Repeated ancilla reuse for logical computation on a neutral atom quantum computer

A. Brown; A. Heinz; A. M. W. Jones; A. Ryou; A. Smull; B. J. Bloom; C.-A. Chen; C. Griger; C. Nishiguchi; D. Aasen

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Repeated ancilla reuse for logical computation on a neutral atom quantum computer

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neutral-atom quantum processor demonstrates that ancilla qubits can be measured, reset, and reused many times inside a circuit, with lost atoms replaced from a reservoir that is itself refilled from an atomic beam, sustaining 41 rounds…

desk verdict Strong hardware demonstration of ancilla reuse and replenishment; the repetition-code performance claims are real but conditional on a fine-tuned decoder. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09936 v1 pith:WJDMV3H7 submitted 2025-06-11 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

J. A. Muniz , D. Crow , H. Kim , J. M. Kindem , W. B. Cairncross , A. Ryou , T. C. Bohdanowicz , C.-A. Chen

show 54 more authors

Y. Ji A. M. W. Jones E. Megidish C. Nishiguchi M. Urbanek L. Wadleigh T. Wilkason D. Aasen K. Barnes J. M. Bello-Rivas I. Bloomfield G. Booth A. Brown M. O. Brown K. Cassella G. Cowan J. Epstein M. Feldkamp C. Griger Y. Hassan A. Heinz E. Halperin T. Hofler F. Hummel M. Jaffe E. Kapit K. Kotru J. Lauigan J. Marjanovic M. Meredith M. McDonald R. Morshead S. Narayanaswami K. A. Pawlak K. L. Pudenz D. Rodríguez Pérez P. Sabharwal J. Simon A. Smull M. Sorensen D. T. Stack M. Stone L. Taneja R. J. M. van de Veerdonk Z. Vendeiro R. T. Weverka K. White T.-Y. Wu X. Xie E. Zalys-Geller X. Zhang J. King B. J. Bloom M. A. Norcia

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph MSC 81P6881P70 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Pp

keywords neutralatomquantumcomputingmidcircuitmeasurementancillareuselosscorrectionrepetitioncodeerrorheraldedstatepreparationopticaltweezers

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

The paper aims to establish that a neutral-atom quantum processor can measure, reset, and reuse the same ancilla qubits many times in the middle of a circuit, replacing any atoms lost during the process and even refilling the spare-atom reservoir from an atomic beam while data qubits keep their coherence. This matters because fault-tolerant computation needs many rounds of syndrome measurement, and neutral-atom qubits are lost over time; without reuse and replacement, error-corrected circuits would be cut short. The authors demonstrate 41 consecutive rounds of repetition-code syndrome extraction with roughly flat detection rates, and a repeat-until-success protocol that heraldedly prepares a logically encoded Bell state with a 0.4% failure rate, beating the 2.3% failure rate of unencoded distillation. In principle, the demonstrated replenishment lets a logical computation outlive the lifetime of any single atom.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the zoned architecture and the mid-circuit measurement (MCM) cycle built on it. Five zones, register, interaction, measurement, storage, and loading, are formed by wavelength-separated optical tweezers; qubits are 171Yb nuclear-spin states, and readout uses photons collected from a cavity-enhanced lattice. A full MCM cycle images both state and presence, applies gray-molasses cooling and optical pumping, runs a spin echo on register atoms, and then a real-time software service conditionally moves replacement atoms from the storage zone into vacancies. The walking repetition code, a 1D ring code with swap-based syndrome extraction, is the circuit-level mechanism that lets every atom be measured within two cycles, so reuse and replacement keep 41 rounds of detection flat.

What would settle it

Freeze the decoder's noise parameters before collecting a fresh batch of repetition-code and heralded-state-preparation data, calibrating only on independent gate and loss measurements, and then re-analyze; if the logical failure rate no longer improves with code distance or the encoded Bell-state failure rate rises to the unencoded level, the error-suppression results are artifacts of decoder tuning rather than evidence for reusable ancillas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that midcircuit measurement on neutral atoms can be made fully reusable: a two-image state-and-presence readout in a cavity-enhanced lattice, followed by gray-molasses cooling, optical pumping, and a register spin echo, returns measured atoms to a known state without destroying data coherence, and conditional movement fills measured-zone vacancies from a storage zone. The authors turn this into a walking repetition code in which data and ancilla roles swap every cycle, so no physical atom stays active for more than two cycles before being measured, cooled, and if needed replaced. They report roughly constant detector frequencies over 41 rounds, improvement of logical failure rate with code distance from three to seven (or nine in the phase-insensitive case), and heralded preparation of logical Bell states encoded in the $[[4,2,2]]$ code with a basis-averaged failure rate of 0.4% and an average of 1.44 attempts. They also refill the storage reservoir from a magneto-optical trap fed by an atomic beam while a Ramsey sequence on the register retains 95.6(14)% contrast, supporting the claim that data qubits can outlast any single atom in the system.

Load-bearing premise

The decoder that converts raw repetition-code data into logical failure rates, and the error-detection statistics in the heralded state-preparation loop, rely on an error model whose parameters were fine-tuned on earlier runs of the same experiments; if that model does not faithfully describe the physical noise, including loss-correlated gate errors, the reported logical error rates could reflect tuning rather than genuine error suppression.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ancilla reuse removes the need to freshly prepare new ancillas for every syndrome round, so deep error-corrected circuits on neutral atoms no longer require destructive measurement and re-loading at each step.
Roughly constant detector frequencies over 41 rounds show that heating and loss do not accumulate across many MCM cycles when atoms are cooled and replaced.
Distance-dependent logical failure rates in the walking repetition code show genuine error suppression, despite a plateau the authors note but do not investigate in depth.
Heralded repeat-until-success preparation of $[[4,2,2]]$-encoded Bell states at 0.4% failure, compared with 2.3% for unencoded distillation, gives a practical route to logical resource-state factories.
Refilling the storage zone from an atomic beam while keeping 95.6% Ramsey contrast means circuits can, in principle, run longer than the lifetime of any individual atom.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: if replenishment can be repeated with per-cycle coherence loss staying near the measured single-sequence contrast loss, neutral-atom logical circuits have no fundamental atom-lifetime limit; the practical barrier becomes replenishment fidelity rather than atom survival.
Inference: the walking-code trick of swapping data and ancilla roles each cycle can be transplanted to 2D surface codes, where periodic measurement, cooling, and replacement of every physical qubit would suppress both heating and loss accumulation.
Inference: the dominant per-cycle losses identified in Appendix C, pumping into 3P2 from 423 nm leakage light and cooling-beam leakage, are technical rather than fundamental; reducing them should directly lower logical error rates and extend the interval between reservoir refills.
Inference: the repeat-until-success loop with an average of 1.44 attempts could be nested to assemble larger encoded states block by block, with the 0.4% failure rate setting the per-block success budget.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know about this paper: the hardware capability is real, and the QEC headline is softer than the abstract implies. The core claims—repeated MCM with reset and reuse, replacement of lost ancillas from a reservoir, and mid-circuit refill of the reservoir from an atomic beam while preserving coherence—are supported by direct measurements with quoted uncertainties. Those measurements hold up. The repetition code results show the capability works, but the logical error suppression numbers depend on a decoder whose noise parameters were fine-tuned on earlier runs of the same experiment, and the authors openly say they lack data to explain the plateau at larger distance.

What is genuinely new is the combination: repeated ancilla reuse inside a universal gate set, conditional replacement driven by real-time software, and coherence-maintaining replenishment. The per-cycle register loss of 0.0106(7) and contrast loss of 0.0049(7) are clean numbers. The Bell-state fidelities of 98.8(1)% for both register and MCM preparation match, and the GERB benchmarks show gate performance is not degraded after MCM. The replenishment sequence with 95.6(14)% Ramsey contrast while refilling from the MOT is an impressive engineering result. The appendices also give raw shot counts and loss budgets, which is more than many experimental papers do.

The soft spots are localized. Appendix E states that the Stim/PyMatching noise model was fine-tuned over earlier runs of repetition code experiments, with loss-correlated gate-error edge weights adjusted per shot. That is a calibration-to-evaluation risk: if the tuning absorbs unmodeled correlated errors or drift, the distance-dependent failure rates in Table III could overstate the improvement. The authors also note the detection frequency is distance-independent and the logical error rate plateaus, which they do not investigate. Bell fidelities are post-selected on survival, though the authors are explicit about this and give the MCM loss separately. I would not call the whole thing circular—the core architecture benchmarks are externally defined—but the logical-performance claim should be read as conditional until a decoder comparison or a more robust noise model appears.

The paper is for people working on neutral atom hardware and on practical paths to fault tolerance. It deserves a serious referee: the hardware demonstration is significant, and the QEC claims need scrutiny rather than dismissal. I would cite it for the ancilla-reuse and replenishment results, and I would bring it to a reading group focused on experimental QEC.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of repeated mid-circuit measurement (MCM) with ancilla reset, reuse, and loss replacement in a 171Yb neutral-atom processor based on a zoned tweezer and cavity-lattice architecture. The authors quantify MCM's cost (register atom loss 0.0106(7) and contrast loss 0.0049(7) per cycle), benchmark gates after MCM reinitialization (GERB error rates and 98.8(1)% Bell-state fidelities for both register and MCM preparation), and use MCM plus conditional atom movement to run a 'walking' repetition code with up to 41 syndrome-extraction rounds, including distance-dependent logical failure rates (Fig. 3 and Table III). They also demonstrate heralded preparation of a logical Bell pair via conditional retries (encoded failure rate 0.4%, average 1.44 attempts, Fig. 4) and replenishment of the storage zone from a MOT while preserving register coherence (full-sequence Ramsey contrast 95.6(14)%, Fig. 5). Raw data for the main logical benchmarks are reported in appendices.

Significance. Taken at face value, the demonstrated ability to repeatedly measure, reset, reuse, and replace ancilla atoms while preserving data-qubit coherence is an important step for neutral-atom quantum computing, since atom loss and finite atom lifetime are central known limitations. The direct measurements per-cycle loss and coherence, gate benchmarks after MCM, Bell-state fidelities, and the replenishment Ramsey are concrete, include quoted statistical uncertainties, and do not depend on the decoding analysis. The inclusion of raw data tables (Tables III and IV) is a further strength. The repetition-code error-suppression claim is the main weak point: as the authors state, the decoder parameters were fine-tuned on earlier repetition-code experiments, and the phase-insensitive distance scan shows a plateau, so the logical error-rate improvement is not yet conclusively established. The paper's core contribution remains the MCM-reuse and replenishment capability, which is well supported.

major comments (2)

[IV, Appendix E; Fig. 3(c), Table III] The logical failure rates used to claim error suppression with code distance come from a PyMatching decoder whose Stim error model was fine-tuned on earlier runs of the same repetition-code experiments (Appendix E). Because the benchmark and the tuning use the same class of data, the distance-dependent improvement in Fig. 3(c) could reflect the decoder absorbing unmodeled, loss-correlated, or slowly drifting noise rather than intrinsic suppression by the code. I recommend an out-of-sample decoder test (e.g., tuning on one portion of the data and evaluating on a held-out portion), comparison with an independently extracted noise model, or a sensitivity analysis over plausible error-model parameters; alternatively, the text should drop or explicitly caveat the error-suppression claim.
[Table III, Fig. 3(c)] For the phase-insensitive variant, the data in Table III show 25/17820 failures at distance 3 and 3/17640, 4/17460, and 3/16920 at distances 5, 7, and 9. The three larger distances are statistically indistinguishable, and the authors note a plateau. The main text's phrase 'demonstration of error suppression as a function of code distance' is therefore stronger than the data support; at least for this variant, the plot should be discussed as showing an approximate plateau, or the claim should be restricted to the phase-sensitive variant.

minor comments (4)

[Section III, Fig. 2] The text refers to 'Fig. 2(c)' for the Bell-state fidelities, but the figure caption lists them as Fig. 2(d); the panel numbering in the text and figure should be reconciled.
[Appendix B, Table I and Section II] Table I lists MCM imaging loss of 0.005(2) per bright image, while the main text reports a per-cycle MZ loss of 0.005(2); please clarify whether the quoted per-cycle number includes both images in the MCM cycle.
[Section IV, Table III] The text says the distance scan covered odd distances between 3 and 9, but Table III contains phase-sensitive data only for distances 3, 5, and 7; either add the d=9 phase-sensitive data or revise the sentence.
[Fig. 4(b), Section V] The encoded failure rate is given as 0.4(4)(2)% and the failed-attempt rate as 0.11(3)(2)%; please state in the caption or text whether these are 95% confidence intervals from an asymmetric binomial distribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core reuse, replenishment, and state-preparation claims are direct measurements, and the decoder calibration is a stated limitation rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are benchmarked against externally defined quantities: MCM loss and contrast are extracted from a Ramsey sequence with repeated MCM cycles (Fig. 1d), gate performance after MCM is measured with Global-Echo Randomized Benchmarking and Bell state fidelities (Fig. 2), repetition-code detection frequencies are reported over 41 rounds (Fig. 3b), heralded logical Bell-state failure rates are tabulated for encoded and unencoded distillation (Fig. 4 and Table IV), and coherence during replenishment is measured with an inserted Ramsey sequence (Fig. 5b). None of these quantities is defined in terms of the paper's own outputs. The repetition-code logical failure rates in Fig. 3(c) and Table III are obtained by decoding new experimental shots with a PyMatching/Stim matching graph whose noise parameters were fine-tuned on earlier repetition-code runs, as stated in Appendix E; this is a calibration of an analysis tool on disjoint earlier data, not a fitted parameter renamed as the logical error rate, so it does not reduce the reported failure counts to the fitted parameters by construction. The authors explicitly note the plateau in logical error rate and defer a comparison between decoders to future work, which are honest limitations and correctness risks rather than circular steps. Self-citations to prior work [10, 11, 14] supply the gateset, erasure-conversion assumptions, and hardware methods, but the present demonstrations do not derive their main claims solely from those citations; repeated ancilla reuse, atom replacement, and coherence preservation are directly demonstrated with fresh measurements in this paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on measured hardware behavior (loss and coherence rates) and on an analysis pipeline for error correction whose decoder parameters were fitted to earlier runs of the same experiment. That fitted pipeline is the main free-parameter burden.

free parameters (1)

Decoder noise model parameters (Pauli error rates, readout error rates, loss-correlated gate error weights) used in… = Not specified; described as fine-tuned over earlier runs
Appendix E states that the noise parameters were 'initially based on fidelity estimates and gate characterizations, and were then fine-tuned over earlier runs of repetition code experiments. For the data shown in this paper, we used the final set of fine-tuned parameters.' This fitted pipeline affects the reported logical error rates and detection frequencies.

assumptions (4)

standard math Stabilizer formalism and minimum-weight perfect matching decoding are valid for the repetition code data analysis.
Invoked throughout Appendix E; the paper uses PyMatching and Stim, which assume standard stabilizer code theory.
domain assumption Leakage into the 3P0 and Rydberg states is converted to detectable atom loss after each 2Q gate with probabilities 99% and 80% respectively.
Appendix A states this is due to metastable states being untrapped in the 423 nm tweezers. This is a property borrowed from prior work (Ref [11]) and is essential for the delayed-erasure decoding used in the walking repetition code.
ad hoc to paper The error model used to generate the matching graph, with fine-tuned parameters, captures the physical noise processes including loss-correlated gate errors.
Appendix E describes modifying the matching graph per shot for atom loss and loss-correlated gate errors. The accuracy of this model is not independently verified, and its parameters were fitted to earlier runs of the same experiment.
domain assumption State-selective imaging reliably distinguishes the qubit state from atom loss with the tabulated error rates.
Appendix B and Table I give measurement error information for MCM imaging. The interpretation of all MCM results, including the heralded state preparation, depends on this distinguishability.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Repeated ancilla reuse for logical computation on a neutral atom quantum computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJDMV3H7

@misc{pith2026250609936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Repeated ancilla reuse for logical computation on a neutral atom quantum computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJDMV3H7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09936}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum processors based on neutral atoms trapped in arrays of optical tweezers have appealing properties, including relatively easy qubit number scaling and the ability to engineer arbitrary gate connectivity with atom movement. However, these platforms are inherently prone to atom loss, and the ability to replace lost atoms during a quantum computation is an important but previously elusive capability. Here, we demonstrate the ability to measure and re-initialize, and if necessary replace, a subset of atoms while maintaining coherence in other atoms. This allows us to perform logical circuits that include single and two-qubit gates as well as repeated midcircuit measurement while compensating for atom loss. We highlight this capability by performing up to 41 rounds of syndrome extraction in a repetition code, and combine midcircuit measurement and atom replacement with real-time conditional branching to demonstrate heralded state preparation of a logically encoded Bell state. Finally, we demonstrate the ability to replenish atoms in a tweezer array from an atomic beam while maintaining coherence of existing atoms -- a key step towards execution of logical computations that last longer than the lifetime of an atom in the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09936 by the authors.

**Figure 6.** Imaging is performed in a cavity-enhanced 784 nm 3D lattice by collecting the photons scattered from the cycling transition from state |1⟩ to 3P1 |F = 3/2, mF = 3/2⟩ with a high numerical-aperture microscope objective [14]. The MCM image is 7 ms long, and the applied 556 nm light has a saturation parameter of approximately 1 and detuning of roughly 100 kHz. Due to the limited optical access, the imaging beam is in… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7. Loss of register atoms during imaging. a) Calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Timing for mid-circuit reloading sequence. See text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: To compute detector values in the presence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Example detection regions for a distance-3 phase-sensitive repetition code. We show sensitivity for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: To detect bit-flip errors during preparation of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

Fast, continuous and coherent atom replacement in a neutral atom qubit array
quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Fast continuous refill of lost atoms in a 171Yb neutral-atom array: 1 ms tweezer loading, 30 full array preparations per second, and no measurable disturbance to resident qubits.
Logical qubits with erasure conversion using metastable neutral atoms
quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Metastable 171Yb qubits turn many errors into detectable erasures and use that information to improve logical qubit decoding and teleportation.
Efficient construction of fault-tolerant neutral-atom cluster states
quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A cavity-based protocol using counterfactual carving and a heralded gate can construct a fault-tolerant 3D cluster state with errors an order of magnitude below threshold at cooperativity 160 and 15-atom resource states.
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

36 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[1]

P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

1995
[2]

Knill and R

E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Theory of quantum error- correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997)

1997
[3]

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. X13, 041051 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

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
[5]

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)

work page 2023
[6]

M. A. Norcia, W. B. Cairncross, H. Kim,et al., Mid- circuit qubit measurement and rearrangement in a 171Yb atomic array, Phys. Rev. X13, 041034 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

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. X13, 041035 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

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, Nature626, 58 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 36 references

[9]

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, Nature634, 321 (2024)

2024
[10]

J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, M. Jaffe, J. M. Kindem,et al., High-fidelity universal gates in the 171Yb ground-state nuclear-spin qubit, PRX Quantum 6, 020334 (2025)

2025
[11]

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
[12]

M. N. H. Chow, V. Buchemmavari, S. Omanakuttan, B. J. Little, S. Pandey, I. H. Deutsch, and Y.-Y. Jau, Circuit-based leakage-to-erasure conversion in a neutral- atom quantum processor, PRX Quantum5, 040343 (2024)

2024
[13]

Perrin, S

H. Perrin, S. Jandura, and G. Pupillo, Quantum error correction resilient against atom loss (2025), arXiv:2412.07841 [quant-ph]

2025
[14]

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 Quantum5, 030316 (2024)

2024
[15]

W. Huie, L. Li, N. Chen, X. Hu, Z. Jia, W. K. C. Sun, and J. P. Covey, Repetitive readout and real-time control of nuclear spin qubits in 171Yb atoms, PRX Quantum4, 030337 (2023)

2023
[16]

Y. Wu, S. Kolkowitz, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Era- sure conversion for fault-tolerant quantum computing in alkaline earth rydberg atom arrays, Nature Communica- tions13, 4657 (2022)

2022
[17]

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
[18]

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. A108, 053325 (2023)

2023
[19]

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. X12, 021027 (2022)

2022
[20]

Z. Chen, K. J. Satzinger,et al., Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction, Nature 595, 383 (2021)

2021
[21]

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
[22]

D. Cruz, R. Fournier, F. Gremion, A. Jeannerot, K. Komagata, T. Tosic, J. Thiesbrummel, C. L. Chan, N. Macris, M.-A. Dupertuis,et al., Efficient quantum al- gorithms for GHZ and W states, and implementation on the IBM quantum computer, Adv. Quantum Technol.2, 1900015 (2019)

2019
[23]

S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman,et al., A race- track trapped-ion quantum processor, Phys. Rev. X13, 041052 (2023)

2023
[24]

Higgott and C

O. Higgott and C. Gidney, Sparse Blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching, Quantum9, 1600 (2025). 15

2025
[25]

A. G. Fowler, D. Sank, J. Kelly, R. Barends, and J. M. Martinis, Scalable extraction of error models from the output of error detection circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.1454 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[26]

Schlosser, G

N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, I. Protsenko, and P. Grangier, Sub-Poissonian loading of single atoms in a microscopic dipole trap, Nature411, 1024 (2001)

2001
[27]

J. Lee, J. H. Lee, J. Noh, and J. Mun, Core-shell magneto-optical trap for alkaline-earth-metal-like atoms, Phys. Rev. A91, 053405 (2015)

2015
[28]

L. Li, X. Hu, Z. Jia, W. Huie, W. K. C. Sun, Y. Dong, J. P. Covey,et al., Parallelized telecom quantum net- working with a ytterbium-171 atom array, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17406 (2025)

2025
[29]

Wimperis, Broadband, narrowband, and passband composite pulses for use in advanced nmr experiments, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series A109, 221 (1994)

S. Wimperis, Broadband, narrowband, and passband composite pulses for use in advanced nmr experiments, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series A109, 221 (1994)

1994
[30]

Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum5, 497 (2021)

C. Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum5, 497 (2021)

2021
[31]

Baranes, M

G. Baranes, M. Cain, J. Ataides, D. Bluvstein, J. Sinclair, V. Vuletic, H. Zhou, and M. D. Lukin, Leveraging atom loss errors in fault tolerant quantum algorithms, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20558 (2025)

2025
[32]

Deutsch, A

D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy ampli- fication and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2818 (1996)

1996
[33]

Vaidman, L

L. Vaidman, L. Goldenberg, and S. Wiesner, Error pre- vention scheme with four particles, Phys. Rev. A54, R1745 (1996)

1996
[34]

Grassl, T

M. Grassl, T. Beth, and T. Pellizzari, Codes for the quan- tum erasure channel, Phys. Rev. A56, 33 (1997)

1997
[35]

N. M. Linke, M. Gutierrez, K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, S. Debnath, K. R. Brown, and C. Monroe, Fault-tolerant quantum error detection, Science Advances3, e1701074 (2017)

2017
[36]

Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys

D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A57, 127 (1998)

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

1995

[2] [2]

Knill and R

E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Theory of quantum error- correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997)

1997

[3] [3]

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. X13, 041051 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

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

[5] [5]

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)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

M. A. Norcia, W. B. Cairncross, H. Kim,et al., Mid- circuit qubit measurement and rearrangement in a 171Yb atomic array, Phys. Rev. X13, 041034 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

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. X13, 041035 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

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, Nature626, 58 (2024)

work page 2024