinders several advantages of the sensor, such as stealthy and all-optical operation. We propose and realize a detection scheme, which avoids some of those problems by using multi-tone mixing, where direct usage of the local oscillator at the same frequency is not required. Our scheme is further elaborated on using efficient theoretical methods to predict the performance of the sensor. Our sensor operates at the S-band frequency, known for its usage in IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) networks, without interfering with the signal itself.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) 85Rb energy level configuration used in the experiment. (b) Scheme of the experimental setup used. MW - microwave, SIG - signal, CPL - coupling, DRS - dressing, APD - avalanche photodiode, OPT - optical signal, PD - photodiode signal, PLL - phase-locked loop, VCO – voltage-controlled oscillator. mounted around the rubidium cell. The frequencies of the MW fields are chosen to optimize the atomic response. To have… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between measured data and theoretical predictions in the weak field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between measured data and theoretical predictions in the strong [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Amplitude of the SIG field (left vertical axis) as a function of signal attenuation. The right vertical axis refers to the PD signal power level calculated from the Fourier power spectrum for phase-sensitive detection. The data points were gathered during the absolute …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Atomic response power level as a function of the frequency of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Atomic response power level as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communications and sensing,

    C. T. Fancher, D. R. Scherer, M. C. S. John, and B. L. S. Marlow, “Rydberg atom electric field sensors for communications and sensing,” IEEE Trans. on Quantum Eng.2, 1–13 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Comparison of noise temperature of rydberg- atom and electronic microwave receivers,

    G. Santamaria-Botello, S. Verploegh, E. Bottomley, and Z. Popovic, “Comparison of noise temperature of rydberg- atom and electronic microwave receivers,” (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Waveguide-Coupled Rydberg Spectrum Analyzer from 0 to 20 GHz,

    D. H. Meyer, P. D. Kunz, and K. C. Cox, “Waveguide-Coupled Rydberg Spectrum Analyzer from 0 to 20 GHz,” Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 014053 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Extending bandwidth sensitivity of Rydberg-atom-based microwave electrometry using an auxiliary microwave field,

    Y. Cui, F.-D. Jia, J.-H. Hao,et al., “Extending bandwidth sensitivity of Rydberg-atom-based microwave electrometry using an auxiliary microwave field,” Phys. Rev. A107, 043102 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Fiber-coupled vapor cell for a portable rydberg atom-based radio frequency electric field sensor,

    M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, and C. L. Holloway, “Fiber-coupled vapor cell for a portable rydberg atom-based radio frequency electric field sensor,” Appl. Opt.57, 6456 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    A high-efficiency fiber-coupled rydberg-atom integrated probe and its imaging applications,

    R. Mao, Y. Lin, K. Yang,et al., “A high-efficiency fiber-coupled rydberg-atom integrated probe and its imaging applications,” IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett.22, 352–356 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Toward the measurement of microwave electric field using cesium vapor mems cell,

    R. Zhao, M. Feng, J. Zhu,et al., “Toward the measurement of microwave electric field using cesium vapor mems cell,” IEEE Electron Device Lett.44, 2031–2034 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Microwave electrometry with Rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances,

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. Kübler,et al., “Microwave electrometry with Rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances,” Nat. Phys.8, 819–824 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Using High Rydberg States as Electric Field Sensors,

    A. Osterwalder and F. Merkt, “Using High Rydberg States as Electric Field Sensors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1831–1834 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    Sensitivity of a Rydberg-atom receiver to frequency and amplitude modulation of microwaves,

    S. Borówka, U. Pylypenko, M. Mazelanik, and M. Parniak, “Sensitivity of a Rydberg-atom receiver to frequency and amplitude modulation of microwaves,” Appl. Opt.61, 8806–8812 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Using amplitude modulation of the microwave field to improve the sensitivity of rydberg-atom based microwave electrometry,

    X. Liu, F. Jia, H. Zhang,et al., “Using amplitude modulation of the microwave field to improve the sensitivity of rydberg-atom based microwave electrometry,” AIP Adv.11, 085127 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    A Rydberg atom-based mixer: Measuring the phase of a radio frequency wave,

    M. T. Simons, A. H. Haddab, J. A. Gordon, and C. L. Holloway, “A Rydberg atom-based mixer: Measuring the phase of a radio frequency wave,” Appl. Phys. Lett.114, 114101 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Weak electric-field detection with sub-1 Hz resolution at radio frequencies using a Rydberg atom-based mixer,

    J. A. Gordon, M. T. Simons, A. H. Haddab, and C. L. Holloway, “Weak electric-field detection with sub-1 Hz resolution at radio frequencies using a Rydberg atom-based mixer,” AIP Adv.9, 045030 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Atomic superheterodyne receiver based on microwave-dressed rydberg spectroscopy,

    M. Jing, Y. Hu, J. Ma,et al., “Atomic superheterodyne receiver based on microwave-dressed rydberg spectroscopy,” Nat. Phys.16, 911–915 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Continuous wideband microwave-to-optical converter based on room-temperature Rydberg atoms,

    S. Borówka, U. Pylypenko, M. Mazelanik, and M. Parniak, “Continuous wideband microwave-to-optical converter based on room-temperature Rydberg atoms,” Nat. Photonics18, 32–38 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Coherent microwave-to-optical conversion via six-wave mixing in rydberg atoms,

    J. Han, T. Vogt, C. Gross,et al., “Coherent microwave-to-optical conversion via six-wave mixing in rydberg atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 093201 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Efficient microwave-to-optical conversion using rydberg atoms,

    T. Vogt, C. Gross, J. Han,et al., “Efficient microwave-to-optical conversion using rydberg atoms,” Phys. Rev. A99, 023832 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Determining the angle-of-arrival of a radio-frequency source with a Rydberg atom-based sensor,

    A. K. Robinson, N. Prajapati, D. Senic,et al., “Determining the angle-of-arrival of a radio-frequency source with a Rydberg atom-based sensor,” Appl. Phys. Lett.118, 114001 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Atom-Based Vector Microwave Electrometry Using Rubidium Rydberg Atoms in a Vapor Cell,

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. Kübler, and J. P. Shaffer, “Atom-Based Vector Microwave Electrometry Using Rubidium Rydberg Atoms in a Vapor Cell,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 063001 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    A vapor-cell atomic sensor for radio-frequency field detection using a polarization-selective field enhancement resonator,

    D. A. Anderson, E. G. Paradis, and G. Raithel, “A vapor-cell atomic sensor for radio-frequency field detection using a polarization-selective field enhancement resonator,” Appl. Phys. Lett.113, 073501 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Digital communication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,

    D. H. Meyer, K. C. Cox, F. K. Fatemi, and P. D. Kunz, “Digital communication with Rydberg atoms and amplitude-modulated microwave fields,” Appl. Phys. Lett.112, 211108 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Rydberg-atom-based digital communication using a continuously tunable radio- frequency carrier,

    Z. Song, H. Liu, X. Liu,et al., “Rydberg-atom-based digital communication using a continuously tunable radio- frequency carrier,” Opt. Express27, 8848 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Phase-dependent interaction in a four-level atomic configuration,

    G. Morigi, S. Franke-Arnold, and G.-L. Oppo, “Phase-dependent interaction in a four-level atomic configuration,” Phys. Rev. A66, 053409 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    Coherent phenomena in multilevel systems with closed interaction contour,

    D. V. Kosachiov, B. G. Matisov, and Y. V. Rozhdestvensky, “Coherent phenomena in multilevel systems with closed interaction contour,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.25, 2473 (1992)

    1992

  17. [25]

    Atomic Interferometers,

    S. Buckle, S. Barnett, P. Knight,et al., “Atomic Interferometers,” Opt. Acta: Int. J. Opt.33, 1129–1140 (1986)

    1986

  18. [26]

    Closed-loop quantum interferometry for phase-resolved Rydberg-atom field sensing,

    S. Berweger, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, A. P. Rotunno,et al., “Closed-loop quantum interferometry for phase-resolved Rydberg-atom field sensing,” Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054009 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Optically-biased Rydberg microwave receiver enabled by hybrid nonlinear interferometry,

    S. Borówka, M. Mazelanik, W. Wasilewski, and M. Parniak, “Optically-biased Rydberg microwave receiver enabled by hybrid nonlinear interferometry,” Tech. rep. (2024). ArXiv:2403.05310 [physics, physics:quant-ph] type: article

    2024

  20. [28]

    Optical Radio-Frequency Phase Measurement With an Internal-State Rydberg Atom Interferometer,

    D. Anderson, R. Sapiro, L. Gonçalves,et al., “Optical Radio-Frequency Phase Measurement With an Internal-State Rydberg Atom Interferometer,” Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 044020 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Highly sensitive atomic based MW interferometry,

    D. Shylla, E. O. Nyakang’o, and K. Pandey, “Highly sensitive atomic based MW interferometry,” Sci. Reports8, 8692 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Electromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coherent media,

    M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, and J. P. Marangos, “Electromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coherent media,” Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 633–673 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Three-photonelectromagneticallyinducedtransparencyusingrydberg states,

    C.Carr,M.Tanasittikosol,A.Sargsyan, et al.,“Three-photonelectromagneticallyinducedtransparencyusingrydberg states,” Opt. Lett.37, 3858–3860 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Atomic-optical interferometry in fractured loops: A general solution for rydberg radio-frequency receivers,

    B. Kasza, S. Borówka, W. Wasilewski, and M. Parniak, “Atomic-optical interferometry in fractured loops: A general solution for rydberg radio-frequency receivers,” Phys. Rev. A111, 053718 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Warm Rydberg atom-based quadrature amplitude-modulated receiver,

    J. Nowosielski, M. Jastrzębski, P. Halavach,et al., “Warm Rydberg atom-based quadrature amplitude-modulated receiver,” Opt. Express32, 30027–30039 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    ARC 3.0: An expanded Python toolbox for atomic physics calculations,

    E. J. Robertson, N. Šibalić, R. M. Potvliege, and M. P. A. Jones, “ARC 3.0: An expanded Python toolbox for atomic physics calculations,” Comput. Phys. Commun.261, 107814 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Detecting and Receiving Phase-Modulated Signals With a Rydberg Atom-Based Receiver,

    C. L. Holloway, M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, and D. Novotny, “Detecting and Receiving Phase-Modulated Signals With a Rydberg Atom-Based Receiver,” IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett.18, 1853–1857 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Zeeman-resolved autler-townes splitting in rydberg atoms with tunable resonances and a single transition dipole moment,

    N. Schlossberger, A. P. Rotunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse,et al., “Zeeman-resolved autler-townes splitting in rydberg atoms with tunable resonances and a single transition dipole moment,” Phys. Rev. A109, L021702 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Replication Data for: Superheterodyne Rydberg S-band receiver with a multi-tone local oscillator based on an atomic transition loop,

    J. Nowosielski, M. Mazelanik, W. Wasilewski, and M. Parniak, “Replication Data for: Superheterodyne Rydberg S-band receiver with a multi-tone local oscillator based on an atomic transition loop,” (2025). Type: dataset

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.