Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Molecular spin qudits to test generalized Bell inequalities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Yb(trensal) molecular nanomagnets can violate generalized Bell inequalities in realistic simulations.

desk verdict A credible CHSH feasibility study on Yb(trensal) with an overreaching abstract and a much more fragile CGLMP trimer proposal. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22768 v1 pith:DXM7C6IC submitted 2025-07-30 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atm-clusphysics.chem-ph

S. Macedonio , L. Lepori , A. Chiesa , S. Chicco , L. Bersani , M. Rubin-Osanz , L. B. Woodcock , A. Mavromagoulos
show 5 more authors
G. Allodi E. Garlatti S. Piligkos A. Smerzi S. Carretta
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atm-clusphysics.chem-ph
keywords BellinequalitiesquditsmolecularnanomagnetsYb(trensal)CHSHinequalityCGLMPGRAPEoptimalcontrolspinquditentanglement
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 argues that a single molecular nanomagnet, Yb(trensal), can be the stage for a Bell test that goes beyond two-level systems. Its electronic spin acts as a qubit, and four states of its nuclear spin form a four-level qudit, together making a qubit–qudit pair. Using measured Hamiltonian parameters and measured coherence times (electronic $T_{2e}\approx 2.4\,\mu$s, nuclear $T_{2n}\approx 560\,\mu$s), the authors simulate an optimized pulse sequence and find a generalized CHSH Bell value near $2.34$, above the classical bound of $2$. They also propose a Cr–Yb–Cr trimer in which two spin-$3/2$ qudits are entangled through a switchable Yb spin, giving CGLMP values up to about $2.61$ when each qudit has $T_2=30\,\mu$s. If correct, molecular magnets can certify high-dimensional entanglement in a semi-device-independent way using only ensemble expectation values.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the generalized CHSH Bell operator $\hat{O}_{\rm Bell}=A\otimes(B+B')+A'\otimes(B-B')$ for a qubit–qudit pair, with the qudit observables $B,B'$ acting on a four-level subspace. The observable is re-expressed as four joint diagonal measurements after local unitary rotations, so the protocol needs only ensemble expectation values rather than projective measurements. The pulse sequence is built from resonant square pulses for state preparation and from GRAPE-optimized control fields for the measurement unitaries, simulated under the Lindblad master equation with pure-dephasing jump operators $S_z$ and $I_z$ at rates $1/T_{2e}$ and $1/T_{2n}$. For the trimer, the key mechanism is an ancilla-mediated controlled-phase gate: the central Yb spin acts as a switchable mediator, and a $\pi$ phase is applied to a selected two-qudit component through a conditional excitation and de-excitation of the ancilla, after which the ancilla returns to its ground state.

What would settle it

Run the published GRAPE pulse sequence on a $0.05\%$ $^{173}$Yb(trensal):Lu(trensal) single crystal at $B_z=0.3$ T and measure the four joint diagonal expectation values; if the resulting CHSH value is at or below $2$, the central claim fails. Alternatively, fit the measured nuclear Hahn-echo decays to a Gaussian rather than an exponential and re-run the master-equation simulation; if Gaussian dephasing with the same $T_{2n}$ lowers the simulated Bell value below $2$, the robustness claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Yb(trensal), an effective spin-$1/2$ electron coupled by hyperfine interaction to a nuclear spin $5/2$, provides a practical platform for violating generalized Bell inequalities on a qubit–qudit system. The authors construct the entangled state $|\psi\rangle=\frac12(|\uparrow,3/2\rangle+|\uparrow,-1/2\rangle+|\downarrow,-1/2\rangle+|\downarrow,-3/2\rangle)$, whose ideal CHSH value is $2.64575$, and show by Lindblad master-equation simulations with experimentally measured dephasing that the inequality is violated across a wide range of parameters; at the measured $T_{2e}=2.4\,\mu$s they obtain $\langle\hat{O}_{\rm Bell}\rangle\simeq 2.34$. For the two-qudit extension, they propose a switchable Cr–Yb–Cr trimer and show that the CGLMP functional exceeds $2$, reaching about $2.61$ for $T_2=30\,\mu$s, with optimized fidelities above $0.91$. The authors state this proves the robustness of entanglement in the investigated molecular spin systems and opens the way to an actual broadband NMR experiment.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that pure dephasing with exponential decay at the measured rates $1/T_{2e}$ and $1/T_{2n}$ is the only significant noise; Appendix C admits the nuclear-spin-bath decay tends to a Gaussian behavior, and the trimer's residual qudit–qudit couplings are negligible only to first order, so if either assumption fails the predicted violations may shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Bell inequality can be violated in a single molecular crystal at $B_z=0.3$ T using existing broadband NMR and EPR techniques, without projective measurements.
  • The violation persists in a wide range of pulse amplitudes and coherence times, so the protocol is robust enough for an experimental implementation in currently available Yb(trensal) samples.
  • The switchable Cr–Yb–Cr trimer provides a route to qudit–qudit CGLMP violations with the entangling interaction turned on only during gates, in principle allowing space-like separated measurements.
  • Molecular nanomagnets become viable platforms for high-dimensional entanglement certification, complementing trapped-ion, Rydberg, and transmon qudit systems.
  • The GRAPE-optimized pulses are essential: hand-optimized sequences fail to violate the CHSH inequality at the measured $T_{2e}$, while the optimized ones reach about $2.34$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the protocol uses only ensemble expectation values of diagonal spin operators, it could be run on bulk molecular crystals without single-shot readout, though closing detection and freedom-of-choice loopholes would still require additional experimental design.
  • The paper notes in Appendix C that the measured nuclear-spin coherence decay tends to a Gaussian form typical of a nuclear-spin bath; testing the same pulse sequence under Gaussian rather than exponential pure dephasing would show whether the predicted Bell values survive a more realistic noise model.
  • The same GRAPE-based approach could be applied to other lanthanide or transition-metal molecular qudits to certify high-dimensional entanglement, not just for CHSH and CGLMP but for non-dichotomic qubit–qudit inequalities the authors list as future work.
  • For the trimer, measuring the residual qudit–qudit coupling when the switch is off would directly bound the main systematic error in the CGLMP protocol.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and numerically simulates a protocol for testing generalized Bell inequalities in molecular spin systems. For a Yb(trensal) electro-nuclear system, treated as a qubit-qudit pair, the authors design a pulse sequence, use GRAPE-optimized unitaries to realize the four rotated measurement settings, and simulate the full protocol with a Lindblad pure-dephasing model using experimentally measured T2e = 2.4 us and T2n = 560 us. They report CHSH expectation values up to about 2.34, above the local bound of 2. For a hypothetical Cr-Yb-Cr trimer with two S = 3/2 qudits and a central spin-1/2 ancilla switch, they propose a 15-pulse sequence to prepare a maximally entangled two-qudit state and simulate CGLMP values up to I = 2.61 at T2 = 30 us and a marginal violation at T2 = 5 us. The central abstract claim is that the inequalities are 'safely violated in a wide range of parameters'.

Significance. If the results hold, this would be a valuable step toward using molecular nanomagnets for high-dimensional Bell tests, with a realistic experimental platform and concrete pulse sequences. The paper's strengths include the use of experimentally measured coherence times for Yb(trensal), detailed pulse tables in the appendices, an explicit construction of the Bell operator and optimal observables, and a clear separation between the established qubit-qudit part and the more speculative trimer proposal. The qubit-qudit CHSH simulation is internally consistent and appears technically sound. The trimer part, however, is a proposal based on a hypothetical Hamiltonian and parameter choices, and its claimed robustness depends on modeling assumptions that are not fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Extension to a two-qudits dimer'; Appendix G] The Lindblad simulations of the 15-pulse trimer sequence appear to include pure dephasing only on the two qudits, not on the ancilla switch. The text states that the ancilla T2 = 1 us has 'only a limited role' because it is in a superposition only during two-qudit gates, but no evidence is given that ancilla dephasing was actually included in the master equation. Since each controlled-Z gate in Eqs. (G7), (G8), and (G10) excites and de-excites the ancilla through conditional pi rotations, omitting its dephasing could inflate the fidelities in Table VII and the CGLMP values in Table XII. Please state explicitly which jump operators are used in the trimer simulation; if ancilla dephasing is omitted, rerun the simulations with it included and report the revised I values.
  2. [Appendix G, 'Realization of two-qudit gates via ancilla-controlled interactions'] The switch-off assumption is load-bearing: the text says the ancilla-mediated switch 'holds strictly to first order, apart from possible residual couplings', yet no quantitative estimate of the residual qudit-qudit coupling is given and no such term appears in the master equation. This assumption matters especially for the single-qudit rotations and the measurement unitaries, where Table X already shows state fidelities as low as 0.58 at T2 = 5 us. Please provide a numerical estimate of the effective residual coupling when the ancilla is in its ground state, or include it in the simulation and show that the reported CGLMP values are unchanged.
  3. [Table XII, Table XIII, and Fig. 2 (lower panel)] The CGLMP violation at T2 = 5 us is marginal: with uniform amplitudes the only value above 2 is I = 2.058 at B1 = 20 G, and with per-state amplitude optimization the best value is I = 2.165. Given the unmodeled ancilla dephasing and residual couplings discussed above, the abstract's claim that the inequalities are 'safely violated in a wide range of parameters' is not established for the trimer part. Please either restrict the robustness claim to the qubit-qudit CHSH case or provide a conclusive simulation that includes all relevant decoherence channels and demonstrates the violation over a well-defined parameter region.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There are typos in the text: 'Kocken-Speker' should be 'Kochen-Specker' and 'lager Hilbert space' should be 'larger Hilbert space'.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The sentence 'the relevant jump operators in Eq. (6) are to S_z and I_z' should read 'are proportional to S_z and I_z' or should specify the actual operators.
  3. [Table X] The first column, labeled 'Amp State', is not defined in the text; it appears to list pulse amplitudes, but the values (0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0009) are not clearly connected to the amplitudes used elsewhere. Please add a definition or remove the column.
  4. [Appendix C] The measured nuclear coherence decay is noted to 'tend to a gaussian behavior', while the simulations use exponential decay. Because T2n = 560 us is much longer than the pulse sequence durations (about 1 us), the numerical difference is likely negligible, but a one-sentence quantitative statement would preempt concern.
  5. [Main text, CHSH section] The protocol is called 'semi-device independent', but the precise assumptions (trusted dimension, trusted measurement settings, etc.) are only mentioned in the introduction; please state them explicitly in the protocol description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Bell and CGLMP values are genuine forward-simulation outputs from measured T2 inputs and independent inequality formalism; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain for the CHSH result is: (i) choose the entangled qubit-qudit state |ψ> in Eq. (3); (ii) obtain the optimal Bell observables from the independent formalism of Ref. [48] and reproduce the maximization in Appendix B, yielding the ideal bound <O>=2.64575; (iii) measure T2e≈2.4 µs and T2n=560 µs experimentally (Appendix C); (iv) simulate the full five-pulse preparation plus GRAPE-optimized local unitaries under the Lindblad master equation (Eq. (6)); (v) compute <O_Bell^max> from the resulting density matrices. Table II reports values between 2.07 and 2.56, all below the ideal bound, so they are computed outputs, not inputs. The optimized pulse amplitude B1 is chosen to maximize state fidelity, not the Bell value, so the violation is not a fitted target. The same holds for the CGLMP trimer: the target state (Eq. (12)/(14)) and measurement unitaries (Eq. (13)) are the standard CGLMP settings from Refs. [46,66]; the I values in Tables XII-XIII are obtained by simulating the 15-pulse sequence with Lindblad dephasing and then evaluating the CGLMP functional (Eq. (11)). No equation in the paper defines the predicted I in terms of an input that already contains that I. The self-citations (Refs. [10,34,38,67,68]) support the ancilla-mediated controlled-Z gate construction, but Appendix G provides explicit pulse parameters and simulations, so the CGLMP prediction does not reduce to those citations; Ref. [48], the source of the qubit-qudit Bell formalism, is not by the present authors. Appendix C's admission that the measured nuclear decoherence 'tends to a gaussian behavior' and Appendix G's caveat about residual couplings are model-accuracy limitations, not circular reasoning: the T2 values are measured inputs, and the residual-coupling effect is discussed and mitigated in the pulse parameters. Overall, the central claims are feasibility predictions from measured/assumed parameters and external inequality theory; there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no self-citation chain forcing the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The Yb(trensal) result rests mainly on measured Hamiltonian and coherence parameters plus the Lindblad pure-dephasing model. The trimer result additionally depends on unmeasured exchange, zero-field-splitting, and coherence-time assumptions. No new fundamental physical entities are introduced; the proposed trimer is a hypothetical arrangement of known molecular building blocks.

free parameters (4)
  • Pulse amplitudes B1 for Yb(trensal) state preparation and measurement unitaries = 10-60 G for state prep; best CHSH at 25 G for T2e=2.4 us
    Chosen manually and via GRAPE to balance leakage and dephasing; the Bell values in Tables II and IV depend on this choice.
  • Pulse amplitudes B1 for Cr-Yb-Cr trimer gates and measurement unitaries = 9-40 G for unitaries; 20-70 G for gates
    Selected per-state to maximize the CGLMP value; the violation at T2=5 us relies on different amplitudes for different measured states.
  • Proposed trimer spin-Hamiltonian parameters J12, J23, D1, D3 = J12=5e-3 meV, J23=3e-3 meV, D1=-3e-2 meV, D3=-2e-2 meV
    Not measured in this paper; taken as 'reasonable' from Cr-lanthanide literature. They set the level structure, transition frequencies, and effective gate times.
  • Assumed qudit and ancilla coherence times for the trimer = T2=5-30 us per qudit; T2=1 us for the Yb ancilla
    No measured values are given for the proposed trimer; the reported violation margins depend strongly on this range.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lindblad pure-dephasing model (Eq. 6) with exponential decay rates 1/T2e and 1/T2n describes all relevant decoherence
    Used throughout the simulations; Appendix C notes that the measured nuclear decoherence 'tends to a gaussian behavior', which is not the exponential form assumed.
  • domain assumption Yb(trensal) Hamiltonian parameters (Eq. 5) and factorized eigenstates at Bz=0.3 T are accurate
    Central to state preparation and transition frequencies; parameters are taken from literature and prior work, not re-derived in this paper.
  • standard math The CHSH/CGLMP measurement formalism of Refs. [48, 46, 66] is correct
    The paper uses the optimal qubit-qudit Bell observables and qudit CGLMP unitaries as inputs for the protocol.
  • domain assumption Residual qudit-qudit and ancilla couplings in the trimer are negligible when the switch is off
    Appendix G states this holds 'strictly to first order, apart from possible residual couplings'; residuals are mitigated but not eliminated in the simulations.
  • domain assumption Semi-device-independent assumptions of known dimension and measurement settings
    Required to interpret a Bell violation as entanglement certification; stated in the introduction as a few basic assumptions.
invented entities (1)
  • Cr3+-Yb(trensal)-Cr3+ molecular spin trimer
    purpose: Realize two spin-3/2 qudits with switchable coupling via a Yb ancilla for CGLMP tests
    The specific heterometallic trimer is proposed and simulated but not synthesized or characterized. Parameters are inferred from analogous Cr-lanthanide complexes, and no falsifiable prediction specific to this molecule is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Molecular spin qudits to test generalized Bell inequalities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DXM7C6IC

@misc{pith2026250722768,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Molecular spin qudits to test generalized Bell inequalities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DXM7C6IC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22768}
}
read the original abstract

We show that Yb(trensal) molecular nanomagnet, embedding an electronic spin qubit coupled to a nuclear spin qudit, provides an ideal platform to probe entanglement in a qubit-qudit system.This is demonstrated by developing an optimized pulse sequence to show violation of generalized Bell inequalities and by performing realistic numerical simulations including experimentally measured decoherence. We find that the inequalities are safely violated in a wide range of parameters, proving the robustness of entanglement in the investigated system. Furthermore, we propose a scheme to study qudit-qudit entanglement on a molecular spin trimer, in which two spins 3/2 are linked via an interposed switch to turn on and off their mutual interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22768 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Energy level diagram of the electro-nuclear dimer provided by the Yb(trensal) molecule (shown in the inset) as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Upper panel: schematic representation of the molec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Level diagram as a function of the external magnetic field applied along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Optimized control sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Summary of the results in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time evolution of the nonvanishing diagonal elements of the density matrix representing the state in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Chiesa, G

    A. Chiesa, G. Whitehead, S. Carretta, L. Carthy, G. Timco, S. Teat, G. Amoretti, E. Pavarini, R. Winpenny, and P. Santini, Scientific reports4, 7423 (2014). 22

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Lu(OTf) 3 ·9(H 2O) was synthesized from Lu 2O3 following a literature procedure [70]

    Synthesis Acetonitrile, tris(2-aminoethyl)amine, salicylaldehyde, Lu 2O3, 173Yb2O3, and triflic acid were purchased from commercial sources and used as received. Lu(OTf) 3 ·9(H 2O) was synthesized from Lu 2O3 following a literature procedure [70]. 173Yb(OTf )3 ·9(H 2O): 173Yb2O3 (0.100 g, 0.25 mmol) was dispersed in 5 ml H 2O to which aqueous triflic acid...

  3. [2]

    Measurements were performed on a commercial Bruker ELEXSYS-E580 spectrometer utilizing a ER 4118X-MD5 flexline resonator

    Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR)T 2e relaxation times were measured on a single crystal of isotopically enriched 173Yb(trensal) doped at a concentration of 0.05% into a diamagnetic host of Lu(trensal). Measurements were performed on a commercial Bruker ELEXSYS-E580 spectrometer utilizing a ER 4118X-MD5 flexline resonat...

    2018

  4. [3]

    Nuclear Magnetic Resonance The coherence times for the nuclear qudit were measured with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) on a single crystal containing isotopically enriched 173Yb(trensal), doped at 0.05% into its diamagnetic Lu(trensal) isostructural analogue. The NMR experiments were performed with a home-built broadband NMR spectrometer optimized for m...

  5. [4]

    Realization of single and joint operations with resonant pulses To realize the quantum gates, we rely on resonant electromagnetic pulses acting on the coupled qubit-qudit system: Suitable sequences of electromagnetic pulses are exploited to implement single-qubit, single-qudit, and joint qubit- qudit transformations [38]. These operations are based on tra...

  6. [5]

    a radiofrequency transition between the qudit states|x⟩=|− 5 2 ⟩and|y⟩=|− 3 2 ⟩, withθ=πandϕ=π(referred to the expressionU xy(θ, ϕ) in Eq. (D1))

  7. [6]

    a transition between the qudit states|− 3 2 ⟩and|− 1 2 ⟩, with parametersθ= 2π 3 andϕ=π

  8. [7]

    Due to the higher transition frequency of the electronic spin, the microwave pulse is significantly faster than the radiofrequency pulses acting on the nuclear qudit

    a microwave transition between the qubit states|− 1 2 ⟩and| 1 2 ⟩, with parametersθ= 2 arcsin q 2 3 andϕ=π. Due to the higher transition frequency of the electronic spin, the microwave pulse is significantly faster than the radiofrequency pulses acting on the nuclear qudit. In particular, its duration ranges between 7 and 14 ns depending on the assumed am...

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    a transition between the qudit states|− 1 2 ⟩and| 1 2 ⟩, with parametersθ= π 2 andϕ= 0

  2. [9]

    The results obtained from this procedure are reported in Table I: the optimization of the pulse amplitudes has been performed manually

    a transition between the qudit states| 1 2 ⟩and| 3 2 ⟩, with parametersθ=πandϕ= 0. The results obtained from this procedure are reported in Table I: the optimization of the pulse amplitudes has been performed manually. The amplitudes of the pulses described above, along with t...

  3. [10]

    Realization of two-qudit gates via ancilla-controlled interactions To control the 3 2 - 3 2 system, we use both single-qudit rotations, that are implemented as for the 1 2 - 3 2 , and two-qudit controlled operations, that, due to the absence of direct interaction between the t...

  4. [11]

    Preparation of the maximally entangled state Starting from the state |ψ⟩=|− 3 2 ⟩ 1 ⊗ |−1 2 ⟩ 2 ⊗ |−3 2 ⟩ 3 ,(G2) to reach the maximally entangled state |ψ⟩= 1 2 (|− 3 2 ,− 1 2 ,− 3 2 ⟩+|− 1 2 ,− 1 2 ,− 1 2 ⟩+|+ 1 2 ,− 1 2 ,+ 1 2 ⟩+|+ 3 2 ,− 1 2 ,+ 3 2 ⟩) = (G3) 1 2 (|− 3 2 ,−...

  5. [12]

    for the π 2 single-qudit rotations, a larger amplitude (e.g., 70 G) is chosen. Indeed, due to the residual qudit-qudit interaction still present when the switch is off, for this system the transition frequencies for single-qudit operations can be slightly influenced by the sta...

  6. [13]

    For two-qudit operations, the transitions are naturally well-targeted

    in contrast, for all other pulses a smaller amplitude (e.g., 20 G) is used. For two-qudit operations, the transitions are naturally well-targeted. A smaller amplitude is also used for certain single-qudit transitions. This is possible because, when applying the gate, the state...

  7. [14]

    Implementation of the unitaries Once the maximally-entangled state in Eq. (G9) is achieved, before performing the measurements to verify the violation of the inequality, we aim to apply the unitary operations with matrix elements [66]: [U (A) i ]k,l = 1√ d e 2πi l d (αi+k) ,[U...

    2027

  8. [15]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 865–942 (2009)

    2009

  9. [16]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 10.1103/revmod- phys.90.035005 (2018)

    2018 doi

  10. [17]

    Yago Malo, L

    J. Yago Malo, L. Lepori, L. Gentini, and M. L. M. Chiofalo, Technologies12, 10.3390/technologies12050064 (2024)

    2024 doi

  11. [18]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  12. [19]

    A. C. Dada, J. Leach, G. S. Buller, M. J. Padgett, and E. Andersson, Nature Physics7, 677–680 (2011)

    2011

  13. [20]

    Lo, C.-M

    H.-P. Lo, C.-M. Li, A. Yabushita, Y.-N. Chen, C.-W. Luo, and T. Kobayashi, Scientific Reports6, 10.1038/srep22088 (2016)

    2016 doi

  14. [21]

    Y. Bao, S. S. Yu, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science382, 1138 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    C. M. Holland, Y. Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, Science382, 1143 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Smerzi, Science382, 1118 (2023)

    A. Smerzi, Science382, 1118 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Chiesa, P

    A. Chiesa, P. Santini, E. Garlatti, F. Luis, and S. Carretta, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 034501 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Z. Wang, R. W. Parker, E. Champion, and M. S. Blok, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 034046 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Frontiers in Physics8, 10.3389/fphy.2020.589504 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Imany, J

    P. Imany, J. A. Jaramillo-Villegas, M. S. Alshaykh, J. M. Lukens, O. D. Odele, A. J. Moore, D. E. Leaird, M. Qi, and A. M. Weiner, npj Quantum Information5, 10.1038/s41534-019-0173-8 (2019)

    2019 doi

  21. [28]

    Lanyon, M

    B. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. Ralph, K. Resch, G. Pryde, J. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. White, Nat. Phys.5(2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    Tacchino, A

    F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, R. Sessoli, I. Tavernelli, and S. Carretta, J. Mater. Chem. C9, 10266 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    Roca-Jerat, E

    S. Roca-Jerat, E. Macaluso, A. Chiesa, P. Santini, and S. Carretta, Mater. Horiz.12, 3918 (2025)

    2025

  24. [31]

    M. Meth, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. Steiner, A. J. Jena, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, T. Monz, P. Schindler, C. Muschik, and M. Ringbauer, Simulating 2d lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2310.12110 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 111901 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. X6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    V. V. Albert, J. P. Covey, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. X10, 031050 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    J. A. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 010504 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Mezzadri, A

    M. Mezzadri, A. Chiesa, L. Lepori, and S. Carretta, Materials Horizons11, 4961–4969 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    Cozzolino, B

    D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxenløwe, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 10.1002/qute.201900038 (2019)

    2019 doi

  31. [38]

    H. Yu, S. Sciara, M. Chemnitz, N. Montaut, B. Crockett, B. Fischer, R. Helsten, B. Wetzel, T. Goebel, R. Kr¨ amer, B. Little, S. Chu, S. Nolte, Z. Wang, J. Aza˜ na, W. Munro, D. Moss, and R. Morandotti, Nature Communications16 (2025)

    2025

  32. [39]

    Weiss, G

    W. Weiss, G. Benenti, G. Casati, I. Guarneri, T. Calarco, M. Paternostro, and S. Montangero, New Journal of Physics18, 013021 (2016)

    2016

  33. [40]

    Fonseca, A

    A. Fonseca, A. de Rosier, T. V´ ertesi, W. Laskowski, and F. Parisio, Phys. Rev. A98, 042105 (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    Fine, Phys

    A. Fine, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 291 (1982)

    1982

  35. [42]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Nature510, 351 (2014)

    2014

  36. [43]

    Karanjai, J

    A. Karanjai, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, arXiv:1802.07744 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  37. [44]

    Zadrozny, J

    J. Zadrozny, J. Niklas, O. Poluektov, and D. Freedman, ACS Central Science1(2015)

    2015

  38. [45]

    Atzori and R

    M. Atzori and R. Sessoli, Journal of the American Chemical Society141(2019)

    2019

  39. [46]

    Atzori, L

    M. Atzori, L. Tesi, E. Morra, M. Chiesa, L. Sorace, and R. Sessoli, Journal of the American Chemical Society138, 2154 (2016), pMID: 26853512

    2016

  40. [47]

    Moreno-Pineda, C

    E. Moreno-Pineda, C. Godfrin, F. Balestro, W. Wernsdorfer, and M. Ruben, Chemical Society Reviews47(2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Ferrando-Soria, E

    J. Ferrando-Soria, E. Pineda, A. Chiesa, A. Fernandez, S. Magee, S. Carretta, P. Santini, I. Yrezabal, F. Tuna, G. Timco, E. Mcinnes, and R. Winpenny, Nature Communications7, 10.1038/ncomms11377 (2016)

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Bennett, S

    T. Bennett, S. Nawaz, S. Lockyer, D. Asthana, G. Whitehead, I. Vitorica Yrezabal, G. Timco, N. Burton, R. Winpenny, and E. McInnes, Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers10(2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    S. J. Lockyer, A. Chiesa, A. Brookfield, G. A. Timco, G. F. S. Whitehead, E. J. L. McInnes, S. Carretta, and R. E. P. Winpenny, Journal of the American Chemical Society144, 16086 (2022), pMID: 36007954

    2022

  44. [52]

    Chiesa, P

    A. Chiesa, P. Santini, E. Garlatti, F. Luis, and S. Carretta, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society (Great Britain) 87(2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Chiesa, F

    A. Chiesa, F. Petiziol, M. Chizzini, P. Santini, and S. Carretta, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters13, 6468 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Mezzadri, L

    M. Mezzadri, L. Lepori, A. Chiesa, and S. Carretta, Quantum Science and Technology10, 015045 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Carretta, D

    S. Carretta, D. Zueco, A. Chiesa, A. Gomez-Leon, and F. Luis, Applied Physics Letters118, 10.1063/5.0053378 (2021)

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Chicco, G

    S. Chicco, G. Allodi, A. Chiesa, E. Garlatti, C. D. Buch, P. Santini, R. De Renzi, S. Piligkos, and S. Carretta, Journal of the American Chemical Society146, 1053 (2024), pMID: 38147824

    2024

  49. [57]

    Paw lowski and N

    M. Paw lowski and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. A84, 010302 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu` ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´ arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python (2024), arXiv:2412.04705 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Collins, N

    D. Collins, N. Gisin, N. Linden, S. Massar, and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 040404 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  54. [62]

    Bernal, J

    A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, Optimal bell inequalities for qubit-qudit systems (2024), arXiv:2404.02092 [quant-ph]

    2024

  55. [63]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Physics Letters A200, 340 (1995)

    1995

  56. [64]

    Pironio, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 424020 (2014)

    S. Pironio, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 424020 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  58. [66]

    Hansen, C

    S. Hansen, C. Buch, and S. Piligkos, Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers11(2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  60. [68]

    Chiesa, S

    A. Chiesa, S. Roca, S. Chicco, M. de Ory, A. G´ omez-Le´ on, A. Gomez, D. Zueco, F. Luis, and S. Carretta, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064060 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    Chiesa, E

    A. Chiesa, E. Macaluso, F. Petiziol, S. Wimberger, P. Santini, and S. Carretta, The journal of physical chemistry letters 11(2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    (5) is ineffective on the measured diagonal observables

    Note that any evolution due to the hyperfine coupling term in Eq. (5) is ineffective on the measured diagonal observables

  63. [71]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  64. [72]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    Stefanatos, N

    D. Stefanatos, N. Khaneja, and S. J. Glaser, Phys. Rev. A69, 022319 (2004)

    2004

  66. [74]

    de Fouquieres, S

    P. de Fouquieres, S. Schirmer, S. Glaser, and I. Kuprov, Journal of Magnetic Resonance212, 412–417 (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. K¨ ockenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, The European Physical Journal D69, 10.1140/epjd/e2015-60464-1 (2015)

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    Abragam and B

    A. Abragam and B. Bleaney,Electron Paramagnetic Resonance of Transition Ions(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1970)

    1970

  69. [77]

    Chicco, G

    S. Chicco, G. Allodi, A. Chiesa, E. Garlatti, C. Buch, P. Santini, R. Renzi, S. Piligkos, and S. Carretta, Journal of the American Chemical Society146(2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Hussain, G

    R. Hussain, G. Allodi, A. Chiesa, E. Garlatti, D. Mitcov, A. Konstantatos, K. S. Pedersen, R. De Renzi, S. Piligkos, and S. Carretta, Journal of the American Chemical Society140, 9814 (2018), pMID: 30040890, https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b05934

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    For example, for the Cr-Gd coupling, aJ= +0.02 cm −1 (weakly ferromagnetic) was determined in [78]

    The weak exchange interaction values between Cr and Yb used in this study are consistent with those reported in the literature for analogous Cr-Lanthanide complexes, where magnetic interactions are generally considered very weak. For example, for the Cr-Gd coupling, aJ= +0.02 ...

  72. [80]

    Polozova and F

    E. Polozova and F. W. Strauch, Phys. Rev. A93, 032130 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    Ferrando-Soria, S

    J. Ferrando-Soria, S. Magee, A. Chiesa, S. Carretta, P. Santini, I. Vitorica-Yrezabal, F. Tuna, G. Whitehead, S. Sproules, K. Lancaster, A.-L. Barra, G. Timco, E. McInnes, and R. Winpenny, Chem1, 727 (2016)

    2016

  74. [82]

    Santini, S

    P. Santini, S. Carretta, F. Troiani, and G. Amoretti, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 230502 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

    Georgi,Lie Algebras In Particle Physics: from Isospin To Unified Theories, Frontiers in Physics (Avalon Publishing, 1999)

    H. Georgi,Lie Algebras In Particle Physics: from Isospin To Unified Theories, Frontiers in Physics (Avalon Publishing, 1999)

    1999

  76. [84]

    P. C. K. Vesborg, I. Chorkendorff, T. Brock-Nannestad, J. R. Dethlefsen, and J. Bendix, Review of Scientific Instruments 82, 096102 (2011)

    2011

  77. [85]

    K. S. Pedersen, L. Ungur, M. Sigrist, A. Sundt, M. Schau-Magnussen, V. Vieru, H. Mutka, S. Rols, H. Weihe, O. Waldmann, L. F. Chibotaru, J. Bendix, and J. Dreiser, Chem. Sci.5, 1650 (2014)

    2014

  78. [86]

    Allodi, A

    G. Allodi, A. Banderini, R. De Renzi, and C. Vignali, Rev. Sci. Instrum.76, 083911 (2005)

    2005

  79. [87]

    E. L. Hahn, Phys. Rev.80, 580 (1950)

    1950

  80. [88]

    Carretta, A

    S. Carretta, A. Chiesa, F. Troiani, D. Gerace, G. Amoretti, and P. Santini, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 110501 (2013)

    2013

  81. [89]

    Atzori, A

    M. Atzori, A. Chiesa, E. Morra, M. Chiesa, L. Sorace, S. Carretta, and R. Sessoli, Chem. Sci.9, 6183 (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Chizzini, L

    M. Chizzini, L. Crippa, A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, F. Petiziol, I. Tavernelli, P. Santini, and S. Carretta, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043135 (2022). 23

    2022

  83. [91]

    D’Alessandro,Introduction to quantum control and dynamics, Chapman and Hall/CRC applied mathematics and nonlinear science (Taylor and Francis Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, 2007)

    D. D’Alessandro,Introduction to quantum control and dynamics, Chapman and Hall/CRC applied mathematics and nonlinear science (Taylor and Francis Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, 2007)

    2007

  84. [92]

    Sanada, T

    T. Sanada, T. Suzuki, T. Yoshida, and S. Kaizaki, Inorganic Chemistry37, 4712 (1998), pMID: 11670625, https://doi.org/10.1021/ic971568k

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.