SciPost Submission Page
Parallel assembly of neutral atom arrays with an SLM using linear phase interpolation
by Ivo Hans Andries Knottnerus, Yu Chih Tseng, Alexander Urech, Robert Johannes Cornelis Spreeuw, Florian Schreck
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Ivo Knottnerus |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01391v1 (pdf) |
| Code repository: | https://github.com/StrontiumGroup/SLMSorting |
| Data repository: | https://uvaauas.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Datapackage_for_Parallel_assembly_of_neutral_atom_arrays_with_an_SLM_using_linear_phase_interpolation_/28166483?file=51549938 |
| Date submitted: | 2025-01-10 14:56 |
| Submitted by: | Knottnerus, Ivo |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Experimental |
Abstract
We present fast parallel rearrangement of single atoms in optical tweezers into arbitrary geometries by updating holograms displayed by an ultra fast spatial light modulator. Using linear interpolation of the tweezer position and the optical phase between the start and end arrays, we can calculate and display holograms every 2.76(2) ms. To show the versatility of our method, we sort the same atomic sample into multiple geometries with success probabilities exceeding 99 % per imaging and rearrangement cycle. This makes the method a useful tool for rearranging large atom arrays for quantum computation and quantum simulation.
Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations
- Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
- Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
- Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
- Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Strengths
1) Very well written and explaining the method carefully
2) Very impressive results for 16 atoms
3) Good description on how suppressing phase fluctuation is key to their success
Weaknesses
1) Lack of experimental details that allow the readers to assess the applicability of the method
2) Extrapolation of the results to thousands of atoms, without providing sufficient details how the extrapolation is being carried out
3) No explanation about the limit to their success (0.988)
Report
The paper describes the use of an SLM to trap single atoms in optical tweezers. Unlike using AOM's to trap the atoms, the use of the SLM allows the authors to simultaneously move all the atoms at the same time from their initial to their final position. This can severely decrease the time necessary to perform the transfer and thus is very convenient for larger number of atoms. Although they use the method to transfer only 16 atoms probably due to limited power in the trapping laser, the method could be extended to very many atoms and thus is very interesting from a viewpoint of quantum computation and quantum simulation.
The paper is very well written, and discusses various steps in the research. However, some details are missing from the paper and it is not clear how various conclusions by the authors can be verified. Below I will mention those issues. Overall, I think the paper can be published by taking these recommendations into account. Since the paper addresses an interesting topic in the field of atomic manipulations for quantum computing and simulation, the journal SciPost Physics is appropriate.
Requested changes
My concerns:
1) Although the paper is based on experiments described in Sec. 2, there is not much experimental details. For instance, there is no overview of the experimental setup. Referring to a previous paper does not help, since no detailed overview of the setup is provided in that paper. Also, powers used for the trapping and imaging are not discussed, although the power seemed to be limiting.
2) The average filling fraction for 16 atoms is 0.988, which is a big achievement. However, it is not discussed at all, what limits this filling fraction. Is this a fundamental limit of the technique, is this caused by the limited power, or are there other technical reasons, why it is this number.
3) The final sentence of Sec. 2 concludes "This corresponds to a success rate of ..". It is not clear, where this number (0.991) is based on, and how it scales with the number of atoms (16) involved. And again, what limits this number? And how why does it make the method suitable for adjusting geometries on the same atomic sample?
4) In Sec. 4 it is concluded that the method is nearly independent of Ntw. Figure 6 is an illustration of it. However, there are certain systematic effects visible that are not discussed. For instance, apparently the computation of the hologram takes more time for a small number of Ntw. Also, the display on SLM seems to go faster for more Ntw. And the error bar in the total time increases significantly for more than 2000 Ntw. These effect are all small, but require some interpretation from the authors to get a better feeling on the scaling with Ntw.
5) The final paragraph in Sec. 4 is very qualitative, and not quantitative. The values for 36 tweezers are extrapolated to many thousands of atoms, but unclear is how the scaling can be trusted. What kind of powers are needed for 1000 atoms? What success probability is allowed for scaling up to 1000 atoms? When will multiple rearrangements cycles becomes necessary? Of course, as with any extrapolation there are uncertainties, but to get a better feeling on how the method will work for 1000 atoms, more information is required.
6) The abstract and the conclusion mention a specific number for the update time, namely 2.72(2) ms. This number seems to be very depending on the equipment that the authors use, and will be different from setup to setup. Given the very concrete value that the authors use, it looks like a generic result for the technique. Perhaps toning this statement a bit down to a few ms, creates a better impression of the capabilities of the method.
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision