Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 83 references

A single trapped-ion spin can measure multimode phonon-number distributions and perform single-shot, nondestructive Fock-state readout modulo 2^k by exploiting dispersive shifts in the far-detuned Jaynes-Cummings interaction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:59 UTC pith:QW5YYMSQ

load-bearing objection The two-mode dispersive readout and selective-decoupling trick are genuinely useful, but the single-shot superparity claim as written does not follow from the paper's own equations. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.04591 v2 pith:QW5YYMSQ submitted 2026-01-08 quant-ph

Multimode Phonon-Number Measurement and Single-shot Superparity Measurement using Dispersive Shifts in a Trapped Ion

Wonhyeong Choi , Jiyong Kang , Kyunghye Kim , Jaehun You , Kyungmin Lee , Taehyun Kim This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords trapped iondispersive shiftphonon-number measurementFock stateRamsey interferometryparity measurementquantum nondemolitionmultimode bosonic register
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that one spin qubit in a trapped ion can serve as a universal readout resource for many motional modes at once, using dispersive shifts rather than requiring a separate qubit per mode. The authors claim that a Ramsey sequence built from a multimode spin-dependent rotation maps phonon-number-dependent phases onto the spin, allowing two-mode Fock-state populations to be extracted from spin-population dynamics. They also claim that the same primitive acts as a parity filter, generating cat states and entangled coherent states, and enables single-shot, nondestructive measurement of phonon number modulo 2, 4, and 8. If correct, this removes a key scaling bottleneck for trapped-ion bosonic quantum registers.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the far-detuned multimode Jaynes-Cummings interaction in a single trapped ion produces an effective diagonal dispersive Hamiltonian, and that this can be converted into a practical measurement tool. By embedding a two-step off-resonant sideband drive inside a Ramsey sequence with a microwave spin echo, the authors realize a multimode spin-dependent rotation whose angle is proportional to phonon numbers. A selective-decoupling condition on the step durations and detunings cancels the carrier AC-Stark shift while letting the number-dependent dispersive phases add constructively. With this operation they extract single-mode and two-mode Fock-state distributions

What carries the argument

The central object is the multimode spin-dependent rotation SDR(θ) = exp(-i σ_z θ·n/2), realized by two off-resonant sideband interactions separated by a microwave π pulse. The pulse acts as a spin echo: it negates the carrier AC-Stark phase while the phonon-number-dependent dispersive phases from the two steps add constructively, selected by choosing t(1)/t(2) = Δ(1)/Δ(2). This produces a Ramsey signal P↑(t) = 1/2 - 1/2 Σ_n p_n cos(θ(t)·n), from which Fock populations p_n are extracted by fitting.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that the effective interaction is exactly the diagonal dispersive Hamiltonian, i.e., that the spin-dependent beam-splitter cross terms between different modes and residual spin-independent corrections are truly negligible at the chosen detunings; if the mode detuning separations are not large enough, the inferred Fock populations become biased.

What would settle it

Tune the sideband detunings of two modes so that |δ1 - δ2| becomes comparable to the beam-splitter coupling K12, and check whether the extracted two-mode Fock distribution shifts away from the known prepared state; alternatively, cross-check the populations obtained from rational-ratio fits against full two-mode Wigner tomography on the same state.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Two-mode Fock-state distributions can be inferred from a single spin even when the dispersive shifts have irrational ratios, by jointly fitting data at several rational ratio settings.
  • Parity-based filtering can generate nonclassical motional states such as even-odd cat states and entangled coherent states, with measured single-mode parity 0.90(5) for even and -0.73(4) for odd postselection, and joint-parity 0.73(6) and -0.65(7) for the two-mode case.
  • Repeated binary-parity filtering yields a single-shot, nondestructive Fock-state measurement modulo 2^k, demonstrated experimentally for single-mode k = 1, 2, 3.
  • The protocol generalizes to N ions, allowing up to N filtering conditions to be enforced in parallel and reducing the number of sequential steps for multimode Fock-state measurement to ceil(Σ m_j / N).
  • Because the parity operator is mapped onto the spin, the same SDR can serve as a building block for Wigner-function tomography and as a syndrome measurement for bosonic error-correction codes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this works as claimed, trapped-ion bosonic registers can be characterized without assigning one ancilla qubit per mode, potentially opening a route to mode-rich quantum information processing where many motional modes share a single spin.
  • The binary filtering sequence is naturally a multimode Fock-state measurement: applying the same steps sequentially to each mode should give single-shot readout of multimode Fock numbers, a direct extension the paper outlines but only verifies in the single-mode case.
  • The supplemental direct-carrier-spectroscopy variant hints at number-dependent phase gates similar to SNAP operations in circuit QED; overcoming its laser-intensity-noise sensitivity would make it a practical complement to the spin-echo sequence.
  • A sharp test of the diagonal-Hamiltonian assumption would be to compare the two-mode Fock distributions extracted by rational-ratio fits against independent joint-parity Wigner tomography on the same state; systematic disagreement would signal the neglected off-resonant beam-splitter terms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a dispersive-shift framework for trapped-ion motional modes, implementing a Ramsey sequence with selective decoupling that realizes a multimode spin-dependent rotation. From the resulting spin-population dynamics, the authors fit single-mode and two-mode Fock-state distributions, use parity-based filtering to prepare cat states and entangled coherent states, and present a repeated-filter protocol claimed to perform nondestructive single-shot measurement of phonon number modulo 2, 4, and 8. The Schrieffer-Wolff derivation in the Supplemental is careful and the calibration of the dispersive shift linearity is a strength. However, the theoretical description of the single-shot protocol is inconsistent with the linear dispersive model used to design it, and the population-extraction validation is partly circular.

Significance. If substantiated, the multimode population-measurement primitive would be a useful addition to trapped-ion bosonic registers, and the paper's explicit derivation of the multimode dispersive Hamiltonian and its nonlinear correction provides a solid foundation. The parity-filtering demonstrations and the detailed calibration of χ versus phonon number are also valuable. However, the headline claim of a single-shot superparity (modulo-2^k) Fock measurement is not supported by the presented linear model: the filter sequence as specified cannot distinguish complementary residues such as |1⟩ and |7⟩ in the m=3 case. The paper's value therefore rests primarily on the population-estimation and state-generation results, not on the claimed single-shot measurement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (11) and Fig. 4; Supplemental S3] Under the linear dispersive model used to design the sequence, the probability for a Fock state x to pass step ℓ is P_↓(ℓ) = cos²(π(x − b_ℓ 2^ℓ)/2^{ℓ+1}). This is invariant under x → 2^m − x for an m-bit protocol because 2^m is a multiple of 2^{ℓ+1}. Thus, for m=3, the states |1⟩ and |7⟩ produce identical joint outcome distributions, so the sequence cannot implement a modulo-8 measurement. The S3 statement that each step “projects the quantum state onto the subspace {|v⟩ : v ≡ b_ℓ 2^ℓ mod 2^{ℓ+1}}” is incorrect for ℓ ≥ 1: states outside that subspace pass with substantial probability. The experimental matrix in Fig. S5 distinguishes |1⟩ from |7⟩, implying that an unmodeled effect (likely the beyond-Lamb-Dicke nonlinear phase of Eq. (S41), or an uncontrolled offset) breaks the symmetry. The manuscript must identify and model this mechanism, or substantially qualify the superparity claim.
  2. [Main text, 'single-shot Fock-state measurement' paragraph (Fig. 4); Eq. (S55)] Even for a target Fock state, the pass probability at each step is generally not 1; for target |1⟩ and ℓ=1, for example, P_↓ = cos²(π/4) = 1/2. The sequence is therefore an analog filter, not a projective QND measurement, and observing |↓⟩ at every step does not uniquely identify the input Fock state in a single run. The population estimate of Eq. (S55) is built from conditional probabilities over many repetitions. The claim that the protocol implements “a single-shot nondestructive measurement of the Fock state” in one experimental run is not supported; the wording should be revised to describe a probabilistic, postselected filtering/state-preparation tool.
  3. [Supplemental S2.2; Figs. 2–3] The Fock distribution is extracted by fitting Eq. (S51) with (nmax+1)^2+3 or more free parameters (the text says three free parameters plus p_n, but the joint fit across three rational ratios introduces separate γ1, χ_eff,1, and χ_res for each ratio, so the total is larger). There is no sum constraint or regularization on p_n, and the Hilbert-space truncation to nmax=4 (two-mode) or 6 (single-mode) is not justified by a convergence check. The validation against cat/ECS states fits α from the same extracted populations, so the orange curves in Figs. 2 and 3 are not independent predictions. Please provide an identifiability analysis (bootstrap, condition number, or similar), a convergence study in nmax, and validation on independently prepared states.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical slips: “Trappe d Ion” in the title, “popultation”, “nonliearity”, “postselct”, “spectroscopy”. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Abstract and main text] The term “superparity” is used without an explicit definition until the single-shot section. Define it at first use, e.g., as a measurement whose outcome reveals n mod 2^k.
  3. [Supplemental Eq. (S43)] The Lamb-Dicke limit of the nonlinear phase is written as t Σ_j χ_j(2n_j + 1). The constant +1 offset is later canceled by ϕ_off, but the main-text Eq. (6) writes θ·n without this offset. The relationship between the two conventions should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  4. [Fig. S5] The color map in Fig. S5 has no explicit colorbar description in the caption; please add one or state the scale in text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dispersive Hamiltonian and Ramsey signal are derived self-containedly, and the Fock-population extraction is fitting rather than a prediction dressed as a first-principles result.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (2) is obtained from the multimode Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian by an explicit two-step Schrieffer-Wolff expansion in Supplemental Sec. S1.1, including the cross-mode beam-splitter terms and their off-resonant suppression; it is not assumed from data or from a load-bearing self-citation. Eq. (6) is a direct consequence of the dispersive Hamiltonian and is used as a fitting model: the paper states 'By fitting Eq. (6) to the measured P_up(t), we determine the multimode Fock-state distribution p_n.' This is measurement-by-fitting, not a prediction of the p_n from the p_n. The comparisons to even/odd cat states and ECSs are explicitly self-consistency checks: the alpha values are fitted from the extracted populations and the paper labels them as 'fitted alpha,' so they are not presented as independent predictions. The selective-decoupling scheme and the calibration of residual offsets are also derived within the paper rather than imported as an unverified external result. The self-citations used, e.g., Refs. [38] and [63], concern the experimental apparatus and prior two-mode tomography context; they are not the load-bearing justification for any claimed result. The single-shot filter protocol in Eq. (11) may have a mathematical ambiguity under the linear dispersive model — states n and 2^m - n can have identical pass statistics — but that is a correctness concern about the protocol's operation, not a circularity: it does not make the paper's derivation equivalent to its inputs. Overall, no identified step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard dispersive-coupling physics plus several experimental-domain assumptions. The free parameters are mostly calibration/fit parameters of the Ramsey model; the Fock populations themselves are fit outputs, not independent measurements. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Effective dispersive shifts χ_eff,j = χ_eff,1/2π ∈ {-174(2), -170(1), -106(1), -203(2), -254(3), -209(2), -251(2)} Hz (Table S2)
    The Ramsey phase θ_j = 2χ_eff,j t is the central coupling; values are extracted by fitting spin-oscillation data (Fig. S2), and the final Fock-population fit refits χ_eff,1 with the ratio r fixed.
  • Contrast decay rates γ1 (and γ2 = r γ1) = e.g., γ1 = 15(4) s⁻¹ (Fig. 2a), 11(2) s⁻¹ (Fig. 3a)
    The exponential contrast decay in Eq. (S45) is fit; the ratio r = γ1/γ2 is fixed to the target χ_eff ratio by an explicit modeling assumption.
  • Residual AC-Stark offset χ_res = 2(5), 3(2), -7(3), -9(5), -4(4), -6(3), 0(2) Hz (Table S2)
    Residual phase offset after selective decoupling; calibrated and included as a free parameter in the fit.
  • Fock populations p_n = Extracted for n=0..6 (single-mode) and n1,n2=0..4 (two-mode)
    These are the target measurement output, obtained as fit parameters from Eq. (S51); the sum is unconstrained and reported ∑p_n ≈ 0.94–0.99.
  • Cat/ECS amplitude α = 1.46(1), 1.40(1), 0.99(1), 1.03(2); 1.57(1), 1.51(1), 0.98(1), 0.99(2)
    Fitted to the extracted Fock distributions to support the cat/ECS identification; this is not an independent characterization of coherence.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation and second-order Schrieffer-Wolff transformation are valid (Supplemental S1.1).
    Used to derive the diagonal dispersive Hamiltonian Eq. (2) from the multimode Jaynes-Cummings interaction Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Motional mode detuning separations |δ_j - δ_k| are large enough to drop the spin-dependent beam-splitter terms K_jk (Supplemental Eqs. S13-S15).
    If this fails, Eq. (6) would include non-diagonal mode-mixing terms and the Fock-population extraction would be biased.
  • domain assumption The Lamb-Dicke expansion, or its Laguerre generalization in Eq. (S41), captures all relevant nonlinearity of the dispersive shift in the fit.
    The fitting function g↑ in Eq. (S51) relies on this nonlinear model to account for the observed non-return to P↑ = 0 at θ = 2π.
  • domain assumption Spin echo with t^(1)/t^(2) = Δ^(1)/Δ^(2) exactly cancels the carrier AC-Stark phase (Eq. 10) while preserving the dispersive phase.
    This is the core selective-decoupling scheme; residual phase is modeled by χ_res.
  • domain assumption Postselection on the dark |↓⟩ outcome is a clean projective Fock-space filter with no motional disturbance from photon recoil.
    The claim of nondestructive single-shot measurement depends on this, plus a low false-negative detection probability P(↓|↑).
  • ad hoc to paper The ratio r = χ_eff,1/χ_eff,2 = γ1/γ2 is fixed to the calibrated value, and the Hilbert space is truncated to nmax without a sum constraint on p_n.
    Supplemental S2.2 states this reduction of free parameters; it is an uncontrolled modeling choice that could bias the extracted populations if the decay-rate ratio assumption is wrong.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26022 in / 19700 out tokens · 215706 ms · 2026-08-03T11:59:14.244748+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dispersive shifts are a widely used tool for bosonic readout and control in circuit quantum electrodynamics, yet they remain relatively unexplored in trapped-ion motional systems. Here we introduce a unified framework for multimode phonon-number measurement and nondestructive single-shot superparity measurement, i.e., phonon-number measurement modulo 2^k, using dispersive shifts in the far-detuned multimode Jaynes-Cummings interaction of a trapped ion system. We implement a Ramsey sequence that realizes a multimode spin-dependent rotation (SDR) together with a selective decoupling scheme that cancels the phase induced by the carrier AC-Stark shift while preserving the phonon-number-dependent phase induced by the dispersive shift. Within this framework, we infer single-mode and two-mode Fock-state distributions from spin-population dynamics, use SDR-based conditional parity operators with postselection to generate cat states and entangled coherent states, and realize nondestructive single-shot measurements of phonon number modulo 2, 4, and 8 in the single-mode setting. These results open a new avenue for the use of multimode parity operators in trapped-ion bosonic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04591 by Jaehun You, Jiyong Kang, Kyunghye Kim, Kyungmin Lee, Taehyun Kim, Wonhyeong Choi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Laser detunings and sideband frequencies rel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Quantum circuit for single-shot Fock state mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum informa- tion with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum computation over continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    U. L. Andersen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Hybrid discrete- and continuous- variable quantum information, Nat. Phys. 11, 713 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Y. Liu, S. Singh, K. C. Smith, E. Crane, J. M. Mar- tyn, A. Eickbusch, A. Schuckert, R. D. Li, S.-S. Jasmine, M. B. Soley, et al. , Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum pro- cessors: Instruction set architectures, abstract machine models, and applications, PRX Quantum , to be pub- lished

  7. [7]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    K. C. McCormick, J. Keller, S. C. Burd, D. J. Wineland, A. C. Wilson, and D. Leibfried, Quantum-enhanced sens- ing of a single-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature 572, 86 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y. Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou, et al. , Quantum- enhanced metrology with large Fock states, Nat. Phys. 20, 1874 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Nav- ickas, L. J. Bond, and T. R. Tan, Engineering continuous- variable entanglement in mechanical oscillators with op- timal control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 233604 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    C. H. Valahu, M. P. Stafford, Z. Huang, V. G. Matsos, M. J. Millican, T. Chalermpusitarak, N. C. Menicucci, J. Combes, B. Q. Baragiola, and T. R. Tan, Quantum- enhanced multiparameter sensing in a single mode, Sci. Adv. 11, eadw9757 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    L. J. Bond, C. H. Valahu, A. Shankar, T. R. Tan, and A. Safavi-Naini, Optimal displacement sensing with spin- dependent squeezed states, arXiv:2510.25870

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    D. Lv, S. An, Z. Liu, J.-N. Zhang, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and K. Kim, Quantum simula- tion of the quantum Rabi model in a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021027 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    J. Deng, H. Dong, C. Zhang, Y. Wu, J. Yuan, X. Zhu, F. Jin, H. Li, Z. Wang, H. Cai, et al. , Observing the quantum topology of light, Science 378, 966 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Crane, K

    E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. K¨ uhn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. 6 Chuang, N. Wiebe, et al. , Hybrid oscillator-qubit quan- tum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields, arXiv:2409.03747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, et al. , Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits, Nature 638, 927 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    W. S. Leong, M. Xin, Z. Chen, Y. Wang, and S.-Y. Lan, Creation of two-mode squeezed states in atomic mechan- ical oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 193601 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    M. O. Brown, S. R. Muleady, W. J. Dworschack, R. J. Lewis-Swan, A. M. Rey, O. Romero-Isart, and C. A. Re- gal, Time-of-flight quantum tomography of an atom in an optical tweezer, Nat. Phys. 19, 569 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    A. L. Shaw, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Erasure cooling, control, and hyperentanglement of motion in optical tweezers, Science 388, 845 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    M. V. Larsen, J. E. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. F. Tasker, R. S. Chadwick, C. Gonz´ alez-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. E. Lopetegui-Gonz´ alez, F. M. Miatto, A. Motamedi, et al. , Integrated photonic source of Gottesman–Kitaev– Preskill qubits, Nature 642, 587 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Jeong, A

    H. Jeong, A. Zavatta, M. Kang, S.-W. Lee, L. S. Costanzo, S. Grandi, T. C. Ralph, and M. Bellini, Gen- eration of hybrid entanglement of light, Nat. Photon. 8, 564 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    J. Lee, N. Kang, S.-H. Lee, H. Jeong, L. Jiang, and S.- W. Lee, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by hybrid qubits with bosonic cat code and single photons, PRX Quantum 5, 030322 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    J. Lee, S. Omkar, Y. S. Teo, S.-H. Lee, H. Kwon, M. S. Kim, and H. Jeong, Photonic hybrid quantum comput- ing, arXiv:2510.00534

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature 566, 513 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Robust and deterministic preparation of bosonic logical states in a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 050602 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, M. J. Millican, T. Navickas, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Uni- versal quantum gate set for Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill logical qubits, Nat. Phys. 21, 1664 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    H. C. J. Gan, G. Maslennikov, K.-W. Tseng, C. Nguyen, and D. Matsukevich, Hybrid quantum computing with conditional beam splitter gate in trapped ion system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 170502 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    K. Noh, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang, Encoding an oscilla- tor into many oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 080503 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Royer, S

    B. Royer, S. Singh, and S. Girvin, Encoding qubits in multimode grid states, PRX Quantum 3, 010335 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Fl¨ uhmann and J

    C. Fl¨ uhmann and J. P. Home, Direct characteristic- function tomography of quantum states of the trapped- ion motional oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 043602 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Leibfried, D

    D. Leibfried, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Experimental deter- mination of the motional quantum state of a trapped atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4281 (1996)

    1996

  33. [33]

    S. Ding, G. Maslennikov, R. Habl¨ utzel, H. Loh, and D. Matsukevich, Quantum parametric oscillator with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150404 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    S. Ding, G. Maslennikov, R. Habl¨ utzel, and D. Matsuke- vich, Cross-Kerr nonlinearity for phonon counting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 193602 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Mallweger, M

    M. Mallweger, M. H. De Oliveira, R. Thomm, H. Parke, N. Kuk, G. Higgins, R. Bachelard, C. J. Villas-Boas, and M. Hennrich, Single-shot measurements of phonon number states using the Autler-Townes effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 223603 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Whitlow, Z

    J. Whitlow, Z. Jia, Y. Wang, C. Fang, J. Kim, and K. R. Brown, Quantum simulation of conical intersections us- ing trapped ions, Nat. Chem. 15, 1509 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    C. H. Valahu, V. C. Olaya-Agudelo, R. J. MacDonell, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, J. B. P´ erez- S´ anchez, J. Yuen-Zhou, M. J. Biercuk, C. Hempel, et al. , Direct observation of geometric-phase interference in dy- namics around a conical intersection, Nat. Chem. 15, 1503 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    H. Jeon, J. Kang, W. Choi, K. Kim, J. You, and T. Kim, Two-mode bosonic state tomography with single-shot joint-parity measurement of a trapped ion, PRX Quan- tum 6, 040352 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Z. Jia, Y. Wang, B. Zhang, J. Whitlow, C. Fang, J. Kim, and K. R. Brown, Determination of multimode motional quantum states in a trapped ion system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 103602 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Larson and T

    J. Larson and T. K. Mavrogordatos, The Jaynes- Cummings Model and Its Descendants: Modern Research Directions (IOP Publishing, Bristol, 2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  42. [42]

    D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, ac Stark shift and dephasing of a superconducting qubit strongly coupled to a cavity field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 123602 (2005)

    2005

  43. [43]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Ma- jer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Approaching unit visibility for control of a superconduct- ing qubit with dispersive readout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005)

    2005

  44. [44]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a super- conducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature 431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  45. [45]

    Vlastakis, G

    B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Deterministically encoding quantum information using 100-photon Schr¨ odinger cat states, Science 342, 607 (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    W. Wang, L. Hu, Y. Xu, K. Liu, Y. Ma, S.-B. Zheng, R. Vijay, Y. P. Song, L.-M. Duan, and L. Sun, Convert- ing quasiclassical states into arbitrary fock state super- positions in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 223604 (2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirch- mair, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, J. Blumoff, et al. , Tracking photon jumps with repeated 7 quantum non-demolition parity measurements, Nature 511, 444 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Implementing a uni- versal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nat. Commun. 8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  49. [49]

    Krastanov, V

    S. Krastanov, V. V. Albert, C. Shen, C.-L. Zou, R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. Jiang, Uni- versal control of an oscillator with dispersive coupling to a qubit, Phys. Rev. A 92, 040303 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, A. Wall- raff, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, B. Johnson, M. H. Devoret, et al., Resolving photon num- ber states in a superconducting circuit, Nature 445, 515 (2007)

    2007

  51. [51]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit, Nat. Phys. 18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

    Schmidt-Kaler, H

    F. Schmidt-Kaler, H. H¨ affner, S. Gulde, M. Riebe, G. Lancaster, J. Eschner, C. Becher, and R. Blatt, Quan- tized AC-Stark shifts and their use for multiparticle en- tanglement and quantum gates, Europhys. Lett. 65, 587 (2004)

    2004

  53. [53]

    M. Lee, K. Friebe, D. A. Fioretto, K. Sch¨ uppert, F. R. Ong, D. Plankensteiner, V. Torggler, H. Ritsch, R. Blatt, and T. E. Northup, Ion-based quantum sensor for optical cavity photon numbers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 153603 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the Anderson and Kondo hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. 149, 491 (1966)

    1966

  55. [55]

    See the Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher]

  56. [56]

    W. Chen, Y. Lu, S. Zhang, K. Zhang, G. Huang, M. Qiao, X. Su, J. Zhang, J.-N. Zhang, L. Banchi, et al. , Scalable and programmable phononic network with trapped ions, Nat. Phys. 19, 877 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    Katz and C

    O. Katz and C. Monroe, Programmable quantum simu- lations of bosonic systems with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 033604 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Royer, Wigner function as the expectation value of a parity operator, Phys

    A. Royer, Wigner function as the expectation value of a parity operator, Phys. Rev. A 15, 449 (1977)

    1977

  59. [59]

    R. J. Birrittella, P. M. Alsing, and C. C. Gerry, The par- ity operator: Applications in quantum metrology, A VS Quantum Science 3, 014701 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    C. C. Gerry and J. Mimih, The parity operator in quan- tum optical metrology, Contemp. Phys. 51, 497 (2010)

    2010

  61. [61]

    C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, P. Reinhold, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Chou, C. Axline, M. Reagor, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, et al., A Schr¨ odinger cat living in two boxes, Science352, 1087 (2016)

    2016

  62. [62]

    Tsunoda, J

    T. Tsunoda, J. D. Teoh, W. D. Kalfus, S. J. De Graaf, B. J. Chapman, J. C. Curtis, N. Thakur, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Error-detectable bosonic entan- gling gates with a noisy ancilla, PRX Quantum 4, 020354 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    H. Jeon, J. Kang, J. Kim, W. Choi, K. Kim, and T. Kim, Experimental realization of entangled coherent states in two-dimensional harmonic oscillators of a trapped ion, Sci. Rep. 14, 6847 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Olmschenk, K

    S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. L. Moehring, D. N. Mat- sukevich, P. Maunz, and C. Monroe, Manipulation and detection of a trapped Yb + hyperfine qubit, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052314 (2007)

    2007

  65. [65]

    H¨ affner, S

    H. H¨ affner, S. Gulde, M. Riebe, G. Lancaster, C. Becher, J. Eschner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Precision measurement and compensation of optical Stark shifts for an ion-trap quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 143602 (2003)

    2003

  66. [66]

    E. A. Wollack, A. Y. Cleland, R. G. Gruenke, Z. Wang, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Quantum state preparation and tomography of entangled mechan- ical resonators, Nature 604, 463 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  68. [68]

    Vogel and R

    W. Vogel and R. L. D. M. Filho, Nonlinear Jaynes- Cummings dynamics of a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4214 (1995)

    1995

  69. [69]

    Cheng, I

    X.-H. Cheng, I. Arrazola, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, X. Chen, and E. Solano, Nonlinear quantum Rabi model in trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 97, 023624 (2018)

    2018

  70. [70]

    C. S. Wang, J. C. Curtis, B. J. Lester, Y. Zhang, Y. Y. Gao, J. Freeze, V. S. Batista, P. H. Vaccaro, I. L. Chuang, L. Frunzio, et al. , Efficient multiphoton sam- pling of molecular vibronic spectra on a superconducting bosonic processor, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021060 (2020)

    2020

  71. [71]

    P.-Y. Hou, J. J. Wu, S. D. Erickson, D. C. Cole, G. Zaran- tonello, A. D. Brandt, S. Geller, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, et al. , Coherent coupling and non- destructive measurement of trapped-ion mechanical os- cillators, Nat. Phys. 20, 1636 (2024)

    2024

  72. [72]

    N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, et al. , Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits, Nature 536, 441 (2016)

    2016

  73. [73]

    A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, Quan- tum computing with rotation-symmetric bosonic codes, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011058 (2020). APPENDIX: MUL TI-ION MUL TIMODE FOCK-ST A TE MEASUREMENT In the Appendix, we generalize multimode Fock-state measurement using the SDR-based Ramsey sequence to N ions theoretically, and also discuss the experimental con...

    2020

  74. [74]

    Prepare the state |↓⟩ |0, 0⟩

  75. [75]

    Apply the Ramsey sequence ˆRπ+∆off tcal ( π 2 ) ˆU (2) ˆRy(π) ˆU (1) ˆRx( π 2 ) for a fixed total interaction time tcal and mea- sure the spin. 13

  76. [76]

    A longer interaction time tcal provides higher fitting resolution, unless it is longer than the cohe rence time of the signal

    Repeat the previous steps with different ∆ off values and determine ˜∆off by finding the center of a sinusoidal dip by fitting. A longer interaction time tcal provides higher fitting resolution, unless it is longer than the cohe rence time of the signal. We empirically choose tcal to be about 4 ms. After a calibration, we store the calibrated ˜∆off value for sub...

  77. [77]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the Anderso n and Kondo hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. 149, 491 (1966)

    1966

  78. [78]

    Vogel and R

    W. Vogel and R. L. D. M. Filho, Nonlinear Jaynes-Cummings d ynamics of a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4214 (1995)

    1995

  79. [79]

    Cheng, I

    X.-H. Cheng, I. Arrazola, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, X. Che n, and E. Solano, Nonlinear quantum Rabi model in trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 97, 023624 (2018)

    2018

  80. [80]

    E. A. Wollack, A. Y. Cleland, R. G. Gruenke, Z. Wang, P. Arrang oiz-Arriola, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Quantum state preparation and tomography of entangled mechanical resonators, Nature 604, 463 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.