pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2509.06881 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-08 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.atom-ph

Benchmarking Single-Qubit Gates on a Neutral Atom Quantum Processor

Artem Rozanov , Boris Bantysh , Ivan Bobrov , Gleb Struchalin , Stanislav Straupe This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 18:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.atom-ph
keywords neutral atomssingle-qubit gatesdirect randomized benchmarkinggate set tomographyquantum fidelityStiefel manifoldglobal control
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Neutral atom quantum processor achieves 99.963% average fidelity for single-qubit gates via direct randomized benchmarking.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper applies direct randomized benchmarking to single-qubit gates on a neutral atom system by preparing stabilizer states, applying layers of native gates, and measuring in the computational basis. This yields an average fidelity of 99.963 percent while remaining robust to state preparation and measurement errors. The same protocol scales to a 25-qubit array under global control, and results match those from full gate set tomography. A gauge optimization step for tomography enforces complete positivity and trace preservation by searching over the Stiefel manifold. A sympathetic reader cares because reliable, scalable benchmarking methods are required to assess whether neutral-atom hardware can support larger quantum computations.

Core claim

Direct randomized benchmarking characterizes single-qubit gate performance under a stochastic Pauli noise model and reports an average fidelity of 99.963 percent. The protocol extends to a 25-qubit array with global single-qubit control, and gate set tomography produces consistent estimates. A gauge optimization procedure reconstructs gates, states, and measurements in a canonical frame while enforcing physical constraints through optimization over the Stiefel manifold.

What carries the argument

Direct randomized benchmarking protocol that prepares stabilizer states, applies m layers of native single-qubit gates, and measures in the computational basis to estimate fidelity under a stochastic Pauli noise model.

If this is right

  • Direct randomized benchmarking remains efficient when applied to arrays of at least 25 qubits under global control.
  • Gate set tomography and direct randomized benchmarking give consistent fidelity values when both are applied to the same gates.
  • Gauge optimization over the Stiefel manifold produces physically valid operators that permit direct fidelity comparisons across methods.
  • Complementary use of these two protocols supports characterization of larger neutral-atom architectures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The demonstrated fidelity on 25 qubits suggests global single-qubit control may remain viable for modestly larger arrays before local addressing becomes necessary.
  • The Stiefel-manifold gauge fix could be reused in tomography workflows on other hardware platforms to enforce complete positivity without manual post-processing.
  • If two-qubit gates on the same neutral-atom platform reach comparable fidelity, the system would become a candidate for small-scale error-corrected circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The direct randomized benchmarking protocol assumes gate errors follow a stochastic Pauli noise model to deliver reliable fidelity estimates that are robust to state preparation and measurement errors.

What would settle it

Repeating the experiment while deliberately injecting controlled Pauli errors and verifying that the reported fidelity decreases by the expected amount would confirm or refute the 99.963 percent figure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06881 by Artem Rozanov, Boris Bantysh, Gleb Struchalin, Ivan Bobrov, Stanislav Straupe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A DRB circuit in the single-qubit case is composed as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: c), enabling a form of linear inversion. To increase precision, GST uses so-called germs – short sequences of gates repeated multiple times (up to L times), which amplify systematic errors and help identify gate-specific imperfections (see Fig. 2d). Linear inversion provides an initial estimate of the gate set by solving: pkij = M⃗ † i Gk⃗ρj , (10) where the vectors represent the measurement operators and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Simulated success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Here, our proposed gauge-fixing method is ap￾plied; a detailed description of this procedure is provided in Appendix A. Overall, the DRB and GST protocols demonstrate strong agreement with theoretical predictions and with each other. While DRB offers a fast and SPAM-robust es￾timate of average fidelity, GST provides a more detailed picture of quantum operations at the cost of increased experimental and com… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Reconstructed superoperators for GST. The diagrams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) DRB success probabilities before calibration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Estimated gate infidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present benchmarking results for single-qubit gates implemented on a neutral atom quantum processor using Direct Randomized Benchmarking (DRB) and Gate Set Tomography (GST). The DRB protocol involves preparing stabilizer states, applying $m$ layers of native single-qubit gates, and measuring in the computational basis, providing an efficient error characterization under a stochastic Pauli noise model. GST enables the full, self-consistent reconstruction of quantum processes, including gates, input states, and measurements. Both protocols provide robust to state preparation and measurement (SPAM) errors estimations of gate performance, offering complementary perspectives on quantum gate fidelity. For single-qubit gates, DRB yields an average fidelity of $99.963 \%$. The protocol was further applied to a 25-qubit array under global single-qubit control. GST results are consistent with those obtained via DRB. We also introduce a gauge optimization procedure for GST that brings the reconstructed gates, input states, and measurements into a canonical frame, enabling meaningful fidelity comparisons while preserving physical constraints. These constraints of the operators -- such as complete positivity and trace preservation -- are enforced by performing the optimization over the Stiefel manifold. The combined analysis supports the use of complementary benchmarking techniques for characterizing scalable quantum architectures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports benchmarking of single-qubit gates on a neutral atom quantum processor using Direct Randomized Benchmarking (DRB) and Gate Set Tomography (GST). DRB is presented as yielding an average fidelity of 99.963% under a stochastic Pauli noise model, with the protocol extended to a 25-qubit array under global control; GST results are stated to be consistent, and a gauge optimization over the Stiefel manifold is introduced to enforce complete positivity and trace preservation for meaningful fidelity comparisons.

Significance. If the reported fidelity holds, the work provides concrete performance data for single-qubit gates in neutral-atom hardware and demonstrates scalability to a 25-qubit array under global driving. The introduction of the Stiefel-manifold gauge optimization for GST is a methodological strength that preserves physical constraints while enabling comparisons; the reported consistency between DRB and GST adds value when the underlying noise model is validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and DRB protocol description: the headline fidelity of 99.963% is obtained under the assumption that the noise is well-approximated by a stochastic Pauli channel, yet the manuscript provides no explicit test (e.g., inspection of GST-reconstructed Kraus operators for dominant Pauli components, or analysis of higher-order moments in the DRB decay curves) to rule out coherent or non-Markovian contributions from laser phase/intensity fluctuations or motional dephasing that are known to affect Raman/microwave-driven neutral-atom gates. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Results (25-qubit extension)] 25-qubit array results: while DRB is applied under global single-qubit control, the manuscript does not report per-qubit fidelity variations, spatial uniformity metrics, or error bars on the array-averaged fidelity; without these, the scalability implication remains difficult to assess quantitatively.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Provide the explicit sequence of stabilizer states and measurement basis choices used in the DRB protocol, along with the precise fitting function and number of layers m employed to extract the 99.963% fidelity.
  2. [GST gauge optimization] In the GST gauge-optimization section, include a brief statement on how the Stiefel-manifold parameterization is implemented numerically and any convergence tolerances applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation and analysis where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and DRB protocol description: the headline fidelity of 99.963% is obtained under the assumption that the noise is well-approximated by a stochastic Pauli channel, yet the manuscript provides no explicit test (e.g., inspection of GST-reconstructed Kraus operators for dominant Pauli components, or analysis of higher-order moments in the DRB decay curves) to rule out coherent or non-Markovian contributions from laser phase/intensity fluctuations or motional dephasing that are known to affect Raman/microwave-driven neutral-atom gates. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that validating the stochastic Pauli noise assumption is important, as it underpins the DRB fidelity extraction. The manuscript already demonstrates consistency between DRB and GST, with the latter providing a model-independent reconstruction of the process. To address the concern directly, the revised manuscript includes an inspection of the GST-reconstructed Kraus operators confirming dominance of Pauli components, as well as an analysis of the DRB decay curves for deviations from single-exponential behavior that would indicate coherent or non-Markovian effects. These additions provide explicit support for the noise model used. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (25-qubit extension)] 25-qubit array results: while DRB is applied under global single-qubit control, the manuscript does not report per-qubit fidelity variations, spatial uniformity metrics, or error bars on the array-averaged fidelity; without these, the scalability implication remains difficult to assess quantitatively.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative metrics would better support the scalability discussion. Because the 25-qubit experiment employed global driving without individual qubit addressing, direct per-qubit fidelity variations from separate measurements are not available. In the revised manuscript we have added error bars on the array-averaged fidelity (obtained via bootstrap resampling of experimental repetitions) and spatial uniformity metrics based on the observed consistency of the global DRB signal across the array. We have also clarified the limitations of global control in the text. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental benchmarking results are independent of fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The manuscript reports direct experimental measurements of single-qubit gate fidelity using established DRB and GST protocols on a neutral-atom processor. DRB is applied by preparing stabilizer states, applying m layers of gates, and measuring in the computational basis to extract an average fidelity of 99.963% under the standard stochastic Pauli noise model; this is a physical measurement, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. GST provides a self-consistent reconstruction with an introduced gauge optimization over the Stiefel manifold to enforce CPTP constraints, which is a standard numerical procedure independent of the target fidelity value. No load-bearing step relies on self-citation chains, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results; the central claims rest on physical data and complementary protocol consistency rather than tautological definitions or fitted predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard assumption that gate errors can be modeled as stochastic Pauli noise and that the reconstructed operators satisfy complete positivity and trace preservation.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gate errors follow a stochastic Pauli noise model
    Invoked to justify the DRB protocol in the abstract.
  • standard math Reconstructed gates, states, and measurements must remain completely positive and trace-preserving
    Enforced during the gauge optimization step.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5761 in / 1148 out tokens · 33513 ms · 2026-05-18T18:10:03.315089+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Realistic Simulation of Quantum Repeater with Encoding and Classical Error Correction

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulation of QRE-CEC protocol in SeQUeNCe shows logical Bell pairs distributed at 0.91 fidelity over 2000 km with all modeled errors suppressed to second order.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Quantum computers, na- ture464, 45 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    T. L. Scholten, C. J. Williams, D. Moody, M. Mosca, W. Hurley, W. J. Zeng, M. Troyer, J. M. Gambetta, et al., Assessing the benefits and risks of quantum com- puters, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16317 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Coccia, Technological trajectories in quantum com- puting to design a quantum ecosystem for industrial change, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 36, 1733 (2024)

    M. Coccia, Technological trajectories in quantum com- puting to design a quantum ecosystem for industrial change, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 36, 1733 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Wintersperger, F

    K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, T. Ehmer, A. Hour- sanov, J. Klepsch, W. Mauerer, G. Reuber, T. Strohm, M. Yin, and S. Luber, Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: performance and end-user perspective, EPJ Quantum Technology10, 32 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    D. S. Weiss and M. Saffman, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Physics Today70, 44 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    M. S. Rudolph, N. B. Toussaint, A. Katabarwa, S. Johri, B. Peropadre, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Generation of high- resolution handwritten digits with an ion-trap quantum computer, Physical Review X12, 031010 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Frisch, A

    A. Frisch, A. Erhard, T. Feldker, F. Girtler, M. Het- trich, W. Huss, G. Jacob, C. Maier, G. Mayramhof, D. Nigg,et al., Trapped-ion quantum computing, in Quantum Software: Aspects of Theory and System De- sign(Springer, 2024) pp. 251–283

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, S. Jahangiri, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, A. D. Gran, M. Schuld, J. Swinarton, Z. Zabaneh, and N. Killoran, Applications of near-term photonic quantum computers: software and algorithms, Quantum Science and Technology5, 034010 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    J. L. O’brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Photonic quantum technologies, Nature Photonics3, 687 (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Huang, D

    H.-L. Huang, D. Wu, D. Fan, and X. Zhu, Supercon- ducting quantum computing: a review, Science China Information Sciences63, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Clarke and F

    J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting quantum bits, Nature453, 1031 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    J. E. Martinez, P. Fuentes, P. M. Crespo, and J. Garcia- Frias, Approximating decoherence processes for the de- sign and simulation of quantum error correction codes on classical computers, IEEE Access8, 172623 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019)

    M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports 831, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Proctor, K

    T. Proctor, K. Young, A. D. Baczewski, and R. Blume- Kohout, Benchmarking quantum computers, Nature Re- views Physics7, 105 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Y. I. Bogdanov, B. Bantysh, N. Bogdanova, A. Kvas- nyy, and V. Lukichev, Quantum states tomography with noisy measurement channels, inInternational Conference on Micro-and Nano-Electronics 2016, Vol. 10224 (SPIE,

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Y. I. Bogdanov, A. Kalinkin, S. Kulik, E. Moreva, V. Shershulin, and L. Belinsky, Mathematical modeling and experimental study of polarization echo in optically anisotropic media, inInternational Conference Micro- and Nano-Electronics 2012, Vol. 8700 (SPIE, 2013) pp. 425–434

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    D. F. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Measurement of qubits, Physical Review A64, 052312 (2001)

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    Y. I. Bogdanov, G. Brida, M. Genovese, S. Kulik, E. Moreva, and A. Shurupov, Statistical estimation of the efficiency of quantum state tomography protocols, Physical review letters105, 010404 (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Y. S. Teo, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, and Z. Hradil, Informationally in- complete quantum tomography, Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology1, 57 (2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Y. S. Teo, S. Shin, H. Jeong, Y. Kim, Y.-H. Kim, G. I. Struchalin, E. V. Kovlakov, S. S. Straupe, S. P. Kulik, G. Leuchs,et al., Benchmarking quantum tomography completeness and fidelity with machine learning, New Journal of Physics23, 103021 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quan- tum gates, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics77, 012307 (2008)

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Introduction to Quantum Gate Set Tomography

    D. Greenbaum, Introduction to quantum gate set tomog- raphy, arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02921 (2015)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Nielsen, J

    E. Nielsen, J. K. Gamble, K. Rudinger, T. Scholten, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Gate set tomography, Quantum5, 557 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Helsen, I

    J. Helsen, I. Roth, E. Onorati, A. H. Werner, and J. Eis- ert, General framework for randomized benchmarking, PRX Quantum3, 020357 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Char- acterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmark- ing, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85, 042311 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Proctor, S

    T. Proctor, S. Seritan, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Scalable randomized benchmarking of quantum computers using mirror cir- 9 cuits, Physical Review Letters129, 150502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Gu, W.-F

    Y. Gu, W.-F. Zhuang, X. Chai, and D. E. Liu, Bench- marking universal quantum gates via channel spectrum, Nature Communications14, 5880 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Brieger, I

    R. Brieger, I. Roth, and M. Kliesch, Compressive gate set tomography, Prx quantum4, 010325 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    Y. I. Bogdanov, A. Y. Chernyavskiy, A. Holevo, V. Lu- kichev, and A. Orlikovsky, Modeling of quantum noise and the quality of hardware components of quantum computers, inInternational Conference Micro-and Nano- Electronics 2012, Vol. 8700 (SPIE, 2013) pp. 404–415

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fi- delity of a quantum dynamical operation, Physics Letters A303, 249 (2002)

    work page 2002

  32. [32]

    A. M. Polloreno, A. Carignan-Dugas, J. Hines, R. Blume-Kohout, K. Young, and T. Proctor, A the- ory of direct randomized benchmarking, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13853 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    T. J. Proctor, A. Carignan-Dugas, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Direct ran- domized benchmarking for multiqubit devices, Physical review letters123, 030503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics70, 052328 (2004)

    work page 2004

  35. [35]

    Dehaene and B

    J. Dehaene and B. De Moor, Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over gf (2), Physical Review A68, 042318 (2003)

    work page 2003

  36. [36]

    I. A. Luchnikov, M. E. Krechetov, and S. N. Filippov, Riemannian geometry and automatic differentiation for optimization problems of quantum physics and quantum technologies, New Journal of Physics23, 073006 (2021). Appendix A: Gauge optimization procedure A1. Linear inversion and calibration initialization As an initial step in GST, we employ a linear in...

    work page 2021