SciPost Submission Page
Feedback cooling of fermionic atoms in optical lattices
by Wenhua Zhao, Ling-Na Wu, Francesco Petiziol, André Eckardt
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Wenhua Zhao |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.07293v3 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | Aug. 28, 2025 |
| Date submitted: | July 22, 2025, 11:12 a.m. |
| Submitted by: | Wenhua Zhao |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
We discuss the preparation of topological insulator states with fermionic ultracold atoms in optical lattices by means of measurement-based Markovian feedback control. The designed measurement and feedback operators induce an effective dissipative channel that stabilizes the desired insulator state, either in an exact way or approximately in the case where additional experimental constraints are assumed. Successful state preparation is demonstrated in one-dimensional insulators as well as for Haldane's Chern insulator, by calculating the fidelity between the target ground state and the steady state of the feedback-modified master equation. The fidelity is obtained numerically through exact diagonalization or via time evolution of the system with moderate sizes. For larger 2D systems, we compare the mean occupation of the single-particle eigenstates for the ground and steady state computed through mean-field kinetic equations.
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
Author comments upon resubmission
Dear Editor,
On behalf of all authors, we would like to thank you and the two referees for taking the time to evaluate our work. We are glad to see that the work is appreciated. We would also like to express our appreciation for their insightful comments, showcasing that they have very carefully read the manuscript, and for their constructive suggestions on the presentation of the results, which have significantly improved the readability of the manuscript.
We have read the reviewers' concerns, and replied to each report directly in SciPost. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, to implement as many of the comments as possible. We also took the opportunity to change the occasional word here and there to further improve clarity. All key changes in the manuscript are listed below. Furthermore, we are convinced that our manuscript is qualified to be published in SciPost Phys (rather than SciPost Physics Core) and the justification is given in the response to referee 2.
Sincerely,
Wenhua Zhao
On behalf of all authors, we would like to thank you and the two referees for taking the time to evaluate our work. We are glad to see that the work is appreciated. We would also like to express our appreciation for their insightful comments, showcasing that they have very carefully read the manuscript, and for their constructive suggestions on the presentation of the results, which have significantly improved the readability of the manuscript.
We have read the reviewers' concerns, and replied to each report directly in SciPost. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, to implement as many of the comments as possible. We also took the opportunity to change the occasional word here and there to further improve clarity. All key changes in the manuscript are listed below. Furthermore, we are convinced that our manuscript is qualified to be published in SciPost Phys (rather than SciPost Physics Core) and the justification is given in the response to referee 2.
Sincerely,
Wenhua Zhao
List of changes
- Section Introduction: we expanded the introduction on feedback control and included key contributions from other groups. We highlighted the idea of connecting topological properties and engineered dissipation protocols.
- Section 3.2, page 5: we explained more in detail how to obtain feedback operator and measurement operator.
- Section 3.3, page 6: we added the discussion about experimental implementation and the challenges.
- Section 4, page 7: we specialised the methods used to solve master equation (also added in the abstract) and addressed the omission of the feedback term.
- Fig 3: we updated the figure and added minimal overlap in 3(b).
- Eq. 37: we updated the Hamiltonian for clarity.
- Section 4.2.1, page 13: we added more discussion for Fig.5.
- Fig 7: we updated the figure by fixing the random gauge freedom and the order of the sites.
- Section 4.2.2, page 15: we mentioned the validity of mean-field approximation is studied in the Appendix.
- Acknowledgements: we updated the funding information.
- Appendix A: we added this section to clarify the impact of measurement strength on fidelity.
- Appendix D: we updated the discussion on eq.44 to address that it is already in Lindblad form.
- Appendix E: we added this section to justify the validity of mean-field approximation.
- References: we expanded the literature list.
Published as SciPost Phys. 19, 073 (2025)
Reports on this Submission
Report
The revised manuscript by Zhao et al. has addressed all the points I raised in my report. In particular, the benchmarking of approximate methods against exact numerical diagonalization strongly supports the validity of the reported results.
Recommendation
Publish (meets expectations and criteria for this Journal)
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2025-7-25 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2501.07293v3, delivered 2025-07-25, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.11636
Report
The revised manuscript by Zhao et al. has addressed all the points regarding presentation that I presented in my previous report.
Regarding the question of SciPost Physics vs SciPost Physics Core, having read the report of the other referee and the authors response I think there potentially is a case that could justify this being published in SciPost Physics. The clearest case is that it presents a way to overcome the challenge of preparing a topological state in cold atom experiments. In that sense there is a case that this does meet the criteria of "Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block". When considering this criteria, the question of how closely related this is to previous work by the same authors is less relevant: even if an idea had been extensively discussed, the realisation that such an idea could be applied in a different context to solve an new problem is clearly valuable.
I am not certain there is a strong case for this criteria, but I do recognise that this work does present a route, with strong evidence it should succeed, that overcomes a known "stumbling block" for such experiments. As such, in light of the other reviewers comments, I would not object to this being accepted in SciPost Physics on that basis
Regarding the question of SciPost Physics vs SciPost Physics Core, having read the report of the other referee and the authors response I think there potentially is a case that could justify this being published in SciPost Physics. The clearest case is that it presents a way to overcome the challenge of preparing a topological state in cold atom experiments. In that sense there is a case that this does meet the criteria of "Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block". When considering this criteria, the question of how closely related this is to previous work by the same authors is less relevant: even if an idea had been extensively discussed, the realisation that such an idea could be applied in a different context to solve an new problem is clearly valuable.
I am not certain there is a strong case for this criteria, but I do recognise that this work does present a route, with strong evidence it should succeed, that overcomes a known "stumbling block" for such experiments. As such, in light of the other reviewers comments, I would not object to this being accepted in SciPost Physics on that basis
Recommendation
Publish (meets expectations and criteria for this Journal)