Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 80 references

Collective dissipation engineering of interacting Rydberg atoms

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In Rydberg atom pairs, dipolar exchange shifts the exceptional point between the quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno regimes, turning engineered loss into a selective spin-protection tool.

desk verdict A genuinely useful tunable loss channel for Rydberg arrays, with an interaction-shifted exceptional point and a two-body Zeno freeze that are worth a careful look; the main soft spot is a constant-gamma model that likely overestimates loss from interaction-shifted states. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06373 v1 pith:JIDWTPQD submitted 2025-09-08 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

Tao Chen , Chenxi Huang , Jacob P. Covey , Bryce Gadway This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph MSC 81Q1281V8081P40 PACS 03.65.Yz32.80.Ee
keywords RydbergatomsengineereddissipationquantumZenoeffectexceptionalpointopensystemsopticaltweezersdissipativestatepreparationspinchaindistillation
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 establishes that in pairs of Rydberg atoms, the dipolar exchange interaction between Rydberg states can move the exceptional point that separates the quantum Zeno regime, where strong coupling suppresses decay, from the anti-Zeno regime, where decay is enhanced. The authors build a tunable, state-resolved loss channel by coupling the $42S_{1/2}$ Rydberg state to a short-lived $5P_{1/2}$ state with a 975 nm laser, giving a controlled decay rate $\gamma$. With two atoms, the same microwave coupling that protects a single atom can instead let an interacting pair decay faster, because the interaction shifts the exceptional point. By choosing pseudospin states whose dipolar exchange connects them to a lossy auxiliary state, the authors realize a two-body quantum Zeno effect: an atom pair in the $|{\uparrow\uparrow}\rangle$ configuration is frozen, while a single atom in the same state Rabi-oscillates normally. They argue theoretically that this configuration-selective loss generalizes to spin chains, where it can distil or purify unwanted spin configurations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the state-resolved loss channel: a weak 975 nm laser couples $|0\rangle=|42S_{1/2}\rangle$ to the fast-decaying $|5P_{1/2}\rangle$, producing an effective Markovian decay at rate $\gamma$ via the collapse operator $L_0=\sqrt{\gamma}(|g\rangle_A\langle0|+|g\rangle_B\langle0|)$. The argument runs through the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian obtained after eliminating quantum jumps, in the pair basis $\{|00\rangle,|+\rangle,|11\rangle\}$, whose exceptional points are set by the ratio of collective microwave coupling $w_c=\sqrt{2}w$ to $\gamma$ and shifted by the dipolar exchange $V$. For the spin-protection scheme, the central mechanism is the effective correlated loss rate $\gamma_{\rm eff}\approx 4w_0^2/\gamma$ acting on the triplet pair state $|+\rangle_{\uparrow\downarrow}$, which turns strong dissipation into a projective measurement that confines the pair to the $|{\uparrow\uparrow}\rangle,|{\downarrow\downarrow}\rangle$ Zeno subspace.

What would settle it

Scan the surviving population after a fixed evolution time as a function of $w_c/\gamma$ for an interacting pair at $V=86\gamma$ and compare it to the single-atom benchmark: the claim predicts the loss minimum moves from $w_c/\gamma=\sqrt{2}/4$ to about 7, with larger loss than the non-interacting case between the two. A measurement showing identical minima, or a loss curve that is independent of interatomic spacing at fixed $w_c/\gamma$, would falsify the interaction-shifted exceptional point. In the spin-protection scheme, observing that a single atom freezes just like the pair when $\Delta\gg w_0$ would also contradict the claim that the Zeno effect is two-body-collective.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dipolar exchange between Rydberg atoms changes the dissipation dynamics at the level of two-body configurations, not just through density shifts. On the non-interacting benchmark, the exceptional point sits at $w_c/\gamma=\sqrt{2}/4$, matching earlier results; with dipolar exchange $V=86\gamma$, the exceptional point moves to $w_c/\gamma\approx 7$, and the experiment sees the corresponding loss minimum shift. The authors also show a configuration-selective two-body quantum Zeno effect in a pseudospin encoding: when the microwave coupling to the lossy auxiliary state $w_0$ dominates over the spin-flip coupling $w$, strong dissipation of the $|+\rangle_{\uparrow\downarrow}$ pair state projects the pair into the Zeno subspace $\{|{\uparrow\uparrow}\rangle,|{\downarrow\downarrow}\rangle\}$, freezing $\langle P_\uparrow\rangle$ near one at the $\pi$ time while a single atom still Rabi-oscillates. They support this with a reduced non-Hermitian Hamiltonian and a simplified effective model $H_{\rm eff}=w(\sigma^x_A+\sigma^x_B)-i\gamma_{\rm eff}|+\rangle_{\uparrow\downarrow}\langle+|$ with $\gamma_{\rm eff}\approx 4w_0^2/\gamma$, and they show numerically that the same physics in triangular three-atom systems and five-atom chains gives $|\mathbf{k}|$-selective dissipative distillation of $W$ states.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the 975 nm laser acts as a pure, state-resolved Markovian loss on the $|0\rangle$ state with a fixed rate $\gamma$, and that all other Rydberg states, including the $42P$ states, have negligible decay; if off-resonant excitation or interaction-dependent $\gamma$ becomes significant at the small spacings used ($V/\gamma=86$), the inferred exceptional-point shift and the Zeno protection would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed microwave coupling, increasing dipolar exchange $V$ pushes the pair across the exceptional point into the anti-Zeno regime, so interaction strength alone can switch loss on.
  • The same dissipation channel that leaves a single atom freely oscillating freezes an interacting pair in its initial spin configuration, so correlated Zeno protection is a genuinely two-body effect.
  • In spin chains, the inferred imaginary spin-exchange term $-i\gamma_{\rm eff}(\sigma^x_j\sigma^x_{j+1}+\sigma^y_j\sigma^y_{j+1}+I_jI_{j+1}-\sigma^z_j\sigma^z_{j+1})/4$ makes anti-aligned neighboring spins decay while preserving aligned configurations, enabling dissipative purification of ferromagnetic states.
  • In triangular three-atom and five-atom ring settings, tuning the detuning $\Delta$ to $-E_k=-2V\cos k$ selectively damps specific Bloch $W_k$ states, allowing distillation of chosen single-excitation states.
  • The tunable 975 nm loss channel provides a building block for open-system quantum simulation with Rydberg arrays, including dissipative phase transitions and non-Hermitian many-body physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism survives at larger fillings, arrays with site-resolved loss could act as autonomous pumps that push arbitrary initial product states toward ferromagnetic or staggered order without coherent feedback.
  • Since the two-body Zeno freeze relies on the energy matching $\Delta=V_\uparrow$, a direct experimental probe of the frozen fraction versus detuning would test the microscopic picture beyond the two extreme limits shown in the paper.
  • The same level scheme could be read as a driven-dissipative realization of a non-Hermitian tight-binding model by placing the lossy auxiliary states on one sublattice, predicting chiral edge currents in the steady state.
  • An immediate testable extension is to apply the pair-protection protocol to two atoms with $V_\uparrow\neq V_\downarrow$, which should create direction-dependent Zeno shadows in the loss pattern.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports experiments with 39K Rydberg atoms in optical tweezers, in which a resonant 975 nm laser induces a tunable, state-selective loss channel from the Rydberg state |0⟩=|42S1/2⟩ via coupling to 5P1/2. For atom pairs, the authors study the interplay of this dissipation with microwave coupling w between |0⟩ and |1⟩=|42P3/2⟩ and dipolar exchange V. They observe that V shifts the exceptional point of the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian (Eq. 2), leading to interaction-enhanced decay for parameters that would be in the Zeno regime at V=0. They further demonstrate a configuration-selective two-body Zeno effect: with an auxiliary microwave coupling to a lossy state, atom pairs in |↑↑⟩ are protected from spin flips, while the corresponding single-atom dynamics remain unaffected. The paper closes with a theoretical proposal to use the same mechanism in triangular and chain geometries for W-state distillation and dissipative purification.

Significance. The platform is well-suited to the emerging field of engineered dissipation in Rydberg arrays, and the experimental data show clear, reproducible effects. The modeling is careful in several respects: γ, w, and V are calibrated in separate measurements or from known C3 coefficients, the V=0 exceptional point is benchmarked against previous work, and the solid curves in the figures are full Lindblad simulations rather than fits to the target data. If the central interpretational assumption—a fixed Markovian loss rate γ for every |0⟩-containing pair state—is valid in the strongly interacting regime, the results constitute a clean demonstration of interaction-controlled dissipative phase transitions and two-body Zeno physics. However, the validity of that assumption is the main open question, as detailed below; the quantitative claims therefore require additional support before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (1) and Figs. 2(e,f,h), 3(d,e)] The Lindblad model assigns a single Markovian loss rate γ to every pair state containing |0⟩, including the interaction-shifted states |+⟩ and |+⟩↑0. However, the 975 nm transition |0⟩→|5P1/2⟩ is resonant only for an isolated atom; in a pair state such as |+⟩, the |0⟩ level is shifted by the dipolar exchange energy V, while the 5P state is essentially unshifted. With V/h=6.88 MHz (Fig. 2f) and V↑/h=4.0 MHz (Fig. 3d) versus the 5P linewidth Γ/h∼1 MHz, the effective loss rate from those shifted states is suppressed by a factor of order [1+(2V/Γ)^2]^{-1}, i.e., by roughly two orders of magnitude under the stated parameters. Since the exceptional point in Fig. 2(e) and the Zeno condition in Fig. 3(d,e) depend directly on the loss rate of these shifted states, the constant-γ model is not obviously valid in the V≫Γ regime. The authors neither measure nor bound this effect, and agreement between a constant-γ Lindblad simulation and the data does not by itself validate the elimination. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the interaction-detuned loss rate, ideally with a control measurement (e.g., loss from |+⟩ with the 975 nm laser detuned by V), and revise the model in Eqs. (2)-(4) to include a state-dependent γeff(δ) if needed.
  2. [Supplement, 'Renormalization of the experimental measurements'] The Supplement explicitly states that the statistical variations of the renormalization factors P_u and P_l are not propagated into the renormalized data. Since the renormalized loss probabilities in Figs. 1-3 are the quantities compared with the Lindblad simulations, the shown error bars underestimate the total uncertainty, and the claimed quantitative agreement (e.g., Fig. 2(f,h) and Fig. 3(d,e)) is not fully supported. Please propagate these uncertainties or provide a sensitivity analysis showing that their effect is negligible relative to the reported statistical errors.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Supplement Fig. S3] Typo in the caption: 'Comaprison' should be 'Comparison'.
  2. [Supplement, derivation of Eq. (3)] The validity conditions for the reduction to Eq. (3), stated as |V↑−V↓|≫w,γ and |Δ−V↓|≫w0,γ, are only marginally satisfied for the largest w0 values used in Fig. 3(e) (w0/h=1.25 MHz, |Δ−V↓|≈2 MHz); please comment on whether the reduced Hamiltonian remains quantitatively accurate for those parameters, since the interpretive discussion around Eq. (4) relies on it.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'opens possible new routines for dissipative preparation' is awkward; consider rephrasing, for example, 'opens up new possibilities for dissipative preparation'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: model parameters are calibrated independently and the EP/Zeno comparisons are genuine predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on a Lindblad master equation (Eq. 1) whose parameters are calibrated in separate measurements: gamma from the single-atom exponential loss in Fig. 1(c) ('An exponential fit of the normalized loss versus the 975 nm laser pulse duration yields an effective loss rate gamma/h = 0.11(2) MHz'), w from the two-photon Raman Rabi measurement in Fig. S2(b) (w/h = 0.15(2) MHz), and V from the C3 coefficient and interatomic distance ('V = C3/(2 R_AB^3), where C3 = h x 1502 MHz um^3'). The non-interacting exceptional point at wc/gamma = sqrt(2)/4 is a derived property of Hamiltonian (2), checked against external trapped-ion results (Refs. [17,18]), not an input. The interacting Ploss and P_up data are then compared with full simulations of Eq. (1) using these independently determined parameters and separately measured renormalization ceilings (Pu, Pl), so the reported 'predictions' are not fits to the target data. The reduced Hamiltonians (3) and (S6) are derived from Eq. (1) with stated decoupling conditions (|V_up - V_down| >> w,gamma and |Delta - V_down| >> w0,gamma), and Eq. (4) is an interpretive limit supported by full simulations, not the source of the reported agreement. The only author-overlapping citations (Refs. [61,66,67]) concern apparatus/post-selection methods and a peripheral validity remark about gamma_eff; neither is load-bearing for the central exceptional-point shift or Zeno-protection observations. The skeptical concern that the Markovian loss rate may be modified by interaction-induced detuning of the 975 nm transition at V/gamma = 86 is a modeling/correctness risk, not an instance of the paper's inputs being equivalent to its outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built from standard open-quantum-system tools (Lindblad master equation, adiabatic elimination of the intermediate 5P state) and from measured or known quantities: γ from exponential loss fits, w from Rabi calibrations, V from C3 coefficients and interatomic spacing, and w0/Δ chosen by the experimenter. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The theoretical chain extension assumes nearest-neighbor interactions (S7) and the distillation simulations assume all-to-all or nearest-neighbor couplings as stated.

free parameters (6)
  • Effective loss rate γ = 0.11(2) MHz (Fig. 1c); 0.13(2), 0.08(2), 0.16(2) MHz in later datasets
    Extracted from exponential fits of population loss versus 975 nm pulse duration; sets the exceptional-point ratio wc/γ and the Zeno conditions.
  • Microwave coupling w (collective wc = √2 w) = w/h = 0.15(2) MHz (Fig. 3); w/h = 0.20(1) MHz (Fig. 2h)
    Calibrated via Rabi oscillations; also sets the π-time in Fig. 3.
  • Auxiliary microwave coupling w0 = 0, 0.63(2), 1.25(2) MHz (Fig. 3e)
    Chosen by hand to tune between independent-atom dynamics and the two-body Zeno regime.
  • Detuning Δ = Δ/h = 4.0(1) MHz (Fig. 3d); Δ = V, -2V, and 2V cos(2πn/5) in theory
    Set by the experimenter to activate or suppress the loss channel; selects the W_k state in the distillation proposal.
  • Dipolar exchange strength V (and V↑, V↓) = V/h = 6.88(16) MHz and V = 86γ in Fig. 2; C3↑/h = 1502 MHz µm³, C3↓/h = 756 MHz µm³
    Determined by C3 coefficients and interatomic spacing, not fitted to the observed loss; the predicted EP shift scales with V.
  • Renormalization limits P_u, P_l = e.g., P_u = 0.93(1), P_l = 0.35(1) (Fig. 1); P_u = 0.92(1), P_l = 0.34(1) (Fig. 2); P_u = 0.90(1), P_l = 0.38(1) (Fig.
    Measured detection ceiling and background floor used to renormalize all loss and population data; uncertainties are not propagated (Supplement S1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The open-system dynamics are described by the Lindblad master equation with a single collapse operator L0 = √γ(|g⟩⟨0|) per atom.
    Used in Eq. (1); requires Markovian, weak-coupling conditions for the 975 nm loss channel.
  • domain assumption The 5P1/2 intermediate state can be adiabatically eliminated, leaving a pure effective loss rate γ on |0⟩.
    Fig. 1(b) and Eq. (1); if the intermediate-state lifetime is not short enough, the loss is not a simple Markovian rate.
  • domain assumption The dipolar exchange strengths are V = C3/(2R³) with C3↑/h = 1502 MHz µm³ and C3↓/h = 756 MHz µm³, and only the listed Rydberg states participate.
    Used to define V in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 3(a); relies on known C3 values and frozen tweezer positions.
  • domain assumption Spontaneous decay of the 42P states (|1⟩, |↑⟩, |↓⟩) is negligible compared with the induced loss γ.
    Stated after Eq. (2); if false, loss would include uncorrelated single-atom decay channels.
  • standard math In the Zeno regime, the lossy subspace can be replaced by an effective loss γ_eff ≈ 4 w0²/γ acting on |+⟩↑↓.
    Derived from Refs [22,24] and used to obtain Eq. (4) and the chain Hamiltonian (S7); valid for w0 ≪ γ.
  • domain assumption The many-body chain extension uses nearest-neighbor interactions only (Eq. S7), and the three-atom distillation uses all-to-all connectivity.
    A simplification of the long-range dipolar interaction for the theoretical proposal; the experimental section does not implement chains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective dissipation engineering of interacting Rydberg atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIDWTPQD

@misc{pith2026250906373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective dissipation engineering of interacting Rydberg atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIDWTPQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06373}
}
read the original abstract

Engineered dissipation is emerging as an alternative tool for quantum state control, enabling high-fidelity preparation, transfer and stabilization, and access to novel phase transitions. We realize a tunable, state-resolved laser-induced loss channel for individual Rydberg atoms, in both non-interacting and strongly correlated settings. This capability allows us to reveal interaction-driven shifts of the exceptional point separating quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno regimes, and to demonstrate interaction-enhanced decay. By exploiting interaction-dependent energy level shifts, we observe a configuration-selective two-body Zeno effect that freezes target spin states. We theoretically show that when this mechanism is extended to many-body chains it allows for the dissipative distillation of unwanted spin configurations. These experimental studies establish a versatile approach for exploring strongly interacting, open quantum spin systems, and opens possible new routines for dissipative preparation of correlated quantum states in Rydberg atom arrays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b) illustrates the simplified model by letting V↑ = ∆. For a fixed dissipation rate γ, the spin dy￾namics show different behaviors when tuning the wc/w0 ratio. We focus on the two extreme limits. First, when wc ≫ w0 (i.e., small w0), the lossy state |0⟩ is fully de￾coupled from the spin-1/2 manifold (here the dissipation is dominated by the eigenstate |λ⟩ = |+⟩↑0 that takes an imaginary eigenvalue of −iγ/2; see [P… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (c) shows the simulation results with the atoms initialized in |↓↑↓⟩. By setting ∆ = V (∆ = −2V ), the states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Na- ture Reviews Physics4, 660 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Bernu, S

    J. Bernu, S. Del´ eglise, C. Sayrin, S. Kuhr, I. Dotsenko, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 180402 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Nature physics5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Morigi, J

    G. Morigi, J. Eschner, C. Cormick, Y. Lin, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 200502 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Barontini, L

    G. Barontini, L. Hohmann, F. Haas, J. Est` eve, and J. Re- 6 ichel, Science349, 1317 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    C. Zhu, T. Shi, L. Ding, Z. Zheng, X. Zhang, and W. Zhang, Quantum state discrimination in aPT- symmetric system of a single trapped ion (2025), arXiv:2502.20717 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, L. Martin, E. Flurin, C. Aron, M. Kulkarni, H. E. Tureci, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 240503 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Y. Lu, S. Chakram, N. Leung, N. Earnest, R. K. Naik, Z. Huang, P. Groszkowski, E. Kapit, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 150502 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Leghtas, S

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge,et al., Science347, 853 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    R. Ma, B. Saxberg, C. Owens, N. Leung, Y. Lu, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature566, 51 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Ritter, D

    M. Ritter, D. M. Long, Q. Yue, A. Chandran, and A. J. Koll´ ar, Phys. Rev. X15, 031028 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Nature622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Scholl, A

    P. Scholl, A. L. Shaw, R. B.-S. Tsai, R. Finkelstein, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Nature622, 273 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Na- ture Physics14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    J. Li, A. K. Harter, J. Liu, L. de Melo, Y. N. Joglekar, and L. Luo, Nature communications10, 855 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. Murch, Nature Physics15, 1232 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, B. Ha, S. Erdamar, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 110402 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    L. Ding, K. Shi, Q. Zhang, D. Shen, X. Zhang, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 083604 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    T. Shi, V. Smirnov, K. Shi, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 111, 032203 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Sun and W

    K. Sun and W. Yi, Phys. Rev. A108, 013302 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    T. Chen, W. Gou, D. Xie, T. Xiao, W. Yi, J. Jing, and B. Yan, npj Quantum Information7, 78 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    J. Li, T. Wang, L. Luo, S. Vemuri, and Y. N. Joglekar, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023204 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Zhou, X.-D

    Y.-L. Zhou, X.-D. Yu, C.-W. Wu, X.-Q. Li, J. Zhang, W. Li, and P.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043036 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Signoles, A

    A. Signoles, A. Facon, D. Grosso, I. Dotsenko, S. Haroche, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Nature Physics10, 715 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Y. Liu, S. Shankar, N. Ofek, M. Hatridge, A. Narla, K. M. Sliwa, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. X6, 011022 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Lingenfelter, M

    A. Lingenfelter, M. Yao, A. Pocklington, Y.-X. Wang, A. Irfan, W. Pfaff, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. X14, 021028 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Facchi and S

    P. Facchi and S. Pascazio, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 080401 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Bretheau, P

    L. Bretheau, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, E. Flurin, F. Mallet, and B. Huard, Science348, 776 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Touzard, A

    S. Touzard, A. Grimm, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, P. Reinhold, C. Axline, M. Reagor, K. Chou, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. X8, 021005 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. J. Masson, S. F. Yelin, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 213603 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

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

    2012

  26. [34]

    T. E. Lee and C.-K. Chan, Phys. Rev. X4, 041001 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Marcuzzi, E

    M. Marcuzzi, E. Levi, S. Diehl, J. P. Garrahan, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 210401 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    McDonald and A

    A. McDonald and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 033602 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    C. Wang, N. Li, J. Xie, C. Ding, Z. Ji, L. Xiao, S. Jia, B. Yan, Y. Hu, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 253401 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Koppenh¨ ofer, P

    M. Koppenh¨ ofer, P. Groszkowski, H.-K. Lau, and A. Clerk, PRX Quantum3, 030330 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Pocklington, Y.-X

    A. Pocklington, Y.-X. Wang, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 123602 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Talebi, S

    M. Talebi, S. Wili, J. Mohan, P. Fabritius, M.-Z. Huang, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 223403 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Huang, P

    M.-Z. Huang, P. Fabritius, J. Mohan, M. Talebi, S. Wili, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 253403 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Syassen, D

    N. Syassen, D. M. Bauer, M. Lettner, T. Volz, D. Dietze, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, J. I. Cirac, G. Rempe, and S. Durr, Science320, 1329 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    B. Zhu, B. Gadway, M. Foss-Feig, J. Schachenmayer, M. L. Wall, K. R. A. Hazzard, B. Yan, S. A. Moses, J. P. Covey, D. S. Jin, J. Ye, M. Holland, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 070404 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Tomita, S

    T. Tomita, S. Nakajima, I. Danshita, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Science advances3, e1701513 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Han, Y.-H

    Y.-J. Han, Y.-H. Chan, W. Yi, A. J. Daley, S. Diehl, P. Zoller, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 070404 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Y. Sun, T. Shi, Z. Liu, Z. Zhang, L. Xiao, S. Jia, and Y. Hu, Phys. Rev. X13, 031009 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    J. J. Mendoza-Arenas, S. R. Clark, S. Felicetti, G. Romero, E. Solano, D. G. Angelakis, and D. Jaksch, Phys. Rev. A93, 023821 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    X. Lu, W. Cao, W. Yi, H. Shen, and Y. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 223603 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    X. Meng, Z. Hu, X. Lu, W. Cao, X. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Hu, W. Yi, and Y. Xiao, Photonics Research10, 2091 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    C. Xie, K. Sun, K.-D. Wu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, W. Yi, and G.-Y. Xiang, Science Bulletin (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    H. Li, K. Sun, and W. Yi, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L042046 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    E. Zhao, Z. Wang, C. He, T. F. J. Poon, K. K. Pak, Y.- J. Liu, P. Ren, X.-J. Liu, and G.-B. Jo, Nature637, 565 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Liu, L.-H

    B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Y. Ma, Q.-F. Wang, T.-Y. Han, J. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhang, S.-Y. Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, et al., Nature Communications16, 1419 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Zhang, Z

    Z. Zhang, Z. Xu, R. Huang, X. Lu, F. Zhang, D. Li, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, F. Nori, H. Bao, Y. Xiao,et al., Nature Photonics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Jian, Z.-C

    S.-K. Jian, Z.-C. Yang, Z. Bi, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. B104, L161107 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Matsumoto, M

    N. Matsumoto, M. Nakagawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033250 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, M. M. Aliyu, F. Qin, Y. Zhong, H. Loh, and C. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 080403 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    M. Xu, W. Yi, and D.-H. Cai, Phys. Rev. A111, 042204 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    B´ egoc, G

    B. B´ egoc, G. Cichelli, S. P. Singh, F. Bensch, V. Am- ico, F. Perciavalle, D. Rossini, L. Amico, and O. Morsch, Phys. Rev. A112, 023312 (2025). 7

    2025

  52. [60]

    Landa, M

    H. Landa, M. Schir´ o, and G. Misguich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043601 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, I. Velkovsky, K. R. A. Hazzard, J. P. Covey, and B. Gadway, Nature Communications15, 2675 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, B. Gadway, and J. P. Covey, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 120604 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, I. Velkovsky, T. Ozawa, H. Price, J. P. Covey, and B. Gadway, Nature Physics21, 221 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    See Supplementary Material, which includes Refs.[26, 29, 61, 65], for more experimental details, theoretical formu- lations and numerical simulation results

  57. [65]

    W. Chen, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140504 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    S. Lapp, J. Ang’ong’a, F. A. An, and B. Gadway, New Journal of Physics21, 045006 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    W. Gou, T. Chen, D. Xie, T. Xiao, T.-S. Deng, B. Gad- way, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 070402 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    T. E. Lee, H. H¨ affner, and M. C. Cross, Phys. Rev. A84, 031402 (2011)

    2011

  61. [69]

    C. A. Perroni, A. De Candia, V. Cataudella, R. Fazio, and G. De Filippis, Phys. Rev. B107, L100302 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, C. Yang, J. Jie, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 216301 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    X. Li, Y. Li, and Y. Yan, Two-body dissipator engi- neering: Environment-induced quantum synchronization transitions (2025), arXiv:2506.07580 [quant-ph]

    2025

  64. [72]

    Joshi, F

    C. Joshi, F. Nissen, and J. Keeling, Phys. Rev. A88, 063835 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    M. W. Butcher, J. H. Pixley, and A. H. Nevidomskyy, Phys. Rev. B105, L180407 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Ramos, H

    T. Ramos, H. Pichler, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 237203 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Werner, M

    P. Werner, M. Troyer, and S. Sachdev, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan74, 67 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    Weber, D

    M. Weber, D. J. Luitz, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 056402 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Takata and M

    K. Takata and M. Notomi, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 213902 (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    W. Nie, M. Antezza, Y.-x. Liu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 250402 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Liang, D

    Q. Liang, D. Xie, Z. Dong, H. Li, H. Li, B. Gadway, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 070401 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Collective dissipation engineering of interacting Rydberg atoms

    H. Wetter, M. Fleischhauer, S. Linden, and J. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 083801 (2023). S1 Supplemental Material for “Collective dissipation engineering of interacting Rydberg atoms” Renormalization of the experimental measurements As discussed in Ref. [61], the primary dat...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.