Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 92 references

Programmable Quantum Matter: Heralding Large Cluster States in Driven Inhomogeneous Spin Ensembles

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One global strain drive performs uniform gates, dynamical decoupling, and addressing across ~10-100 silicon-vacancy spin qubits at once, cutting control from O(Nq) to O(1) and guaranteeing Ω(Nq) unique entanglement links.

desk verdict A genuinely new composite pulse and a clever global-control story, but the O(1) scalability claim rests on an 11-emitter strain-window simulation that has not been shown to survive at Nq ~ 100. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02992 v1 pith:G42LHIIP submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph cs.ETcs.ITmath.IT

Pratyush Anand , Louis Follet , Odiel Hooybergs , Dirk R. Englund This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ETcs.ITmath.IT PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Bg03.67.Lx
keywords silicon-vacancycentersinhomogeneousspinensemblescompositepulsesequencesSAFE-GRAPEdynamicaldecouplingcluster-stategenerationsingle-photonentanglementcompilation
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 sets out to show that fabrication-induced disorder in solid-state emitter ensembles can be converted from a control liability into an addressing resource. A single global strain waveform — its pulses optimized by SAFE-GRAPE to correct amplitude and detuning errors simultaneously — can serve every qubit in a 10-to-100-emitter silicon-vacancy ensemble at once: as a universal single-qubit gate set, as a CPMG dynamical-decoupling sequence that extends coherence by more than 7x, and as a time-domain addressing scheme that labels qubits by their position in a triangular strain sweep. Two compilation algorithms then schedule heralded entanglement attempts between two such ensembles with a proven Ω(Nq) uniqueness guarantee and O(10^2-10^4) more links than bang-bang sequences. If the framework holds, multi-qubit cluster states for measurement-based quantum computing become reachable under a single control channel within cryogenic power budgets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are: SAFE-GRAPE composite pulses — numerically optimized sequences of elementary rotations, initialized from the analytic rCinBB pulse (a concatenation of BB1 and CORPSE), that correct pulse-amplitude and detuning errors simultaneously over a specified error region and carry both the gate-fidelity and dynamical-decoupling claims; the filter-function formalism, which converts a pulse sequence into a noise-suppression spectrum and yields the T2 estimates; the triangular-wave strain mapping of Algorithm 1, which exploits the linear strain-frequency response of the SiV C2 transition so that one palindromic, periodic strain sweep labels qubits by time-bin; and Algorithm 2

What would settle it

Two measurements would settle the core claims. (1) On a nanofabricated SiV device, record the C2 transition frequency of ~100 emitters while sweeping the piezo strain: if any emitter crosses the laser more than once, any two crossings fall within 1/γ_opt, or the crossing order departs from the label order, Algorithm 1's monotonic-window premise fails for that ensemble. (2) Apply the optimized π-X pulse to single emitters with controlled detuning and amplitude errors: if the measured infidelity does not stay below the claimed 1e-4 contour over |ϵ|,|f| ≤ 0.3, the gate-fidelity claim is overstate

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A single global strain drive, shaped by SAFE-GRAPE (Simultaneous Amplitude and Frequency Error-correcting GRadient Ascent Pulse Engineering) into composite pulses robust across a rectangle of amplitude and detuning errors, implements uniform single-qubit gates across a heterogeneous SiV ensemble — infidelity below 1e-4 for normalized errors up to 0.3. Concatenated as a CPMG sequence, the same pulses decouple all emitters at once, extending coherence by over 7x relative to interleaved bang-bang while keeping the sample temperature rise near 0.3%. Addressing exploits the linear strain dependence of the SiV optical transition: a triangular-wave sweep (Algorithm 1) crosses every emitter's transi

Load-bearing premise

The whole O(1)-control architecture rests on a common strain window in which every emitter's optical transition crosses the fixed laser frequency exactly once, in a fixed label order, with crossings separated by more than the optical linewidth — a condition demonstrated by simulation for 11 emitters, but not statistically established for the ~100-emitter target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Control per node drops from per-qubit interleaving (O(Nq)) to one shared waveform (O(1)), removing the inter-pulse dead-time and thermal-load bottlenecks that currently cap ensemble size.
  • The SAFE-GRAPE decoupling sequence keeps suppressing noise at long decoupling windows where interleaved bang-bang CPMG stops working, extending usable coherence from below 0.2 ms to beyond 0.8 ms in the simulated regime.
  • Heralded entanglement throughput rises by two to four orders of magnitude, with at least order Ω(Nq) distinct pairs guaranteed, so bipartite-graph cluster states with near-all-to-all coverage become schedulable.
  • Because the pulse and compilation stack assume only a linear strain response (or an equivalent monotonic control mapping), the recipes transfer to other group-IV color centers and strain-responsive defect platforms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A statistical scaling analysis — the probability that the common monotonic strain window survives as the ensemble grows from 11 toward ~100 emitters — would convert the single simulated instance into a design rule for device capacity; the paper leaves that step implicit.
  • The same global pulse that decouples the whole ensemble can interrogate every qubit simultaneously, so the time-bin addressing scheme doubles as a parallel AC magnetometer whose sensitivity should gain the ensemble √Nq factor.
  • The framework splits into two independently testable halves: SAFE-GRAPE dynamical decoupling applies to any drive (microwave for NV-type centers, strain for group-IV), while Algorithm 1 specifically needs a monotonic control-to-frequency mapping; each half can be validated before the full cluster-state protocol.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a global-control framework for inhomogeneous ensembles of SiV− color centers. A SAFE-GRAPE-optimized composite-pulse waveform is used both as a high-fidelity single-qubit gate and as a CPMG dynamical-decoupling sequence; a thermal model of a dilution refrigerator is used to argue for a >7× T2 enhancement over per-emitter interleaved bang-bang CPMG. The authors then combine a single-photon entanglement protocol with triangular-wave strain sweeps (Algorithms 1 and 2) to compile heralded entanglement links between two ensembles, claiming O(1) control resources and Ω(Nq) unique links for Nq ~ 10–100. The Supplementary Information contains the supporting derivations for the pulse optimization, filter functions, thermal budget, and entanglement-fidelity bound, and the code is available in a public repository.

Significance. The component derivations are checkable, the code is provided, and the SAFE-GRAPE robustness results are a concrete and useful engineering contribution. The thermal budget comparison is specific, and the compilation lower bound in Eq. (34) is simple and explicit. If the scaling assumptions hold, the claimed reduction from per-emitter O(Nq) control to global O(1) control, together with Ω(Nq) unique links, would be a meaningful step for heterogeneous solid-state quantum networks. The main weakness is that the load-bearing scaling assumption—existence of a common monotonic strain window for Algorithm 1—is only demonstrated for 11 emitters, with no statistical evidence for Nq near 100. The reviewer therefore regards the central claim as defensible but not yet established at the advertised scale.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B–C, Eq. (36), Fig. 9] The O(1)-addressing and Ω(Nq)-link claims rest on the existence of a common monotonic strain window in which every emitter's C2 transition crosses the global laser frequency once, with crossings separated by more than 1/γ_opt. This window is demonstrated by simulating only 11 SiV− centers drawn from N(0, σϵ). For Nq ≈ 100, the most extreme biases are near 3σϵ ≈ 1.8×10−4, outside the quoted low-strain regime |ϵ| ≲ 10−4 where Eq. (36) is linear. The full-Hamiltonian simulation already exhibits negative-slope additional intersections for the outer-bias center in Fig. 9, so injectivity at larger Nq is not guaranteed. The suggested fallback of omitting crowded emitters is unquantified and directly reduces the effective Nq and the Ω(Nq) guarantee. I ask for a Monte Carlo analysis over the bias distribution for Nq up to 100, reporting the probability that a common window exists, the distributio
  2. [Sec. III A, Fig. 6, Tables III–IV] The entanglement-link statistics are computed over a 11×11 Cartesian grid in (ϵ, f), i.e., 121 'qubits' per system, and nlinks is then presented as the number of links out of 121². This conflates error-parameter space with a physical emitter ensemble. In a real device, the pairs (ϵ_i, f_i) are correlated through the strain and are restricted by the common strain window of Sec. IIIC. The quantitative claims 'O(10^2–10^4) more links' and the nlinks values in Tables III and IV may change substantially when computed over sampled inhomogeneous ensembles rather than an independent uniform grid. Please recompute the link counts over physical Nq=10–100 emitter configurations, or clearly state that the 121-point grid is only an error-robustness scan and not a qubit-scaling simulation.
  3. [Sec. II B, Fig. 2, Table S3] The SAFE-GRAPE robustness is demonstrated only for a π-X gate (U_ideal(π,0)). The text states that arbitrary single-qubit gates can be implemented by choosing different θ and φ, but no optimization or robustness data are provided for other target rotations. This matters for the claimed 'global unitary control': the initialization gate Uα,φ in Fig. 1(b) and general single-qubit operations would require either a separately optimized robust pulse for each target or a universal set whose robustness is shown. The CPMG/π-pulse conclusions are unaffected, but the blanket 'arbitrary gate' claim is currently under-supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 2] The pseudocode comments say the goal is to maximize the number of unique links, but line 12 uses argmin E(mscal, Na, Nb). If E is the total number of unique links, the optimization should be argmax; if the intended cost is the fraction of missing links h0, the text and pseudocode should be aligned.
  2. [Eq. (34)] The text says the number of unique links is 'bounded by order Ω(Nq)'. This should read 'lower-bounded by Ω(Nq)'.
  3. [SI Sec. S1.A.2] The SI refers to 'Figure 10 of the main text', but the relevant figure in the main text is Fig. 9. Please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Tables I and II] The columns for T2A report mean ± standard deviation, while the T2B columns report only the mean. State whether the B statistics are single-point values or whether the standard deviation was omitted for clarity.
  5. [Eq. (26a) and following text] The phrase 'universality theorem' is not standard; this is the standard decomposition of a two-qubit gate into CNOTs and single-qubit rotations (Nielsen & Chuang). Please reword.
  6. [Abstract] The sentence 'reduces the resources ... from the conventional order O(N_q) to O(1) in ensembles of N_q ~ 10-100' is grammatically awkward. Consider 'from O(N_q) to O(1) for ensembles of N_q ~ 10-100'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central results are computed outputs from simulations, external parameters, and constructive algorithms, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. SAFE-GRAPE optimizes pulse parameters to minimize the average infidelity loss in Eq. (7); the reported >99.99% fidelity is the achieved value of that objective for the optimized pulse, not an input to the optimization (the free parameters are the pulse times/phases, not the fidelity numbers). The dynamical-decoupling comparison (Sec. II C) computes filter functions from the designed pulses and imports the noise spectrum and T2-temperature slope from independent Refs [3,42,63]; T2, heat load, and the >7x enhancement are outputs of the simulation. The entanglement-fidelity bound (Eqs. 21/26) combines the computed T2/T1/pth values with the single-photon protocol of Ref [17], and the link counts nlinks are thresholded outputs. Algorithms 1-2 are constructive: Eq. (34) is a combinatorial property of the triangular-wave sequences they define, and the Omega(Nq) link bound follows directly from that inequality, not from any fitted parameter. Prior self-citations (e.g., Refs [20,48,66,71,77]) are background or outlook references and are not load-bearing. The paper's genuine weakness - validating the common monotonic strain window of Algorithm 1 with only 11 simulated emitters (Sec. III C, Fig. 9) and leaving the Nq ~ 100 statistics unquantified - is a correctness/scalability risk, not a circularity, because the window is simulated from the Hamiltonian with external parameters, not assumed as the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything quantitative in this paper is a simulation output fed by imported inputs: the SiV fine-structure parameters and bias-strain distribution (from [43]), the dephasing noise spectrum (from [3]), the thermal-decoherence slopes (from [42,63]), and refrigerator and cable engineering numbers (from [23]). The only numbers genuinely produced by the paper are the optimized pulse angles and the scheduling statistics, but the dramatic comparative claims (7x, zero usable links for B) inherit the uncertainty of the thermal chain and of the comparison choices (m=121, threshold 0.5). No new physical entities are postulated; the triangular-wave drive and SAFE-GRAPE pulses are control protocols, and the effective decoherence exponent chi*(tau) (SI Eq. 51) is a modeling definition.

free parameters (8)
  • SAFE-GRAPE pulse angles {t_i, phi_i}_{i=1..100} = not tabulated in the provided text; hyperparameters in SI Table S3
    Optimized by L-BFGS (PyTorch) to minimize the weighted infidelity loss over the discretized (epsilon,f) region with N_epsilon=N_f=11; the resulting waveform is used for all DD and entanglement simulations. The headline >99.99% fidelity describes this optimizer's output, not an independent bound.
  • Noise spectrum constants = c0=1e6 s^-1; c1=1e9 s^-1; omega0=1.8e3 s^-1; omega1=50 s^-1
    Double-exponential dephasing spectrum 'as seen in the SI of the SiV paper [3]'; sets the absolute T2 scale and the shape of the filter-function integrals.
  • T2 and T1 temperature slopes = 3e6 (K s)^-1 for 1/T2; 2.4e6 (K s)^-1 for 1/T1
    Linear thermal-decoherence model from refs [42,63]; drives the heat-induced T2 collapse of sequence B and hence the 7x and zero-link results.
  • Thermal transient normalization P_th = estimated in SI Eq. 87 from h_sample, t_pi, C_v(t0)
    Sets the amplitude of the SiV temperature transient Eq. 17; built on engineering estimates (eta_tr=0.35, P_MW about 0.24 uW, h_A about 26.34 uW, h_B about 65 uW, tau_th,SiV=2-10 us) from refs [23,25,82,83].
  • Single-photon protocol parameters = alpha=1e-4; eta=1e-2
    Stated simulation choices for initial amplitude and detection efficiency; with p_th, define the success probability 2*alpha*eta and the fidelity floor.
  • Usability threshold = epsilon_jk < 0.5 (equivalently epsilon_eff < 0.5)
    Ad hoc threshold to count 'usable' entanglement links (n_links) and to define epsilon_eff; no physical justification is given, and the O(10^2 to 10^4) link advantage is measured against this threshold.
  • Baseline-B interleaving count = m=121
    The bang-bang baseline B applies m=121 interleaved pi-pulses per CPMG cycle to address 121 grid qubits; this choice determines B's duty cycle, heat load, and T2 collapse, so part of the comparison advantage follows from the chosen baseline size.
  • Simulation windows = tdds=0.2 ms and 0.8 ms; tcmpl=10 us; N=2,4,8,16
    Chosen CPMG indices and decoupling windows for Tables I-IV and Fig. 6; the 'optimal N' (red circles) depends on the thermal model and on the chosen windows.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption The ensemble experiences only dephasing noise (k=1, B_i = sigma_z), described by classical fluctuating variables b_i(t) with constant sensitivity absorbed into the noise.
    Sec. II C (Eq. 10): 'we assume that the qubit ensemble only experiences dephasing noise (i.e. k=1, B_hat_i = sigma_z,i)' and 'constant sensitivity s_i, which can be absorbed in the noise variable b_i(t)'. Load-bearing for the filter-function formalism.
  • domain assumption All qubits share the same noise spectrum and sensitivity: s_i = s, S_i(omega) = S(omega).
    Sec. II C: 'we further simplify our analysis by assuming that all qubits experience the same noise spectrum and are equally sensitive.' Without this, the single T2 per (epsilon,f) grid point and the ensemble averages would not follow.
  • standard math Coherence decay is described by chi = (tau/T2)^z with a single effective T2 and scaling z per qubit under dynamical decoupling.
    Sec. II C Eq. 14; standard filter-function result (refs [59-62]). The relation of z to the noise spectrum is carried into the entanglement fidelity expression.
  • domain assumption T1 >> T2, so the thermal T1 term can be dropped in the dephasing exponent.
    SI Eq. 54: 'Assuming T1 >> T2 this becomes (tau/T2)^zdds about chi'_dep(tau)'. Needed to map the DD-improved T2 into the entanglement fidelity.
  • domain assumption Perfect photon indistinguishability at the beam splitter for the two emitted photons.
    SI Eq. 16: 'assuming perfect indistinguishability of the two incoming photons'. Violations would degrade the heralded Bell-state fidelity beyond Eq. 21.
  • domain assumption Electron-nuclear SWAP error is negligible and constant once entanglement is established.
    SI S3.A: 'an important aspect here that we omit is the respective swap with nuclear spins ... we assume that the electron-nuclear SWAP gate error is negligible and constant.'
  • standard math Any two-qubit gate decomposes into a CNOT plus single-qubit unitaries.
    Sec. III A, before Eq. 26a; used to express the entanglement process as CNOT error plus local unitary error. Standard universality (ref [65]).
  • domain assumption 1/T2 and 1/T1 depend linearly on SiV temperature with slopes 3 MHz/K and 2.4 MHz/K.
    SI Eqs. 90-92, attributed to refs [42,63]. This is the load-bearing thermal-decoherence link: it converts the heat-load difference between A and B into the T2 collapse that produces the 7x and zero-link results.
  • domain assumption The strain-to-optical-frequency map F_aj is invertible and a common monotonic strain window exists in which every emitter crosses the laser frequency exactly once.
    Sec. III B-C (Algorithm 1, Fig. 9). Demonstrated by simulation for 11 emitters only; the O(1) addressing, the Omega(Nq) link guarantee, and the compilation scheme collapse if this window does not exist for the full ensemble.
  • domain assumption Ensemble bias strains are Gaussian with sigma_epsilon = 6e-5, derived from the 31 GHz C-transition spread of ref [43] via Delta_d = 0.5 PHz/strain.
    Sec. III C and SI S1.A.2, Eq. 3. Sets the inhomogeneity distribution used to simulate the monotonic window and the (epsilon,f) grid in all entanglement simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable Quantum Matter: Heralding Large Cluster States in Driven Inhomogeneous Spin Ensembles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G42LHIIP

@misc{pith2026250902992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable Quantum Matter: Heralding Large Cluster States in Driven Inhomogeneous Spin Ensembles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G42LHIIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02992}
}
abstract

Atom-like emitters in solids are promising platforms for quantum sensing and information processing, but inhomogeneities in the emitter fine structure complicate quantum control. We present a framework that leverages this diversity to reduce the resources for generating optically heralded spin cluster states across $N_q$ emitters from the conventional order $O(N_q)$ to $O(1)$ in ensembles of $N_q \sim 10$-$100$. An optimized pulse sequence simultaneously corrects pulse-length and detuning errors, achieving single-qubit gate fidelities exceeding $99.99\%$ for errors (normalized relative to the Rabi drive strength) up to 0.3, while maintaining fidelities above $99\%$ for errors as large as 0.4. Applied as a Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) dynamical decoupling protocol to the dominant noise spectrum of silicon-vacancy centers in diamond, it enhances ensemble coherence times by over $7\times$ compared to interleaved bang-bang based CPMG. For state-of-the-art dilution refrigerators, global resonant optimal decoupling across $N_q$ spins sharply reduces heating, addressing the trade-off between the spin coherence and scaling to $N_q \gg 1$. We further introduce a modified single-photon entanglement protocol with an efficient algorithm for deterministic entanglement compilation. Depending on the decoupling time window, our method yields order $O(10^2$-$10^4)$ more entanglement links than bang-bang sequences, with theoretical guarantees of order $\Omega(N_q)$ unique links, improvable by control tuning. Together, these techniques provide scalable tools - including global control, phase denoising, remote entanglement, and compilation - for robust quantum computing architectures with heterogeneous spin ensembles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anand, L

    P. Anand, L. Follet, O. Hooybergs, and D. En- glund, SI_Programmable_Quantum_Matter_2025 - Google Drive — drive.google.com, https: //drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gqB1cdJpg_ otDfSoiKS4JsFGrrLeY_Bv?usp=sharing (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    H. K. Beukers, M. Pasini, H. Choi, D. Englund, R. Han- son, and J. Borregaard, Remote-entanglement proto- cols for stationary qubits with photonic interfaces, PRX Quantum 5, 010202 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Sukachev, A

    D. Sukachev, A. Sipahigil, C. Nguyen, M. Bhaskar, R. Evans, F. Jelezko, and M. Lukin, Silicon-vacancy spin qubit in diamond: A quantum memory exceeding 10 ms with single-shot state readout, Physical Review Letters 119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.223602 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.223602 2017

  4. [4]

    Arjona Martínez, R

    J. Arjona Martínez, R. A. Parker, K. C. Chen, C. M. Purser, L. Li, C. P. Michaels, A. M. Stramma, R. De- broux, I. B. Harris, M. Hayhurst Appel,et al., Photonic indistinguishability of the tin-vacancy center in nanos- tructured diamond, Physical Review Letters129, 173603 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. As- sumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, et al., Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom net- work, Nature 629, 573 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Iwasaki, Y

    T. Iwasaki, Y. Miyamoto, T. Taniguchi, P. Siyushev, M. H. Metsch, F. Jelezko, and M. Hatano, Tin-vacancy quantum emitters in diamond, Physical review letters 119, 253601 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    R. A. Parker, J. Arjona Martínez, K. C. Chen, A. M. Stramma, I. B. Harris, C. P. Michaels, M. E. Trusheim, M. Hayhurst Appel, C. M. Purser, W. G. Roth,et al., A diamond nanophotonic interface with an optically ac- cessible deterministic electronuclear spin register, Nature Photonics 18, 156 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, C. Dory, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade, Z.-X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vučković, Quantum photonic interface for tin- vacancy centers in diamond, Physical Review X 11, 031021 (2021)

    2021

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics, Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 71, 060310 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Bernien, B

    H. Bernien, B. Hensen, W. Pfaff, G. Koolstra, M. S. Blok, L. Robledo, T. H. Taminiau, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, L. Childress,et al., Heralded entanglement be- tween solid-state qubits separated by three metres, Na- ture 497, 86 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    B.Hensen, H.Bernien, A.E.Dréau, A.Reiserer, N.Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán,et al., Loophole-free bell inequality violationusingelectronspinsseparatedby1.3kilometres, Nature 526, 682 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    P. C. Humphreys, N. Kalb, J. P. Morits, R. N. Schouten, R. F. Vermeulen, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Deterministic delivery of remote entangle- ment on a quantum network, Nature558, 268 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Pompili, S

    M. Pompili, S. L. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse,et al., Real- ization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid- state qubits, Science372, 259 (2021). 19

    2021

  6. [14]

    P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, A. Suleymanzade, B. Pingault, M. Sutula, S. W. Ding, C. M. Knaut, D. R. Assumpcao, Y.-C. Wei, M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, D. D. Sukachev, H. Park, M. Lončar, D. S. Levonian, and M. D. Lukin, Robust multi-qubit quantum network...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Bersin, M

    E. Bersin, M. Sutula, Y. Q. Huan, A. Suleymanzade, D. R. Assumpcao, Y.-C. Wei, P.-J. Stas, C. M. Knaut, E. N. Knall, C. Langrock, N. Sinclair, R. Murphy, R. Riedinger, M. Yeh, C. Xin, S. Bandyopadhyay, D. D. Sukachev, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, S. Hamilton, H...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Dong and I

    D. Dong and I. Petersen, Quantum control theory and applications: a survey, IET Control Theory & Applica- tions 4, 2651–2671 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    S. L. N. Hermans, M. Pompili, L. D. Santos Martins, A. R-P Montblanch, H. K. C. Beukers, S. Baier, J. Bor- regaard, and R. Hanson, Entangling remote qubits using the single-photon protocol: an in-depth theoretical and experimental study, New Journal of Physics25, 013011 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Maronese, L

    M. Maronese, L. Moro, L. Rocutto, and E. Prati, Quan- tum compiling (2021), arXiv:2112.00187 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    H. Wang, P. Liu, D. B. Tan, Y. Liu, J. Gu, D. Z. Pan, J. Cong, U. A. Acar, and S. Han, Atomique: A quan- tum compiler for reconfigurable neutral atom arrays, in 2024 ACM/IEEE 51st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA)(IEEE, 2024) pp. 293– 309

    2024

  12. [20]

    L. Li, P. Anand, K. He, and D. Englund, Dynamic inho- mogeneous quantum resource scheduling with reinforce- ment learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16380 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Patil, M

    A. Patil, M. Pant, D. Englund, D. Towsley, and S. Guha, Entanglement generation in a quantum network at distance-independent rate, npj Quantum Information8, 51 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Kaur and S

    E. Kaur and S. Guha, Entanglement distribution in two-dimensional square grid network, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03319 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Krinner, S

    S. Krinner, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, J. Hein- soo, R. Keller, J. Luetolf, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale super- conducting circuit systems, EPJ Quantum Technology 6, 2 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of deco- herence in two-state quantum systems, Physical Review A 58, 2733–2744 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Nguyen, D

    C. Nguyen, D. Sukachev, M. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. Levonian, E. Knall, P. Stroganov, C. Chia, M. Burek, R. Riedinger, et al., An integrated nanophotonic quan- tum register based on silicon-vacancy spins in diamond, Physical Review B100, 165428 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Jozsa, An introduction to measurement based quantum computation (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0508124 [quant-ph]

    R. Jozsa, An introduction to measurement based quantum computation (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0508124 [quant-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Pompili, C

    M. Pompili, C. Delle Donne, I. te Raa, B. van der Vecht, M. Skrzypczyk, G. Ferreira, L. de Kluijver, A. J. Stolk, S. L. Hermans, P. Pawełczak,et al., Experimental demonstration of entanglement delivery using a quantum network stack, npj Quantum Information8, 121 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    G. Ni, L. Ho, and H. Claussen, Entanglement request scheduling in quantum networks using deep q-network, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12461 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lucero, J

    E. Lucero, J. Kelly, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenan- der, M. Mariantoni, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, T. Ya- mamoto, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Reduced phase error through optimized control of a supercon- ducting qubit, Physical Review ...

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    R. Jain, Z. Ji, S. Upadhyay, and J. Watrous, Qip = pspace (2009), arXiv:0907.4737 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. A. Nielsen, Cluster-state quantum computation, Re- ports on Mathematical Physics57, 147–161 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Bradac, W

    C. Bradac, W. Gao, J. Forneris, M. E. Trusheim, and I. Aharonovich, Quantum nanophotonics with group IV defects in diamond, Nature Communications 10, 5625 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    C. Hepp, T. Müller, V. Waselowski, J. N. Becker, B. Pin- gault, H. Sternschulte, D. Steinmüller-Nethl, A. Gali, J. R. Maze, M. Atatüre, and C. Becher, Electronic struc- ture of the silicon vacancy color center in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 036405 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Iwasaki, F

    T. Iwasaki, F. Ishibashi, Y. Miyamoto, Y. Doi, S. Kobayashi, T. Miyazaki, K. Tahara, K. D. Jahnke, L. J. Rogers, B. Naydenov, F. Jelezko, S. Yamasaki, S. Nagamachi, T. Inubushi, N. Mizuochi, and M. Hatano, Germanium-Vacancy Single Color Centers in Diamond, Scientific Reports 5...

    2015

  28. [36]

    M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, M. J. Burek, C. T. Nguyen, L. J. Rogers, P. Siyu- shev, M. H. Metsch, H. Park, F. Jelezko, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum nonlinear optics with a germanium-vacancy color center in a nanoscale diamond waveguide, Phy...

    2017

  29. [37]

    Iwasaki, Y

    T. Iwasaki, Y. Miyamoto, T. Taniguchi, P. Siyushev, M. H. Metsch, F. Jelezko, and M. Hatano, Tin-vacancy quantum emitters in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 253601 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Debroux, C

    R. Debroux, C. P. Michaels, C. M. Purser, N. Wan, M. E. Trusheim, J. Arjona Martínez, R. A. Parker, A. M. Stramma, K. C. Chen, L. de Santis, E. M. Alexeev, A. C. Ferrari, D. Englund, D. A. Gangloff, and M. Atatüre, Quantum control of the tin-vacancy spin qubit in dia- mond, Ph...

    2021

  31. [39]

    H. K. C. Beukers, C. Waas, M. Pasini, H. B. van Om- men, Z. Ademi, M. Iuliano, N. Codreanu, J. M. Brevo- ord, T. Turan, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Control of solid-state nuclear spin qubits using an electron spin- 1/2, Phys. Rev. X15, 021011 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    C. D. Clark, H. Kanda, I. Kiflawi, and G. Sittas, Silicon defects in diamond, Phys. Rev. B51, 16681 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    J. P. Goss, R. Jones, S. J. Breuer, P. R. Briddon, and S. Öberg, The twelve-line 1.682 ev luminescence center in diamond and the vacancy-silicon complex, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3041 (1996)

    1996

  34. [42]

    Pingault, D.-D

    B. Pingault, D.-D. Jarausch, C. Hepp, L. Klintberg, J. N. Becker, M. Markham, C. Becher, and M. Atatüre, Coher- entcontrolofthesilicon-vacancyspinindiamond,Nature 20 Communications 8, 15579 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Meesala, Y.-I

    S. Meesala, Y.-I. Sohn, B. Pingault, L. Shao, H. A. Atikian, J. Holzgrafe, M. Gündoğan, C. Stavrakas, A. Sipahigil, C. Chia, R. Evans, M. J. Burek, M. Zhang, L. Wu, J. L. Pacheco, J. Abraham, E. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, M. Atatüre, and M. Lončar, Strain engineering of the silico...

    2018

  36. [44]

    M. H. Metsch, K. Senkalla, B. Tratzmiller, J. Scheuer, M. Kern, J. Achard, A. Tallaire, M. B. Plenio, P. Siyu- shev, and F. Jelezko, Initialization and readout of nuclear spins via a negatively charged silicon-vacancy center in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 190503 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Lev- onian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. En- glund, M. Lončar, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quan- tum communication, Nature580, 60 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Sipahigil, K

    A. Sipahigil, K. D. Jahnke, L. J. Rogers, T. Teraji, J. Isoya, A. S. Zibrov, F. Jelezko, and M. D. Lukin, In- distinguishable photons from separated silicon-vacancy centers in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 113602 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    E. N. Knall, C. M. Knaut, R. Bekenstein, D. R. Assump- cao, P. L. Stroganov, W. Gong, Y. Q. Huan, P.-J. Stas, B. Machielse, M. Chalupnik, D. Levonian, A. Suleyman- zade, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lončar, M. K. Bhaskar, and M. D. Lukin, Efficient source of shaped single pho- to...

    2022

  40. [48]

    Wei, P.-J

    Y.-C. Wei, P.-J. Stas, A. Suleymanzade, G. Baranes, F. Machado, Y. Q. Huan, C. M. Knaut, S. W. Ding, M. Merz, E. N. Knall, U. Yazlar, M. Sirotin, I. W. Wang, B. Machielse, S. F. Yelin, J. Bor- regaard, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Universal distributed blind quantum co...

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    R. S. Said and J. Twamley, Robust control of entangle- ment in a nitrogen-vacancy center coupled to a13C nu- clear spin in diamond, Phys. Rev. A80, 032303 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Effects of diffusion on free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments, Phys. Rev. 94, 630 (1954)

    1954

  44. [52]

    Meiboom and D

    S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Modified Spin-Echo Method for Measuring Nuclear Relaxation Times, Review of Scientific Instruments 29, 688 (1958), _eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/29/8/688/19287064/688_1_online.pdf

    1958

  45. [53]

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, S. Sheldon, P. D. Nation, and J. M. Gambetta, Validating quantum computers us- ing randomized model circuits, Physical Review A100, 10.1103/physreva.100.032328 (2019)

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Wimperis, Broadband, narrowband, and passband composite pulses for use in advanced nmr experiments, JournalofMagneticResonance, SeriesA 109,221(1994)

    S. Wimperis, Broadband, narrowband, and passband composite pulses for use in advanced nmr experiments, JournalofMagneticResonance, SeriesA 109,221(1994)

    1994

  47. [55]

    H. K. Cummins, G. Llewellyn, and J. A. Jones, Tackling systematic errors in quantum logic gates with composite rotations, Phys. Rev. A67, 042308 (2003)

    2003

  48. [56]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Ichikawa, Y. Kondo, and M. Naka- hara, Concatenated composite pulses compensat- ing simultaneous systematic errors, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82, 014004 (2013), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.82.014004

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Brad- bury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Köpf, E. Yang, Z. De- Vito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, Pytorch: An impera- tive style, hi...

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    D. C. Liu and J. Nocedal, On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization, Mathematical Pro- gramming 45, 503 (1989)

    1989

  51. [59]

    M. J. Biercuk, A. C. Doherty, and H. Uys, Dynamical decoupling sequence construction as a filter-design prob- lem,JournalofPhysicsB:Atomic, MolecularandOptical Physics 44, 154002 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    Hangleiter, P

    T. Hangleiter, P. Cerfontaine, and H. Bluhm, Filter- function formalism and software package to com- pute quantum processes of gate sequences for classi- cal non-markovian noise, Physical Review Research 3, 10.1103/physrevresearch.3.043047 (2021)

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Cerfontaine, T

    P. Cerfontaine, T. Hangleiter, and H. Bluhm, Filter func- tions for quantum processes under correlated noise, Phys- ical Review Letters127, 10.1103/physrevlett.127.170403 (2021)

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Hangleiter, I

    T. Hangleiter, I. Nha Minh Le, and J. D. Teske, fil- ter_functions (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    K. D. Jahnke, A. Sipahigil, J. M. Binder, M. W. Doherty, M. Metsch, L. J. Rogers, N. B. Manson, M. D. Lukin, and F. Jelezko, Electron–phonon processes of the silicon- vacancy centre in diamond, New Journal of Physics17, 043011 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhorn, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, P. Müller, W. Riess, G. Salis, J. Smolin, I. Tavernelli, and K. Temme, Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on nea...

    2018

  57. [65]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    Raniwala, P

    H. Raniwala, P. Anand, S. Krastanov, M. Eichenfield, M. Trusheim, and D. R. Englund, Spin-optomechanical cavity interfaces by deep subwavelength phonon-photon confinement, npj Quantum Information11, 120 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Iwasaki, F

    T. Iwasaki, F. Ishibashi, Y. Miyamoto, Y. Doi, S. Kobayashi, T. Miyazaki, K. Tahara, K. D. Jahnke, L. J. Rogers, B. Naydenov,et al., Germanium-vacancy single color centers in diamond, Scientific reports 5, 12882 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    Prabhu, C

    M. Prabhu, C. Errando-Herranz, L. De Santis, I. Chris- ten, C. Chen, C. Gerlach, and D. Englund, Individually addressable and spectrally programmable artificial atoms in silicon photonics, Nature Communications 14, 2380 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    Saggio, C

    V. Saggio, C. Errando-Herranz, S. Gyger, C. Panuski, M. Prabhu, L. De Santis, I. Christen, D. Ornelas-Huerta, H. Raniwala, C. Gerlach, M. Colangelo, and D. Englund, Cavity-enhanced single artificial atoms in silicon, Nature Communications 15, 5296 (2024). 21

    2024

  62. [70]

    Dhaliah, Y

    D. Dhaliah, Y. Xiong, A. Sipahigil, S. M. Griffin, and G. Hautier, First-principles study of the t center in sili- con, Physical Review Materials6, L053201 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Buzzi, C

    A. Buzzi, C. Papon, M. Pirro, O. Hooybergs, H. Rani- wala, V. Saggio, C. Errando-Herranz, and D. Englund, Spectral tuning and nanoscale localization of single color centers in silicon via controllable strain, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17290 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Simmons, Scalable fault-tolerant quantum technolo- gies with silicon color centers, PRX Quantum5, 010102 (2024)

    S. Simmons, Scalable fault-tolerant quantum technolo- gies with silicon color centers, PRX Quantum5, 010102 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    D. B. Higginbottom, F. K. Asadi, C. Chartrand, J.-W. Ji, L. Bergeron, M. L. Thewalt, C. Simon, and S. Simmons, Memory and transduction prospects for silicont center devices, PRX Quantum4, 020308 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Sörman, N

    E. Sörman, N. T. Son, W. M. Chen, O. Kordina, C. Hallin, and E. Janzén, Silicon vacancy related defect in 4h and 6h sic, Physical Review B61, 2613 (2000)

    2000

  67. [75]

    Louzon, G

    D. Louzon, G. T. Genov, N. Staudenmaier, F. Frank, J. Lang, M. L. Markham, A. Retzker, and F. Jelezko, Robust noise suppression and quantum sensing by con- tinuous phased dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 120802 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Ulanowski, O

    A. Ulanowski, O. Kuijpers, B. Merkel, A. Holzäpfel, and A. Reiserer, Cavity-enhanced spectroscopy of individual nuclear spins in a dense bath, PRX Quantum6, 020344 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    Anand, E

    P. Anand, E. G. Arnault, M. E. Trusheim, K. Jacobs, and D. R. Englund, Microwave single-photon detection using a hybrid spin-optomechanical quantum interface (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open- source python framework for the dynamics of open quan- tum systems, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Suárez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agar- wal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johans- son, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python (2024), arXiv:2412.04705 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Anand, L

    P. Anand, L. Follet, and O. Hooybergs, Codes, https://github.com/FolletLouis/ Programmable-Quantum-Matter (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Mirhosseini, A

    M. Mirhosseini, A. Sipahigil, M. Kalaee, and O. Painter, Superconducting qubit to optical photon transduction, Nature 588, 599 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/diamond/diamprop.htm

    Diamond Properties — chm.bris.ac.uk, https://www. chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/diamond/diamprop.htm

  76. [84]

    Mukherjee and A

    B. Mukherjee and A. Boyle, On the debye characteristic temperature of diamond, physica status solidi (b) 22, K131 (1967)

    1967

  77. [85]

    Programmable Quantum Matter: Heralding Large Cluster States in Driven Inhomogeneous Spin Ensembles

    J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Sensitivity optimization for nv-diamond magnetometry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015004 (2020). 22 Supplementary Information for “Programmable Quantum Matter: Heralding Large Cluster Stat...

    2020

  78. [86]

    Simplified Model for theSiV− Center 23

  79. [87]

    Strain Driving Simulations 24 S2

    Simulation and Parameters 24 B. Strain Driving Simulations 24 S2. Concatenated Composite Pulses 26 A. Concept 26 B. Reduced CORPSE-in-BB1 (rCinBB) Sequence 26 C. SAFE-GRAPE Parameters 26 S3. Fidelity Calculation 27 A. Single-Photon Entanglement Protocol 27 B. Thermal Decoheren...

  80. [88]

    Derivation of the Fundamental PeriodT 47 S5

    Thermal Environment of Silicon Vacancy 43 S4. Derivation of the Fundamental PeriodT 47 S5. Quantum Sensing 48 23 S1. STRAIN DRIVING OF GROUP-IV COLOR CENTERS IN DIAMOND A. Monotonic Strain Window for the SiV− Center As stated in the main text, Algorithm 1 requires a control pa...

  81. [89]

    [43]: the model considers only transverse-oriented emitters where the strain tensor is assumed to be dominated by the ϵyy component

    Simplified Model for the SiV− Center We adopt a set of simplifying assumptions consistent with experimental work performed by Meesala,et al. [43]: the model considers only transverse-oriented emitters where the strain tensor is assumed to be dominated by the ϵyy component. The...

  82. [90]

    Simulation and Parameters To accurately model the inhomogeneous ensemble, we must define a statistical distribution of the static fabrication biases, ϵbias Egx,i. We derive the the standard deviation,σϵ, of this distribution from experimentally measured inhomoge- neous broaden...

  83. [91]

    This section discusses about modeling the thermal budget of the system

    Cold-Plate Stage The T1 and T2 parameters in the previous section also depend on the local temperature of the SiV− qubit. This section discusses about modeling the thermal budget of the system. We assume a train of N pulses, each containing an energyof Epulse, havingpulselengt...

  84. [92]

    Thermal Environment of Silicon Vacancy From the previous section, we estimated the heat-load in the sample is roughlyhsample ≈ γth0.084 µW. We assume that the dynamic temperature of SiV− due to pulse incident at timet0 is given by [25]: ΘSiV(t, t0) = ΘCP + Pth(e−(t−t0)/τth,SiV...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.