Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

High-fidelity universal gates in the $^{171}$Yb ground state nuclear spin qubit

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a universal gate set on the 171Yb ground-state nuclear spin qubit, with a two-qubit CZ fidelity of 99.72(3)% (post-selected) measured by two-qubit Clifford randomized benchmarking.

desk verdict Solid experimental milestone with a useful calibration tool, but the headline CZ fidelity may be biased upward by a small normalization error in the 1Q-error subtraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11708 v2 pith:VYAYPAVL submitted 2024-11-18 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

J. A. Muniz , M. Stone , D. T. Stack , M. Jaffe , J. M. Kindem , L. Wadleigh , E. Zalys-Geller , X. Zhang
show 45 more authors
C.-A. Chen M. A. Norcia J. Epstein E. Halperin F. Hummel T. Wilkason M. Li K. Barnes P. Battaglino T. C. Bohdanowicz G. Booth A. Brown M. O. Brown W. B. Cairncross K. Cassella R. Coxe D. Crow M. Feldkamp C. Griger A. Heinz A. M. W. Jones H. Kim J. King K. Kotru J. Lauigan J. Marjanovic E. Megidish M. Meredith M. McDonald R. Morshead S. Narayanaswami C. Nishiguchi T. Paule K. A. Pawlak K. L. Pudenz D. Rodríguez Pérez A. Ryou J. Simon A. Smull M. Urbanek R. J. M. van de Veerdonk Z. Vendeiro T.-Y. Wu X. Xie B. J. Bloom
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords neutralatomquantumcomputing171YbnuclearspinqubitRydbergblockadetwo-qubitCZgaterandomizedbenchmarkingclockshelvingshapedcompositepulsesopticaltweezerarrays
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 reports a universal gate set for the ground-state nuclear spin qubit of tweezer-trapped $^{171}$Yb atoms, with a two-qubit CZ gate fidelity of 99.72(3)% with post-selection and 99.40(3)% without, extracted from two-qubit Clifford randomized benchmarking, and a single-qubit fidelity of 99.963(2)%. The result matters because these fidelities sit above the commonly cited 99% surface-code threshold, so neutral-atom arrays of this type can aim at error-corrected circuits rather than at further fundamental gate improvement. The CZ gate works by shelving qubit state $|1\rangle$ into a long-lived clock state with shaped composite pulses, applying a global Rydberg pulse whose blockade mechanism imparts the entangling phase, and then unshelving; gates are individually addressed and can run in parallel on two pairs of atoms. The paper also contributes a calibration recipe that diagonalizes the simulated error landscape, so multi-parameter gates can be tuned with a few decoupled one-dimensional scans, and it closes with a component-level error budget. Together these pieces make the case that high-fidelity, flexible, and scalable neutral-atom computation is within reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the sequential state-selective CZ gate built from three steps: a Blackman-shaped composite clock pulse $Y_{\pi/2}-X_{\pi}-Y_{\pi/2}$ shelves $|1\rangle$ into the long-lived clock state $|c\rangle$; a global UV pulse drives the clock-to-Rydberg transition with a sinusoidal phase profile $\phi(t) = A\cos(\omega t - \phi) + \Delta t$ that approximates a time-optimal gate, so that $|01\rangle$ and $|10\rangle$ return to the clock manifold while $|11\rangle$ acquires the entangling phase $\pi$ through Rydberg blockade; and a second composite pulse unshelves. The gate's five control parameters are calibrated by a new method: computing the Hessian of the gate infidelity from simulation, diagonalizing it, and scanning once along each nearly decoupled eigenvector, which reaches the optimum in a fixed number of one-dimensional scans. Fidelity extraction relies on two-qubit Clifford randomized benchmarking with individual addressing, which samples the full two-qubit Hilbert space; the per-CZ fidelity is obtained by subtracting the known single-qubit error using the average native-gate counts of 1.51 CZ and 4.36 $X_{\pi/2}$ gates per Clifford under a depolarizing error model.

What would settle it

Run a noise-characterization experiment that does not assume depolarizing errors, such as gate-set tomography of the CZ gate, or interleaved randomized benchmarking in which the random Clifford circuits are recompiled to use different ratios of CZ to single-qubit gates at fixed Clifford depth. If the inferred per-CZ fidelity changes with the circuit composition or shows a coherent component, the depolarizing assumption behind the headline number is wrong. A less expensive check already sits in the paper's data: the simulated error budget predicts 0.375% infidelity per CZ gate while the pre-selected Clifford RB measurement gives 0.60(3)%, so an experiment that locates the missing roughly 0.2% (for example, by testing whether pair loss during the gate exceeds the single-atom Rydberg lifetime prediction) would either close the budget or invalidate the error model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $^{171}$Yb ground-state nuclear spin qubit now supports a universal, individually controlled gate set with fidelity high enough for fault-tolerant designs: a CZ gate measured at 99.72(3)% with post-selection and 99.40(3)% without, extracted from two-qubit Clifford randomized benchmarking circuits that run up to roughly 150 Clifford gates, or more than 200 CZ gates, on one or two atom pairs simultaneously, together with a single-qubit Clifford RB fidelity of 99.963(2)%. The entangling gate uses a sequential excitation scheme: a shaped composite clock pulse shelves $|1\rangle$ into the metastable clock state $|c\rangle$, a global 302 nm pulse couples the clock state to a Rydberg state with a phase profile chosen so that the $|11\rangle$ component picks up a $\pi$ entangling phase through Rydberg blockade, and a second composite pulse unshelves. A symmetric-subspace benchmark (CZ-GERB) that echoes away single-qubit phases measures 99.84(6)% with post-selection, and the paper attributes most of the gap between the two metrics to quasi-static clock-laser detuning, which appears as single-qubit phase error. The authors state that combining these gates with continuous loading, mid-circuit measurement, and erasure conversion is expected to enable complex error-corrected circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The headline 99.72% CZ number assumes that the noise in the benchmarking circuits is depolarizing and gate-independent, so that the per-gate error can be recovered by multiplying average native-gate counts; if the real errors are coherent, biased toward some states, or correlated between gates, the extracted fidelity could be off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With post-selected CZ fidelity of 99.72(3)% and single-qubit fidelity of 99.963(2)%, the demonstrated gates clear the commonly cited 99% surface-code threshold, so the remaining work toward error correction on this platform is integration (mid-circuit measurement, erasure conversion, rearrangement) rather than raising gate quality.
  • Because ground-state nuclear spin qubits have near-infinite lifetime and low sensitivity to trap light shifts, the same gate set should transfer to large rearranged arrays with flexible connectivity, which the paper argues enables efficient error-correction encodings.
  • The dominant identified error sources, clock-laser detuning drift and phase noise, produce mostly detectable leakage and loss rather than silent in-subspace errors, so state-selective readout can convert the main physical errors into erasure events that error correction handles more cheaply.
  • The Hessian-eigenvector calibration method reduces multi-parameter gate optimization to a fixed number of decoupled one-dimensional scans, a recipe the paper argues applies to any entangling gate with several interdependent control parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence of the paper's own numbers: the simulated error budget predicts 0.375% infidelity per CZ gate while pre-selected Clifford RB measures 0.60(3)%, so roughly 0.2% of the error is unaccounted for, and locating it (the authors suspect Rydberg pair-state dynamics and Doppler-sensitive motion) is the most direct route to sub-0.1% two-qubit gates.
  • Because the gap between the two fidelity metrics is attributed to quasi-static clock-laser detuning that appears as single-qubit phase error, active frequency stabilization or echo-based phase correction could plausibly push the practical two-qubit fidelity closer to the 99.84(6)% GERB number without any hardware change.
  • Since leakage into the clock state and atom loss are each measured per gate (about 0.12-0.14% per CZ), the platform is already set up for erasure-biased error correction; a natural next experiment is a small erasure-checking code whose logical error rate tracks the detected-leakage budget, using the mid-circuit measurement and state-selective readout the paper cites as existing.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a universal gate set on the 171Yb ground-state nuclear-spin qubit in arrays of optical tweezers. The central results are a single-qubit Clifford randomized benchmarking fidelity of 99.963(2)% per Clifford gate and a two-qubit CZ fidelity of 99.72(3)% with post-selection and 99.40(3)% without post-selection, extracted from two-qubit Clifford RB using average native-gate counts of 1.51 CZ gates and 4.36 Xπ/2 pulses per Clifford. A symmetric-subspace CZ-GERB measurement gives 99.84(6)% (99.56(5)%) with (without) post-selection. The paper also introduces an eigenvector-based multi-parameter calibration of the Rydberg gate and provides a detailed error budget with separate accounting of leakage and loss.

Significance. If correct, the results are significant: the ground-state nuclear-spin qubit combines long coherence and insensitivity to trap light shifts, and the reported CZ fidelities exceed commonly cited fault-tolerance thresholds for the surface code. The paper is unusually transparent on several points: it reports pre-selected and post-selected values side by side, gives separate leakage and loss measurements, and explicitly acknowledges where the simulated error budget does not reproduce measured infidelities. The Hessian-eigenvector calibration strategy is a useful methodological contribution that goes beyond the usual brute-force multi-parameter scans. The manuscript does not ship machine-checked proofs or an independent code repository, but it does cite the Qiskit Experiments package used for circuit generation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix F, Sec. IV.C, Fig. 8] The extraction of the per-CZ error from the 2Q CRB decay subtracts the 1Q CRB error multiplied by 4.36, where 4.36 is the average number of native Xπ/2 pulses per 2Q Clifford. The 1Q CRB error quoted in Sec. III is the error per 1Q Clifford gate, not per native Xπ/2 pulse. If the average number of Xπ/2 pulses per 1Q Clifford is n_x > 1, this subtraction overestimates the single-qubit contribution by a factor 1 - 1/n_x, biasing the headline CZ fidelity upward. For n_x in the range 1.25-1.5, the bias is roughly 0.01-0.03 percentage points, which is comparable to or larger than the quoted 0.03% statistical uncertainty. The manuscript does not report n_x or the decomposition counts for the 1Q Clifford circuits, and the consistency statement in Appendix B (0.32(2)% per eight Xπ/2 pulses versus eight times the 1Q CRB error) appears to assume n_x = 1. Please report n_x, justify that the per-Clifford error equals the per-pulse error for the compilation actually used, or correct the extraction accordingly.
  2. [Sec. IV.C and Appendix G] The per-CZ fidelities are obtained under a depolarizing, gate-independent error model, and only statistical uncertainties are quoted. The systematic uncertainty from model dependence is not quantified, although the paper itself provides a useful cross-check: the CZ-GERB estimate and the 2Q CRB estimate differ by more than the statistical errors. The authors attribute much of this difference to single-qubit phase errors, but a quantitative decomposition is not given. Since the headline 99.72(3)% includes a third decimal place, the authors should state the model-dependent systematic uncertainty explicitly, for example by treating the spread between CRB- and GERB-based estimates as a partial bound and by reporting the sensitivity of the extracted CZ error to plausible non-depolarizing noise components.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B] The sentence 'an additional readout step preceded by an clock repumping state' contains a grammar error; it should read 'preceded by a clock repumping step'.
  2. [Figure 3(c)] The figure shows simulated optimization trajectories, but the caption does not explicitly state that the green and orange curves are simulation results rather than experimental data; this should be clarified.
  3. [Appendix F, Eq. (F1)] The conversion 1 - F = (1 - p)(1 - b) is stated without derivation; a brief derivation or a reference would help readers understand how the fixed baseline b enters the reported infidelities.
  4. [Section IV.C] The paper does not report the number of random circuits and repetitions for the CZ-GERB depth scan in the same detail as for the 2Q CRB scan; Appendix F mentions 10 circuits and about 20 repetitions, but the main text could state this more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: headline fidelities are measured against external Clifford randomized benchmarking standards, and the error budget is a post-hoc model that does not feed the reported fidelities.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the single-qubit CRB fidelity of 99.963(2)% and the two-qubit CZ fidelity extracted from two-qubit Clifford RB as 99.72(3)% (with post-selection) and 99.40(3)% (without). These numbers come from randomized benchmarking against ideal Clifford operations, which is an external standard independent of the paper's own model; the decay fits and the depolarizing-model decomposition are standard practice and do not define the target fidelity in terms of itself. The Appendix G error budget is a post-hoc accounting exercise: its simulated 0.375% infidelity is compared with, not used to produce, the experimental RB numbers. Self-citations to Refs. [1, 7, 10, 26] document the apparatus and prior system capabilities; they are not invoked to justify the gate fidelities or to forbid alternative interpretations. The only notable concern is in Appendix F, where the single-qubit error subtraction multiplies the 'known 1Q CRB error' by the average number of native Xπ/2 gates per 2Q Clifford; since the CRB error is quoted per 1Q Clifford gate, a units mismatch is possible if one Clifford compiles to more than one Xπ/2 pulse. This is a correctness/normalization issue that could bias the headline number, but it is not circular: both the 1Q CRB error and the 2Q CRB decay are independently measured inputs, and the per-CZ fidelity is not equal to any of those inputs by construction. The paper also honestly declines to include poorly characterized errors in the budget ('We decline to include errors in the error budget which are not experimentally well-characterized'), which is a transparency statement rather than a circular step. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarking standards, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This experimental paper does not introduce new theoretical entities. The listed assumptions are standard benchmarking and physical mechanisms; the reported fidelities are measured, not derived from a model.

free parameters (3)
  • Rydberg gate phase parameters (A, omega, phi, T, Delta) = Calibrated per session via Hessian-eigenvector scans
    Five control parameters of the UV pulse phase profile (Sec. IV.B) tuned experimentally; they affect the measured CZ fidelity but are not free parameters in the fidelity derivation.
  • Single-qubit Xpi/2 pulse area and differential light shift = Tuned via RPE-based calibrations
    Calibrated to cancel pulse-area errors and light shifts (Sec. III); necessary for the reported 1Q fidelity.
  • Clock pulse area and static detuning width = Detuning drift width 33 Hz used in error budget
    Clock shelving pulse parameters calibrated via RPE; the 33 Hz static detuning width is a fitted input to the error budget (Appendix G).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Rydberg blockade creates a conditional phase when two atoms are excited to the Rydberg state
    Underpins the CZ gate in Sec. IV; standard mechanism referenced to [36].
  • domain assumption Randomized benchmarking extracts average gate fidelity under a depolarizing, gate-independent error model
    Required for converting Clifford RB decay into per-gate fidelity (Sec. IV.C, Appendix F).
  • domain assumption The clock shelving transition and UV excitation are state-selective for the qubit encoding
    Necessary for the CZ gate to act conditionally on |1> and not on |0> (Sec. II, IV.A).
  • domain assumption Errors from single-qubit gates subtract linearly from two-qubit benchmarks
    Used in Appendix F to isolate CZ error from Clifford RB by subtracting the 1Q CRB error multiplied by average gate count.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-fidelity universal gates in the $^{171}$Yb ground state nuclear spin qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VYAYPAVL

@misc{pith2026241111708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-fidelity universal gates in the $^171$Yb ground state nuclear spin qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VYAYPAVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11708}
}
abstract

Arrays of optically trapped neutral atoms are a promising architecture for the realization of quantum computers. In order to run increasingly complex algorithms, it is advantageous to demonstrate high-fidelity and flexible gates between long-lived and highly coherent qubit states. In this work, we demonstrate a universal high-fidelity gate-set with individually controlled and parallel application of single-qubit gates and two-qubit gates operating on the ground-state nuclear spin qubit in arrays of tweezer-trapped $^{171}$Yb atoms. We utilize the long lifetime, flexible control, and high physical fidelity of our system to characterize native gates using single and two-qubit Clifford and symmetric subspace randomized benchmarking circuits with more than 200 CZ gates applied to one or two pairs of atoms. We measure our two-qubit entangling gate fidelity to be 99.72(3)% (99.40(3)%) with (without) post-selection. In addition, we introduce a simple and optimized method for calibration of multi-parameter quantum gates. These results represent important milestones towards executing complex and general quantum computation with neutral atoms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11708 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. System description and single-qubit rotations. (a) Diagram showing an array of trapped atoms (blue circles) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Clock benchmark. (a) Probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two-qubit gate. (a) Schematic depiction of three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Two-qubit Clifford RB (a) and CZ-GERB (b) bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Level diagram indicating the most relevant states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Clock excitation. (a) Sideband spectroscopy on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Rydberg state and laser characterization. (a) Ryd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The circuits used for the 2Q Clifford RB experiments, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Error budget based on simulation and analytic calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Universal gates for a metastable qubit in strontium-88

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A universal gate set with erasure conversion is demonstrated on the metastable fine-structure qubit in strontium-88, along with a state-resolved detection scheme.

  2. A Universal Circuit Set Using the $S_3$ Quantum Double

    quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A complete circuit-level blueprint for universal quantum computation using the D(S3) quantum double, with anyon interferometry and a concatenated local error-correcting code.

  3. Strategic Plan for Neutral Atom Quantum Computation

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    If qubit-count growth (~1.8x/yr) and gate-error reduction (~0.62x/yr) continue, neutral-atom quantum computers could reach practical quantum advantage within a decade, this roadmap projects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Norcia, H

    M. Norcia, H. Kim, W. Cairncross, M. Stone, A. Ryou, M. Jaffe, M. Brown, et al., Iterative assembly of 171 yb atom arrays with cavity-enhanced optical lattices, PRX Quantum 5, 030316 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Pichard, D

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. M´ eriaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, B. Ximenez, A. Signoles, A. Browaeys, T. La- haye, and D. Dreon, Rearrangement of individual atoms in a 2000-site optical-tweezer array at cryogenic temper- atures, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 024073 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits (2024), arXiv:2403.12021

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Singh, C

    K. Singh, C. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, Mid-circuit correction of correlated phase errors using an array of spectator qubits, Science 380, 1265 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Deist, Y.-H

    E. Deist, Y.-H. Lu, J. Ho, M. K. Pasha, J. Zeiher, Z. Yan, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Mid-circuit cavity measure- ment in a neutral atom array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 203602 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    T. M. Graham, L. Phuttitarn, R. Chinnarasu, Y. Song, C. Poole, K. Jooya, J. Scott, A. Scott, P. Eichler, and M. Saffman, Mid-circuit measurements on a single- species neutral alkali atom quantum processor, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041051 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    M. A. Norcia, W. B. Cairncross, H. Kim, et al., Mid- circuit qubit measurement and rearrangement in a 171Yb atomic array, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041034 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. R¨ onchen, A. Jenkins, and A. M. Kaufman, Mid-circuit operations using the omg architecture in neutral atom arrays, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041035 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Barnes, P

    K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, B. J. Bloom, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, N. Crisosto, J. P. King, S. S. Kondov, K. Kotru, S. C. Larsen, et al., Assembly and coherent control of a register of nuclear spin qubits, Nature Communications 13, 2779 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    A. M. Stephens, Fault-tolerant thresholds for quantum error correction with the surface code, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022321 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622...

    2023

  6. [14]

    I. S. Madjarov, J. P. Covey, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, A. Kale, 14 A. Cooper, H. Pichler, V. Schkolnik, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, High-fidelity entanglement and detection of alkaline-earth Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 857 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Peper, Y

    M. Peper, Y. Li, D. Y. Knapp, M. Bileska, S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. P. Horvath, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Spectroscopy and modeling of 171Yb Rydberg states for high-fidelity two-qubit gates (2024), arXiv:2406.01482

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jenkins, J

    A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Ytterbium nuclear-spin qubits in an op- tical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021027 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Q. Xu, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveen- dran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasi´ c, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Y. Hong, M. Marinelli, A. M. Kaufman, and A. Lucas, Long-range-enhanced surface codes, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022607 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1971 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Observation of Rydberg blockade between two atoms, Nature Physics 5, 110 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    C. H. Baldwin, B. J. Bjork, J. P. Gaebler, D. Hayes, and D. Stack, Subspace benchmarking high-fidelity en- tangling operations with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013317 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, and M. Endres, Benchmarking and linear response modeling of high-fidelity Rydberg gates (2024), arXiv:2407.20184

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Emerson, R

    J. Emerson, R. Alicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 7, S347 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012304 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, et al., Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11822 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    T. O. H¨ ohn, E. Staub, G. Brochier, N. Darkwah Op- pong, and M. Aidelsburger, State-dependent potentials for the 1S0 and 3P0 clock states of neutral ytterbium atoms, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053325 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    J. P. Gaebler, A. M. Meier, T. R. Tan, R. Bowler, Y. Lin, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of mul- tiqubit gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 260503 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Charac- terizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042311 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Kimmel, G

    S. Kimmel, G. H. Low, and T. J. Yoder, Robust calibra- tion of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062315 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    T. Wilk, A. Ga¨ etan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Mirosh- nychenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using Rydberg blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010502 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    T. M. Graham, M. Kwon, B. Grinkemeyer, Z. Marra, X. Jiang, M. T. Lichtman, Y. Sun, M. Ebert, and M. Saffman, Rydberg-mediated entanglement in a two- dimensional neutral atom qubit array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 230501 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    S. Ma, A. P. Burgers, G. Liu, J. Wilson, B. Zhang, and J. D. Thompson, Universal gate operations on nuclear spin qubits in an optical tweezer array of 171Yb atoms, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021028 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    D. J. Wineland and W. M. Itano, Laser cooling of atoms, Phys. Rev. A 20, 1521 (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature 634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    H. Ball, W. D. Oliver, and M. J. Biercuk, The role of master clock stability in quantum information process- ing, npj Quantum Information 2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Scott, M. Friesen, and M. Saffman, Sensitiv- ity of quantum gate fidelity to laser phase and intensity noise, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042611 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    D¨ orscher, R

    S. D¨ orscher, R. Schwarz, A. Al-Masoudi, S. Falke, U. Sterr, and C. Lisdat, Lattice-induced photon scatter- ing in an optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A 97, 063419 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Wineland, C

    D. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. King, and D. Meekhof, Experimental issues in coher- ent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology 103, 259 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    M. H. Levitt, Composite pulses, Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy 18, 61 (1986)

    1986

  36. [44]

    M. H. Levitt and R. Freeman, NMR population inversion using a composite pulse, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 33, 473 (1979)

    1979

  37. [45]

    K´ ef´ elian, H

    F. K´ ef´ elian, H. Jiang, P. Lemonde, and G. Santarelli, Ultralow-frequency-noise stabilization of a laser by lock- ing to an optical fiber-delay line, Opt. Lett. 34, 914 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 202001 (2016)

    M. Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 202001 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    J. T. Wilson, S. Saskin, Y. Meng, S. Ma, R. Dilip, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Trapping Alkaline Earth Rydberg atoms optical tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 033201 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Time-optimal two-and three- qubit gates for Rydberg atoms, Quantum 6, 712 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Gottesman, An Introduction to Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation (2009), arXiv:0904.2557

    D. Gottesman, An Introduction to Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation (2009), arXiv:0904.2557

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. P. Gaebler, A. M. Meier, T. R. Tan, R. Bowler, Y. Lin, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, E. Knill, 15 D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized Bench- marking of Multiqubit Gates, Physical Review Letters 108, 260503 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, et al., Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, et al., A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Sahay, J

    K. Sahay, J. Jin, J. Claes, J. D. Thompson, and S. Puri, High-threshold codes for neutral-atom qubits with biased erasure errors, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041013 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    L. Li, W. Huie, N. Chen, B. DeMarco, and J. P. Covey, Active cancellation of servo-induced noise on stabilized lasers via feedforward, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 064005 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Hummel, S

    F. Hummel, S. Weber, J. M¨ ogerle, H. Menke, J. King, B. Bloom, S. Hofferberth, and M. Li, Engineer- ing Rydberg-pair interactions in divalent atoms with hyperfine-split ionization thresholds, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042821 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Bomb ´ ın, Single-shot fault-tolerant quantum error cor- rection, Phys

    H. Bomb ´ ın, Single-shot fault-tolerant quantum error cor- rection, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031043 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Nogrette, H

    F. Nogrette, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, D. Barredo, L. B´ eguin, A. Vernier, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Single-atom trapping in holographic 2D arrays of micro- traps with arbitrary geometries, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021034 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    L.-S. Ma, P. Jungner, J. Ye, and J. L. Hall, Delivering the same optical frequency at two places: accurate can- cellation of phase noise introduced by an optical fiber or other time-varying path, Opt. Lett. 19, 1777 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.