Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ultrafast high-fidelity state readout of single neutral atom

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single rubidium atom's state can be read out in 200 ns with 99.1% fidelity when its emission is Purcell-enhanced by an optical cavity.

desk verdict Real measurement, but the quoted readout fidelities are conditioned on a 4-µs preselection step that inflates them; still deserves a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12584 v1 pith:LPJKNNRR submitted 2024-12-17 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Jian Wang , Dong-Yu Huang , Xiao-Long Zhou , Ze-Min Shen , Si-Jian He , Qi-Yang Huang , Yi-Jia Liu , Chuan-Feng Li
show 1 more author
Guang-Can Guo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords PurcelleffectfiberFabry-Perotcavityneutralatomreadoutquantumstatediscriminationopticalpumpingrubidium-87electrodynamicsreal-timedecisionprotocol
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

Placing a single 87Rb atom at the center of a high-finesse fiber-based Fabry-Perot microcavity, in the regime where the cavity speeds up the atom's spontaneous emission, makes the atom scatter photons fast enough and into a well-collected mode that its bright and dark hyperfine states can be told apart in 200 nanoseconds with 99.1% fidelity. The same readout reaches 99.985% fidelity in 9 microseconds, and the atom survives each readout with probability above 99.7%. Because this readout is faster than typical optical pumping, the authors show it can also shorten state preparation: checking the state after each short pump segment cuts average preparation time from 24 to 5.98 microseconds for the dark state and from 1.0 to 0.65 microseconds for the bright state. If these numbers hold, fast high-fidelity state readout stops being a bottleneck for neutral-atom quantum network nodes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the atom-FFPC system in the Purcell regime: two fiber-facet mirrors spaced by 80 μm enhance the atomic photoemission rate by a factor of 10.45(29), so a single-photon counting module sees over 18 Mcps from the cycling transition. Discrimination is carried by a threshold $N_\mathrm{thr}$ on the detected-photon-number histogram, chosen to minimize the infidelity in Eq. (2), $\epsilon = [P(N \ge N_\mathrm{thr}|\mathrm{dark}) + P(N < N_\mathrm{thr}|\mathrm{bright})]/2$. The acceleration of state preparation is carried by the real-time decision rule of Eq. (3), $\langle t\rangle = \sum_i P_\mathrm{end}(i)\, i\,(t_P + t_R)$, which the FPGA controller evaluates after each pump-readout segment to decide whether to stop. Together these elements turn the same cavity into both a fast probe of the atomic state and a fast way to verify and finish optical pumping.

What would settle it

Prepare the two states as described, fix the threshold on a first dataset, then apply that fixed threshold to an independently prepared second dataset and recompute the infidelity; an out-of-sample error larger than the quoted 0.9% (200 ns) or 0.015% (9 μs) would show the reported fidelity is optimistic. Alternatively, lengthen the dark-state optical pumping well beyond 25 μs and check whether the dark histogram's mean detected photon number drops further, which would indicate contamination in the original dark preparation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Purcell-enhanced emission from one 87Rb atom coupled to a fiber-based Fabry-Perot microcavity (FFPC) of cooperativity C ≈ 4.7 lets a simple photon-number threshold separate the bright state $|F=2, m_F=2\rangle$ from the dark hyperfine manifold $|F=1\rangle$ with fidelity 99.1(2)% after 200 ns, 99.91(3)% after 800 ns, and 99.985(8)% after 9 μs. The photon detection rate in the shortest configuration reaches 18.1 Mcps, and the bright-state survival probability is measured at 99.73(4)% or higher across readout durations. The same readout, wrapped in a real-time decision loop, accelerates optical-pumping preparation by reducing the average dark-state preparation time from 24 μs to 5.98 μs and the bright-state preparation time from 1.0 μs to 0.65 μs.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted fidelities are computed from the same measured histograms that set the discrimination threshold, so if either state preparation leaks population into the wrong manifold, the chosen threshold can make the reported error look smaller than the true discrimination error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • State readout for neutral-atom network nodes can run at 200 ns to 9 μs with sub-1% error, replacing the hundreds-of-microsecond free-space fluorescence approach.
  • Because bright-state survival exceeds 99.7%, mid-circuit measurement and repeated readout are feasible without atom reloading.
  • Splitting a long optical pump into segments with a state check after each segment shortens average dark-state preparation from 24 μs to 5.98 μs and bright-state preparation from 1.0 μs to 0.65 μs.
  • The reported photon detection rate in the shortest configuration approaches the SPCM dead-time limit, so further gains lie mainly in detection efficiency and coupling rather than atomic emission rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could extend the same histogram-threshold method beyond a binary bright/dark decision to resolve multiple hyperfine or Zeeman levels, since the photon-number distribution is information-rich rather than simply two clusters.
  • The in-sample fidelity quoted in Eq. (2) is computed with a threshold chosen on the same data; an out-of-sample evaluation would separate the true discrimination error from threshold-fitting optimism.
  • If the cooperativity were raised toward the theoretical value of $g_0^2/(2\kappa\gamma)\approx 16$ by 3D confinement and ground-state cooling, the same detection strategy would plausibly push the 99% fidelity readout below 100 ns, extrapolating the paper's own scaling.
  • Applying the same readout to an atom array with site-selective level shifts, as the authors discuss in their outlook, would let one node be measured while neighbors are left untouched; that step is the main route to mid-circuit measurement in a neutral-atom register.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports Purcell-enhanced fluorescence readout of a single 87Rb atom coupled to a fiber-based Fabry-Pérot microcavity (FFPC). The authors characterize the cooperativity C ≈ 4.7 from both excited-state lifetime shortening and linewidth broadening, with the two methods in agreement. Using the cycling transition on the D2 line, they achieve a detected photon rate of 18.1 Mcps and report readout fidelities of 99.1(2)% in 200 ns, 99.91(3)% in 800 ns, and 99.985(8)% in 9 µs. They also demonstrate that ultrafast readout can accelerate optical-pumping-based state preparation through a real-time decision protocol, obtaining average preparation times of 5.98 µs for the dark state and 0.65 µs for the bright state, corresponding to speed-up factors of 4.0 and 1.5. The central claim is that Purcell enhancement enables nanosecond-to-microsecond high-fidelity state readout, which would be of practical value for quantum network nodes.

Significance. If the quoted fidelities are valid single-shot discrimination errors, this work is a significant advance for neutral-atom quantum information: it would push state readout into the sub-microsecond regime with sub-1% error, enabling faster mid-circuit measurement, higher-rate entanglement generation, and novel real-time state-preparation protocols. The Purcell enhancement is characterized by two independent methods (lifetime and linewidth) that agree, and the measured detection rates are internally consistent with the stated detection efficiency. The accelerated state-preparation demonstration is a useful proof of concept. However, the headline fidelity numbers are undermined by a confirmation-readout postselection that conditions the histograms on a prior 4-µs readout pulse, and the discrimination threshold is optimized on the same data used to report the infidelity. These issues affect the central quantitative claim and need to be addressed before the results can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Readout characterization, paragraph after Fig. 3(b)] The experimental sequence includes "an additional 4-µs state readout pulse to confirm the success of state preparation" before the readout whose photon-number histogram is analyzed. The histograms in Fig. 3(b–d) and the infidelity computed in Eq. (2) are therefore conditional on passing this confirmation. Runs in which a true bright atom emits no photon in the 4-µs window are discarded, as are dark-state runs that emit a noise photon during confirmation; these are exactly the runs that dominate the tails of the single-shot count distributions. Consequently, the quoted "readout fidelity" of 99.1(2)% within 200 ns does not represent the single-shot discrimination error after optical pumping that the abstract claims. The authors should either reanalyze the data without the confirmation selection or explicitly report the fidelity as conditional on the confirmation readout, and quantify the unconditional single-shot error.
  2. [Eq. (2) and threshold selection] The discrimination threshold N_thr is chosen on the same dataset used to compute the infidelity in Eq. (2). This in-sample minimization can bias the reported fidelity upward, and the quoted statistical uncertainties do not include the variance from the threshold selection. The authors should use a cross-validation or a held-out dataset to estimate the out-of-sample infidelity, or provide a systematic uncertainty for the threshold choice. Without this, the headline fidelity numbers are not robust estimates of the classifier's true error rate.
  3. [Survival probability measurements] The text states that the survival probability of bright-state atoms after scattering the probe laser is 99.73(4)%, 99.82(3)%, and 99.87(2)% for readout times of 200 ns, 800 ns, and 9 µs. It is unclear whether these numbers include the effect of the 4-µs confirmation pulse that precedes the main readout in the sequence. If the confirmation pulse itself causes loss or selects against atoms that have already been disturbed, the reported survival probabilities may also be conditional rather than the per-readout survival probability claimed. Clarify the exact sequence over which the survival probability is measured.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] Equation (3) contains a formatting error: "nX" should be the summation symbol, likely \sum_{i=1}^{n}.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase "By coupling an single neutral atom" is grammatically incorrect; it should be "By coupling a single neutral atom."
  3. [Table I in Supplementary] The parameters used for the Lindblad simulations that produce the calculated emission rates R_c are not given in the table or text. Specify the Rabi frequency, detunings, cooperativity, and any other parameters used for each readout configuration so that the calculations are reproducible.
  4. [References] Reference [40] points to "supplementary material," which is not a standard reference; the supplementary content should be cited in the text as an appendix or accompanying document rather than as a numbered reference in the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported readout fidelities, Purcell-enhanced emission rates, and preparation speed-ups are experimental measurements or are computed from independently characterized parameters, not from the quantities they are used to claim.

full rationale

The central readout fidelity claim (99.1(2)% within 200 ns, 99.985(8)% within 9 us) is an empirical result obtained from photon-number histograms shown in Fig. 3, with the threshold chosen to minimize the empirical infidelity in Eq. (2). This is an in-sample estimation procedure, and the 4-us confirmation readout conditions the quoted probabilities on a preliminary success check; both are potential statistical-bias concerns, but neither makes the fidelity an input to its own derivation. The infidelity in Eq. (2) is not defined in terms of the claimed result; it is the measured error of a decision rule at an optimized threshold, and the paper does not present it as a prediction from a fitted model. The Purcell enhancement is established by two independent measurements (lifetime shortening in Fig. 2(a) and transition line broadening in Fig. 2(b)) giving consistent cooperativity C, and the theoretical emission rates in Table I follow from a Lindblad calculation with these independently characterized parameters; the Table-I rates are used for a detection-efficiency estimate, not to generate the quoted fidelities. The accelerated-preparation protocol is an experimental demonstration: its average completion time is measured for segmented optical pumping, and the simulation in the supplement uses the same exponential-pumping model to illustrate the protocol, not to manufacture the experimental speed-up. Self-citations [40], [50], and [51] concern experimental methods (supplementary setup, PDH stabilization, frequency-comb locking) and are not load-bearing for the physics claims; there is no imported uniqueness theorem and no renamed known result. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against the measurements, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper's central result is an experimental measurement, so the ledger is relatively light. The only genuine free parameter in the readout analysis is the discrimination threshold, chosen per readout duration on the same dataset. The accelerated preparation protocol adds a segmentation number N and uses an exponential-decay model for optical pumping, with parameters inferred from the same apparatus. Background assumptions are the standard Lindblad treatment of the atom-cavity system, the purity of the prepared bright and dark states, and the validity of the alternate-switching probe scheme for cancelling recoil without affecting the cycling transition.

free parameters (3)
  • Discrimination threshold N_thr per readout duration = not reported numerically; optimized separately for 200 ns, 800 ns, 9 μs
    Eq. (2): chosen to minimize inferred infidelity on the measured histograms; not validated on an independent dataset, so it can optimistically bias the quoted fidelity.
  • Segmentation number N in accelerated preparation = N=6 for dark state, N=4 for bright state
    Chosen to minimize average protocol time in Eq. (3) with the measured pumping time constant; an optimization parameter, not a derived constant.
  • Overall photon detection efficiency = 26%
    Estimated as product of listed factors (out-coupling, fiber coupling, filters, SPCM quantum efficiency) and used to convert detection rates to emitted rates; no independent absolute calibration is described.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The driven atom-cavity system is modeled by a two-level atom coupled to one cavity mode, with Lindblad dissipation (Eqs. 6-8 in supplementary).
    Used to compute theoretical emission rates Rc in Table I and the lineshape in Eq. (1); ignores multi-level structure except for the effective coupling g.
  • domain assumption Bright-state cycling transition |F=2,mF=2> to |F''=3,m''=3> is the only resonantly driven transition during readout; off-resonant scattering to F'=2 is suppressed.
    Required for the bright state to emit many photons without being pumped into a dark state; stated in the paragraph after Eq. (2) and in Fig. 3(a).
  • domain assumption The alternate switching of the two counter-propagating probe beams cancels net momentum transfer and avoids interference while preserving σ+ polarization.
    Introduced in the setup description and supplementary 'Continuous laser probing'; it underlies the survival probabilities and the low heating assumption.
  • standard math Photon-number statistics follow Poisson distributions with rates set by emission and detection; SPCM dead-time can be corrected with a multiplicative factor.
    Used to interpret histograms in Fig. 3 and to estimate dead-time-missed photons in the 200 ns configuration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast high-fidelity state readout of single neutral atom." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LPJKNNRR

@misc{pith2026241212584,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast high-fidelity state readout of single neutral atom},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LPJKNNRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12584}
}
abstract

The capability to measure the state of a quantum system is vital to a practical quantum network, for applications including distributed quantum computing and long-distance quantum communication. As a thriving platform for quantum information technology, single neutral atoms suffer from low achievable photon scattering rate and shallow trapping potential, which limits the fidelity and speed of state readout process. Here, by coupling an single neutral atom with a high-finesse fiber-based Fabry-P\'erot microcavity (FFPC) in Purcell regime, we realize strong enhancement of the atomic photoemission rate, which enables ultrafast and high-fidelity discrimination of bright and dark hyperfine states of the atom. The readout fidelity can reach 99.1(2)% within 200 ns and 99.985(8)% within 9 $\mu$s. Furthermore, we demonstrate that state preparation via optical pumping can be efficiently accelerated by real-time decision protocol based on ultrafast state readout. This work paves the way to the implementation of quantum networking protocols with high communication rate and high fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12584 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the atom-FFPC system. At the cen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Characterization of atom-FFPC cooperativity. (a) Fluores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Laser configuration and results for characterization of state readout. (a) Lasers for state preparation and detection. For the preparation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Accelerated state preparation enabled by ultrafast state read [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Setup for cavity stabilization and fluorescence detection. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Setup for atom position optimization by adjusting the phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Setup for active background cancellation for fast excitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the fluorescence curve with and without ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A numerically simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Rapid Cavity-Based Mid-Circuit Measurement and Feedforward in a Neutral Atom Array

    quant-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cavity-based technique achieves sub-100 μs mid-circuit measurement and feedforward in neutral atom arrays with sub-percent infidelity and minimal crosstalk.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The quantum internet,

    H. J. Kimble, “The quantum internet,” Nature 453, 1023–1030 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Quantum re- peaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum com- munication,

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D ¨ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum re- peaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum com- munication,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5932–5935 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Error correcting codes in quantum theory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793–797 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Entanglement purification for quantum communi- cation,

    Jian-Wei Pan, Christoph Simon, ˇCaslav Brukner, and Anton Zeilinger, “Entanglement purification for quantum communi- cation,” Nature 410, 1067–1070 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,

    Koji Azuma, Sophia E. Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hi- laire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin, “Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons,

    Andreas Reiserer and Gerhard Rempe, “Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379–1418 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes,

    Jacob P Covey, Harald Weinfurter, and Hannes Bernien, “Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes,” npj Quantum Information 9, 90 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Optimal ar- chitectures for long distance quantum communication,

    Sreraman Muralidharan, Linshu Li, Jungsang Kim, Norbert L¨utkenhaus, Mikhail D Lukin, and Liang Jiang, “Optimal ar- chitectures for long distance quantum communication,” Scien- tific Reports 6, 20463 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users,

    Wei Zhang, Tim van Leent, Kai Redeker, Robert Garthoff, Ren´e Schwonnek, Florian Fertig, Sebastian Eppelt, Wenjamin Rosen- feld, Valerio Scarani, Charles C-W Lim, and Harald Wein- furter, “A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users,” Nature 607, 687...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Loophole-free bell inequality violation using elec- tron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,

    B Hensen, H Bernien, A E Dr ´eau, A Reiserer, N Kalb, M S Blok, J Ruitenberg, R F L Vermeulen, R N Schouten, C Abell´an, W Amaya, V Pruneri, M W Mitchell, M Markham, D J Twitchen, D Elkouss, S Wehner, T H Taminiau, and R Hanson, “Loophole-free bell inequality violation using e...

    2015

  3. [11]

    Event-ready bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes,

    Wenjamin Rosenfeld, Daniel Burchardt, Robert Garthoff, Kai Redeker, Norbert Ortegel, Markus Rau, and Harald Weinfurter, “Event-ready bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010402 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bell nonlocality,

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner, “Bell nonlocality,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419–478 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    A tweezer ar- ray with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits,

    Hannah J. Manetsch, Gyohei Nomura, Elie Bataille, Kon H. Leung, Xudong Lv, and Manuel Endres, “A tweezer ar- ray with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits,” (2024), arXiv:2403.12021 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Single-atom single-photon quan- tum interface,

    Tatjana Wilk, Simon C. Webster, Axel Kuhn, and Gerhard Rempe, “Single-atom single-photon quan- tum interface,” Science 317, 488–490 (2007), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1143835

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Logical quantum processor based on recon- figurable atom arrays,

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J Evered, Alexandra A Geim, So- phie H Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Made- lyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, J Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Nishad Maskara, Iris Cong, Xun Gao, Pe- dro Sales Rodriguez, Thomas Karolyshyn, Giulia Se...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Subpicosecond x rotations of atomic clock states,

    Yunheung Song, Han-gyeol Lee, Hyosub Kim, Hanlae Jo, and Jaewook Ahn, “Subpicosecond x rotations of atomic clock states,” Phys. Rev. A97, 052322 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Ultrafast energy exchange between two single rydberg atoms on a nanosecond timescale,

    Y Chew, T Tomita, T P Mahesh, S Sugawa, S de L ´es´eleuc, and K Ohmori, “Ultrafast energy exchange between two single rydberg atoms on a nanosecond timescale,” Nature Photonics 16, 724–729 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    High-rate, high-fidelity entanglement of qubits across an elementary quantum network,

    L. J. Stephenson, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, S. An, P. Dr- mota, T. G. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, J. F. Goodwin, D. M. Lu- cas, and C. J. Ballance, “High-rate, high-fidelity entanglement of qubits across an elementary quantum network,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110501 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    A quantum-logic gate between dis- tant quantum-network modules,

    Severin Daiss, Stefan Langenfeld, Stephan Welte, Emanuele Distante, Philip Thomas, Lukas Hartung, Olivier Morin, and Gerhard Rempe, “A quantum-logic gate between dis- tant quantum-network modules,” Science371, 614–617 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abe3150

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Fault- tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays,

    Josiah Sinclair, Joshua Ramette, Brandon Grinkemeyer, Dolev Bluvstein, Mikhail Lukin, and Vladan Vuleti ´c, “Fault- tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays,” (2024), arXiv:2408.08955 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    High-fidelity readout of trapped-ion qubits,

    A. H. Myerson, D. J. Szwer, S. C. Webster, D. T. C. Allcock, M. J. Curtis, G. Imreh, J. A. Sherman, D. N. Stacey, A. M. Steane, and D. M. Lucas, “High-fidelity readout of trapped-ion qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 200502 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Fast nonde- structive parallel readout of neutral atom registers in optical po- tentials,

    M. Martinez-Dorantes, W. Alt, J. Gallego, S. Ghosh, L. Ratschbacher, Y . V¨olzke, and D. Meschede, “Fast nonde- structive parallel readout of neutral atom registers in optical po- tentials,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 180503 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Stern–gerlach detection of neutral-atom qubits in a state-dependent optical lattice,

    Tsung-Yao Wu, Aishwarya Kumar, Felipe Giraldo, and David S Weiss, “Stern–gerlach detection of neutral-atom qubits in a state-dependent optical lattice,” Nature Physics 15, 538– 542 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Highly efficient state-selective submicrosecond photoionization detection of single atoms,

    F. Henkel, M. Krug, J. Hofmann, W. Rosenfeld, M. Weber, and H. Weinfurter, “Highly efficient state-selective submicrosecond photoionization detection of single atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253001 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Erasure con- version in a high-fidelity rydberg quantum simulator,

    Pascal Scholl, Adam L Shaw, Richard Bing-Shiun Tsai, Ran Finkelstein, Joonhee Choi, and Manuel Endres, “Erasure con- version in a high-fidelity rydberg quantum simulator,” Nature 622, 273–278 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit,

    Shuo Ma, Genyue Liu, Pai Peng, Bichen Zhang, Sven Jandura, Jahan Claes, Alex P Burgers, Guido Pupillo, Shruti Puri, and Jeff D Thompson, “High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit,” Nature622, 279–284 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Lossless state detection of single neutral atoms,

    J. Bochmann, M. M ¨ucke, C. Guhl, S. Ritter, G. Rempe, and D. L. Moehring, “Lossless state detection of single neutral atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 203601 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    A quantum gate between a flying optical photon and a single trapped atom,

    Andreas Reiserer, Norbert Kalb, Gerhard Rempe, and Stephan Ritter, “A quantum gate between a flying optical photon and a single trapped atom,” Nature 508, 237–240 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Mid- circuit cavity measurement in a neutral atom array,

    Emma Deist, Yue-Hui Lu, Jacquelyn Ho, Mary Kate Pasha, Jo- hannes Zeiher, Zhenjie Yan, and Dan M. Stamper-Kurn, “Mid- circuit cavity measurement in a neutral atom array,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 203602 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Cavity qed in a high na resonator,

    Danial Shadmany, Aishwarya Kumar, Anna Soper, Lukas Palm, 6 Chuan Yin, Henry Ando, Bowen Li, Lavanya Taneja, Matt Jaffe, David Schuster, and Jon Simon, “Cavity qed in a high na resonator,” (2024), arXiv:2407.04784 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Site-selective cavity readout and classical error cor- rection of a 5-bit atomic register,

    Beili Hu, Josiah Sinclair, Edita Bytyqi, Michelle Chong, Alyssa Rudelis, Joshua Ramette, Zachary Vendeiro, and Vladan Vuleti´c, “Site-selective cavity readout and classical error cor- rection of a 5-bit atomic register,” (2024), arXiv:2408.15329 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cooling to the ground state of axial motion for one atom strongly coupled to an optical cavity,

    A. D. Boozer, A. Boca, R. Miller, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, “Cooling to the ground state of axial motion for one atom strongly coupled to an optical cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 083602 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Photon burst detection of single atoms in an optical cavity,

    M L Terraciano, R Olson Knell, D G Norris, J Jing, A Fern ´andez, and L A Orozco, “Photon burst detection of single atoms in an optical cavity,” Nature Physics 5, 480–484 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Cavity-based single atom prepara- tion and high-fidelity hyperfine state readout,

    Roger Gehr, J ¨urgen V olz, Guilhem Dubois, Tilo Steinmetz, Yves Colombe, Benjamin L. Lev, Romain Long, J ´erˆome Est`eve, and Jakob Reichel, “Cavity-based single atom prepara- tion and high-fidelity hyperfine state readout,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203602 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Telecom- wavelength quantum repeater node based on a trapped-ion pro- cessor,

    V . Krutyanskiy, M. Canteri, M. Meraner, J. Bate, V . Krc- marsky, J. Schupp, N. Sangouard, and B. P. Lanyon, “Telecom- wavelength quantum repeater node based on a trapped-ion pro- cessor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 213601 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,

    E Knill, “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices,” Nature 434, 39–44 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    How to build a 300 bit, 1 giga-operation quantum computer,

    Andrew M. Steane, “How to build a 300 bit, 1 giga-operation quantum computer,” Quantum Inf. Comput.7, 171–183 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Quantum error mitigation,

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J. Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R. McClean, and Thomas E. O’Brien, “Quantum error mitigation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Proceedings of the american physical society,

    E. M. Purcell, “Proceedings of the american physical society,” Phys. Rev. 69, 674–674 (1946)

    1946

  32. [40]

    See supplementary material,

  33. [41]

    Fast ex- citation and photon emission of a single-atom-cavity system,

    J. Bochmann, M. M ¨ucke, G. Langfahl-Klabes, C. Erbel, B. We- ber, H. P. Specht, D. L. Moehring, and G. Rempe, “Fast ex- citation and photon emission of a single-atom-cavity system,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 223601 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom,

    T G Tiecke, J D Thompson, N P de Leon, L R Liu, V Vuleti ´c, and M D Lukin, “Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom,” Nature 508, 241–244 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Strong purcell effect on a neutral atom trapped in an open fiber cavity,

    J. Gallego, W. Alt, T. Macha, M. Martinez-Dorantes, D. Pandey, and D. Meschede, “Strong purcell effect on a neutral atom trapped in an open fiber cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 173603 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Interface between trapped-ion qubits and traveling photons with close-to-optimal efficiency,

    J. Schupp, V . Krcmarsky, V . Krutyanskiy, M. Meraner, T.E. Northup, and B.P. Lanyon, “Interface between trapped-ion qubits and traveling photons with close-to-optimal efficiency,” PRX Quantum 2, 020331 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Single-photon detectors for optical quan- tum information applications,

    Robert H Hadfield, “Single-photon detectors for optical quan- tum information applications,” Nature Photonics 3, 696–705 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    High-fidelity optical readout of a nuclear-spin qubit in silicon carbide,

    Erik Hesselmeier, Pierre Kuna, Wolfgang Knolle, Florian Kaiser, Nguyen Tien Son, Misagh Ghezellou, Jawad Ul- Hassan, Vadim V orobyov, and J¨org Wrachtrup, “High-fidelity optical readout of a nuclear-spin qubit in silicon carbide,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 180804 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Single-shot readout of a nuclear spin in silicon carbide,

    Xiao-Yi Lai, Ren-Zhou Fang, Tao Li, Ren-Zhu Su, Jia Huang, Hao Li, Li-Xing You, Xiao-Hui Bao, and Jian-Wei Pan, “Single-shot readout of a nuclear spin in silicon carbide,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 180803 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Satellite-assisted quantum com- munication with single photon sources and atomic memories,

    V . Dom´ınguez Tub´ıo, M. Bad ´as Aldecocea, J. van Dam, A. S. Sørensen, and J. Borregaard, “Satellite-assisted quantum com- munication with single photon sources and atomic memories,” (2024), arXiv:2411.09533 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Error-detected quantum operations with neutral atoms medi- ated by an optical cavity,

    Brandon Grinkemeyer, Elmer Guardado-Sanchez, Ivana Dim- itrova, Danilo Shchepanovich, G. Eirini Mandopoulou, Jo- hannes Borregaard, Vladan Vuleti ´c, and Mikhail D. Lukin, “Error-detected quantum operations with neutral atoms medi- ated by an optical cavity,” (2024), arXiv:241...

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Feedback and compensation scheme to suppress the thermal effects from a dipole trap beam for the optical fiber microcavity,

    Yuhao Pan, Li Li, Xiaolong Zhou, Dongyu Huang, Zemin Shen, Jian Wang, Chuanfeng Li, and Guangcan Guo, “Feedback and compensation scheme to suppress the thermal effects from a dipole trap beam for the optical fiber microcavity,” Opt. Express 30, 46280–46293 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Con- tinuously and widely tunable frequency-stabilized laser based on an optical frequency comb,

    Ze-Min Shen, Xiao-Long Zhou, Dong-Yu Huang, Yu-Hao Pan, Li Li, Jian Wang, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo, “Con- tinuously and widely tunable frequency-stabilized laser based on an optical frequency comb,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 94 (2023), 10.1063/5.0120119

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    High-finesse fiber fabry–perot cavities: stabi- lization and mode matching analysis,

    Jose Gallego, Sutapa Ghosh, Seyed Khalil Alavi, Wolfgang Alt, Miguel Martinez-Dorantes, Dieter Meschede, and Lothar Ratschbacher, “High-finesse fiber fabry–perot cavities: stabi- lization and mode matching analysis,” Appl. Phys. B122, 1–14 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

    J.R. Johansson, P.D. Nation, and Franco Nori, “Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,” Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234–1240 (2013). 7 Supplementary Meterials Single atom preparation Loading of single atom To load the single neutral atom...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.