pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.28672 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-30 · 💻 cs.NI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

How Many Qubits Can Be Teleported? Scalability of Fidelity-Constrained Quantum Applications

Oscar Adamuz-Hinojosa , Jonathan Prados-Garzon , Sara Vaquero-Gil , Juan M. Lopez-Soler
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 00:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI
keywords quantum networksquantum teleportationfidelity constraintsmemory coherencescalabilityBell pairsentanglement distributionMonte Carlo simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Memory coherence time is the primary limit on how many qubits can be teleported while meeting a joint fidelity threshold.

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

The paper examines the maximum number of qubits that can be teleported at once in a two-node quantum network when every qubit must still satisfy a minimum fidelity requirement upon arrival. It introduces a reliability metric equal to the probability that all end-to-end Bell pairs meet the target fidelity once the teleportation stage finishes. A Monte Carlo simulator tracks stochastic Bell-pair creation, repeater-assisted distribution over fiber or free-space links, and progressive fidelity loss from storage in NV-center or trapped-ion memories. The results identify memory coherence as the dominant constraint under tight fidelity targets and show that parallel entanglement generation is required to keep storage times short enough. A sympathetic reader would care because many quantum applications need several qubits to arrive together without excessive decoherence.

Core claim

In a two-node quantum network the number of qubits that can be teleported under a joint fidelity threshold is set by the coherence time of the quantum memories; stochastic Bell-pair generation and repeater distribution produce variable storage intervals that drive fidelity below the threshold unless entanglement is generated in parallel.

What carries the argument

The QApp-level reliability metric, defined as the probability that all teleported qubits simultaneously meet the target fidelity after the multi-qubit teleportation stage completes, incorporating decoherence during storage.

If this is right

  • Memory coherence becomes the main scalability bottleneck once fidelity targets are made stringent.
  • Parallel entanglement generation is required to keep storage intervals short enough for multi-qubit teleportation.
  • NV-center and trapped-ion memories impose different practical limits according to their measured coherence times.
  • Fiber and free-space optical links affect distribution rates yet remain secondary to memory effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Longer coherence times would directly raise the number of qubits that can be teleported together in fidelity-constrained applications.
  • Network architectures may need to emphasize rapid parallel entanglement sources rather than solely extending repeater reach.
  • Protocol designers could trade storage duration against fidelity margins when scheduling multi-qubit teleportation.

Load-bearing premise

The Monte Carlo simulator's models of stochastic Bell-pair generation, repeater distribution, and fidelity degradation match real NV-center and trapped-ion hardware behavior.

What would settle it

An experiment that teleports multiple qubits over a real quantum link, records the fraction meeting the fidelity threshold, and compares the result to the simulator output for identical coherence times and link parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.28672 by Jonathan Prados-Garzon, Juan M. Lopez-Soler, Oscar Adamuz-Hinojosa, Sara Vaquero-Gil.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A QN with two endpoints, connected via a QR, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evaluation of reliability R as a function of the target fidelity Fth for τ = 500 µs. for Nqubit = 2 and Npar = 1, the reliability at Fth = 0.75 is R ≈ 1 for d = 250 m and R = 0.98 for d = 500 m. In contrast, for Nqubit = 8 and Npar = 1, the reliability drops to R = 0.2 at d = 250 m and to R = 0.1 at d = 500 m. Second, enabling parallel entanglement-generation attempts has a substantial positive impact on s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evaluation of reliability R with respect to the coherence time τ . Note that d = 1.5 Km. 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 T arg et relia bility Rth Nqubit = 1 Nqubit = 2 Nqubit = 3 Nqubit = 4 Nqubit = 5 Nqubit = 1 Nqubit = 2 Nqubit = 3 Nqubit = 4 Nqubit = 5 Npar = 2, Fth = 0.75 Npar = 2, Fth = 0.8 Npar = 2, Fth = 0.85 5 11 22 46 98 205 431 906 1903 4000 Maximum distance dmax [km] 0.50 0.55… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maximum achievable distance dmax as a function of the target reliability Rth for different values of Nqubit, considering NV-center-based memories with coherence time τ = 3 ms and trapped-ion-based memories with coherence time τ = 250 ms. coupling losses inherent to ground-based FSO links, which limit the achievable distance even under clear-sky conditions. In the NV-center regime, FSO links yield feasible … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum networks (QNs) enable qubit transfer between distant nodes through quantum teleportation, which reconstructs a quantum state at a remote node by consuming a shared Bell pair. In multi-qubit quantum applications (QApps), the teleported qubits may need to remain stored in quantum memories until execution can start, while decoherence progressively reduces their fidelity with respect to the ideal target state. Such QApps can operate only if all teleported qubits simultaneously satisfy a minimum fidelity threshold. In this paper, we study how many qubits can be teleported under this fidelity-constrained operation in a two-node QN. To this end, we define a QApp-level reliability metric as the probability that all end-to-end Bell pairs satisfy the target fidelity when the multi-qubit teleportation stage is completed. We then develop a Monte Carlo simulator that captures stochastic Bell-pair generation, Quantum Repeater (QR)-assisted entanglement distribution, and fidelity degradation. The analysis considers fiber-based and terrestrial free-space optical (FSO) quantum links, as well as representative NV-center- and trapped-ion-based quantum memories. Results show that memory coherence is the main scalability bottleneck under stringent fidelity targets, while parallel entanglement generation is essential for multi-qubit teleportation.

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 paper studies scalability limits for multi-qubit teleportation in a two-node quantum network under a fidelity threshold constraint. It defines a QApp reliability metric as the probability that all teleported qubits simultaneously meet the target fidelity after storage, then uses a Monte Carlo simulator incorporating stochastic Bell-pair generation, repeater-assisted distribution, and decoherence to analyze NV-center and trapped-ion memories over fiber and free-space optical links. The central claim is that memory coherence time is the dominant bottleneck for scaling the number of qubits, while parallel entanglement generation is required to achieve viable reliability.

Significance. If the simulator assumptions hold, the work supplies concrete, quantitative guidance on resource trade-offs (memory lifetime versus entanglement rate) for fidelity-constrained quantum applications, which is useful for quantum-network architecture studies. The probabilistic reliability metric and explicit comparison of fiber versus FSO channels add practical value beyond abstract capacity bounds.

major comments (2)
  1. [methods / simulator description] Simulator description (methods section): the fidelity-degradation model for multi-qubit storage intervals in NV-center and trapped-ion memories is parameterized solely from literature coherence times without reported calibration or validation against experimental data for storage durations comparable to the multi-qubit teleportation completion time. Because the headline result—that memory coherence is the dominant scalability bottleneck—rests directly on the probability that all qubits remain above threshold, this modeling choice is load-bearing and requires either additional experimental grounding or a sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in T2 distributions.
  2. [results] Results section (figures showing reliability vs. number of qubits): the reported probabilities for simultaneous fidelity satisfaction are obtained from Monte Carlo runs whose convergence and statistical error bars are not stated. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the claimed crossover between memory-coherence and entanglement-rate limits is statistically robust or an artifact of sampling variance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'parallel entanglement generation is essential' is stated without quantifying the required parallelism factor; a brief numerical example would clarify the claim.
  2. [introduction / methods] Notation: the definition of the QApp-level reliability metric should be given an explicit equation number and cross-referenced in the results when probabilities are plotted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [methods / simulator description] Simulator description (methods section): the fidelity-degradation model for multi-qubit storage intervals in NV-center and trapped-ion memories is parameterized solely from literature coherence times without reported calibration or validation against experimental data for storage durations comparable to the multi-qubit teleportation completion time. Because the headline result—that memory coherence is the dominant scalability bottleneck—rests directly on the probability that all qubits remain above threshold, this modeling choice is load-bearing and requires either additional experimental grounding or a sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in T2 distributions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the fidelity-degradation model is parameterized from established literature values for T2 coherence times of NV-center and trapped-ion memories. Direct experimental validation for the precise multi-qubit storage intervals considered here would require new measurements outside the scope of this simulation-based study. To strengthen the analysis, we have added a sensitivity study in the revised Methods section that varies T2 within the range of experimentally reported values (±30 %). The results confirm that memory coherence remains the dominant bottleneck across this range, with only minor shifts in the absolute reliability values. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [results] Results section (figures showing reliability vs. number of qubits): the reported probabilities for simultaneous fidelity satisfaction are obtained from Monte Carlo runs whose convergence and statistical error bars are not stated. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the claimed crossover between memory-coherence and entanglement-rate limits is statistically robust or an artifact of sampling variance.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The revised manuscript now states that each reliability value is computed from 100 000 independent Monte Carlo trials. We have added 95 % confidence intervals (Wilson score method) as error bars to all figures in the Results section. These intervals demonstrate that the reported crossover points between memory-coherence and entanglement-rate regimes remain statistically significant and are not attributable to sampling variance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation results derive from external hardware parameters

full rationale

The paper defines a reliability metric as the probability that all teleported qubits meet a fidelity threshold, then implements a Monte Carlo simulator using stochastic Bell-pair generation, repeater-assisted distribution, and decoherence models parameterized from external literature values for NV-center and trapped-ion coherence times and link losses. The conclusion that memory coherence is the dominant bottleneck follows directly from comparing simulation outcomes across fidelity targets and hardware configurations; no equation reduces the output to a fitted parameter defined inside the paper, and no load-bearing step relies on self-citation or ansatz smuggling. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against independent physical inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-memory decoherence models and Bell-pair generation statistics drawn from prior literature; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • memory coherence time
    Representative values for NV-center and trapped-ion memories are used as inputs; these are external parameters, not fitted inside the paper.
  • Bell-pair generation rate
    Stochastic generation timing is modeled but the underlying rate is taken from link parameters.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Fidelity decays exponentially with storage time according to the memory's coherence time.
    Standard model for decoherence invoked to compute end-to-end fidelity.
  • domain assumption All teleported qubits must simultaneously exceed the fidelity threshold for the QApp to succeed.
    Definition of the reliability metric.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5540 in / 1375 out tokens · 35743 ms · 2026-05-14T00:42:10.905314+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, “Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,”Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, p. eaam9288, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, “Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,”Nat. Commun., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 15043, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Experimental quantum teleportation,

    D. Bouwmeester, J. W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “Experimental quantum teleportation,”Nature, vol. 390, pp. 575–579, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Tools for the Analysis of Quantum Protocols Requiring State Generation Within a Time Window,

    B. Davies, T. Beauchamp, G. Vardoyan, and S. Wehner, “Tools for the Analysis of Quantum Protocols Requiring State Generation Within a Time Window,”IEEE Trans. on Quantum Eng., vol. 5, pp. 1–20, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link,

    D. Mainet al., “Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link,”Nature, vol. 638, pp. 383–388, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Review of Distributed Quantum Computing: From single QPU to High Performance Quantum Computing,

    D. Barralet al., “Review of Distributed Quantum Computing: From single QPU to High Performance Quantum Computing,”Comput. Sci. Rev., vol. 57, p. 100747, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Entanglement-based quantum clock synchronization,

    E. O. Ilo-Okeke, L. Tessler, J. P. Dowling, and T. Byrnes, “Entanglement-based quantum clock synchronization,” inAIP Conf. Proc., vol. 2241, p. 020011, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Quantum-assisted network time synchronisation: A literature review, considering examples and challenges,

    M. Barhoumi, “Quantum-assisted network time synchronisation: A literature review, considering examples and challenges,”SSRN Electron. J., 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Mul- tipartite Entanglement Verification Resistant against Dishonest Parties,

    A. Pappa, A. Chailloux, S. Wehner, E. Diamanti, and I. Kerenidis, “Mul- tipartite Entanglement Verification Resistant against Dishonest Parties,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 108, no. 26, p. 260502, 2012

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    Experimental Verification of Multipartite En- tanglement in Quantum Networks,

    W. McCutcheonet al., “Experimental Verification of Multipartite En- tanglement in Quantum Networks,”Nat. Commun., vol. 7, p. 13251, 2016

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Telecom-Wavelength Quantum Repeater Node Based on a Trapped-Ion Processor,

    V . Krutyanskiyet al., “Telecom-Wavelength Quantum Repeater Node Based on a Trapped-Ion Processor,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 130, p. 213601, May 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Quantum Queuing Delay,

    W. Dai, T. Peng, and M. Z. Win, “Quantum Queuing Delay,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 605–618, 2020

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    On the Exact Analysis of an Idealized Quantum Switch,

    G. Vardoyan, S. Guha, P. Nain, and D. Towsley, “On the Exact Analysis of an Idealized Quantum Switch,”Perform. Eval., vol. 144, p. 102141, 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    On the Stochastic Analysis of a Quantum Entanglement Distribution Switch,

    G. Vardoyan, S. Guha, P. Nain, and D. Towsley, “On the Stochastic Analysis of a Quantum Entanglement Distribution Switch,”IEEE Trans. on Quantum Eng., vol. 2, pp. 1–16, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    On the Capacity Region of Bipartite and Tripartite Entanglement Switching,

    G. Vardoyan, P. Nain, S. Guha, and D. Towsley, “On the Capacity Region of Bipartite and Tripartite Entanglement Switching,”ACM Trans. Model. Perform. Eval. Comput. Syst., vol. 8, Mar. 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    On the Analysis of a Multipartite Entanglement Distribution Switch,

    P. Nain, G. Vardoyan, S. Guha, and D. Towsley, “On the Analysis of a Multipartite Entanglement Distribution Switch,”Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., vol. 4, June 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    On the Capacity Region of a Quantum Switch with Entanglement Purification,

    N. K. Panigrahy, T. Vasantam, D. Towsley, and L. Tassiulas, “On the Capacity Region of a Quantum Switch with Entanglement Purification,” inIEEE INFOCOM, pp. 1–10, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Calculat- ing the Capacity Region of a Quantum Switch,

    I. Tillman, T. Vasantam, D. Towsley, and K. P. Seshadreesan, “Calculat- ing the Capacity Region of a Quantum Switch,” inIEEE QCE, vol. 01, pp. 1868–1878, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Simulators for quantum network modeling: A comprehensive review,

    O. Bel and M. Kiran, “Simulators for quantum network modeling: A comprehensive review,”Comput. Netw., vol. 263, p. 111204, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Spatial- mode diversity and multiplexing for continuous variables quantum communications,

    S. Koudia, L. Oleynik, J. ur Rehman, and S. Chatzinotas, “Spatial- mode diversity and multiplexing for continuous variables quantum communications,”Commun. Phys., vol. 8, no. 351, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Capacity limits of spatially multiplexed free-space communication channels,

    N. Zhao, X. Li, G. Li, and J. M. Kahn, “Capacity limits of spatially multiplexed free-space communication channels,”Nat. Photon., vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 822–826, 2015

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Limits and security of free-space quantum communica- tions,

    S. Pirandola, “Limits and security of free-space quantum communica- tions,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 013279, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Entanglement Distribution Delay Optimization in Quantum Networks With Distillation,

    M. Chehimi, K. Goodenough, W. Saad, D. Towsley, and T. X. Zhou, “Entanglement Distribution Delay Optimization in Quantum Networks With Distillation,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1871– 1886, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Characterizing entanglement,

    D. Bruß, “Characterizing entanglement,”J. Math. Phys., vol. 43, pp. 4237–4251, 09 2002

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    Trapped- ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges,

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, “Trapped- ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges,”Applied Physics Reviews, vol. 6, p. 021314, 05 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory up to One Minute,

    C. E. Bradleyet al., “A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory up to One Minute,”Phys. Rev. X, vol. 9, p. 031045, Sep 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Free space optical communications system performance under atmospheric scattering and turbulence for 850 and 1550  nm operation,

    A. S. El-Wakeel, N. A. Mohammed, and M. H. Aly, “Free space optical communications system performance under atmospheric scattering and turbulence for 850 and 1550  nm operation,”Appl. Opt., vol. 55, pp. 7276–7286, Sep 2016

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Extreme Radiation Sensitivity of Ultra-Low Loss Pure-Silica-Core Optical Fibers at Low Dose Levels and Infrared Wave- lengths,

    A. Moranaet al., “Extreme Radiation Sensitivity of Ultra-Low Loss Pure-Silica-Core Optical Fibers at Low Dose Levels and Infrared Wave- lengths,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 24, p. 7254, 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Simulation of atmospheric optical channel with ISI,

    Z. Kolka, D. Biolek, and V . Biolkova, “Simulation of atmospheric optical channel with ISI,” inCSECS, vol. 9, pp. 198–201, 2009

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    Optimizing the receiver aperture parameters of free space optical (FSO) link for performance enhancement,

    H. Singh, N. Mittal, and K. A. Ogudo, “Optimizing the receiver aperture parameters of free space optical (FSO) link for performance enhancement,”AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 2495, p. 020030, 10 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Optical Communication in Space: Challenges and Mitigation Techniques,

    H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, “Optical Communication in Space: Challenges and Mitigation Techniques,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57–96, 2017

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Toward Defeating Diffraction and Randomness for Laser Beam Propagation in Turbulent Atmosphere,

    P. M. Lushnikov and N. Vladimirova, “Toward Defeating Diffraction and Randomness for Laser Beam Propagation in Turbulent Atmosphere,” JETP Lett., vol. 108, no. 9, pp. 571–576, 2018

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Ultralong Spin Coherence Time in Isotopi- cally Engineered Diamond,

    G. Balasubramanianet al., “Ultralong Spin Coherence Time in Isotopi- cally Engineered Diamond,”Nature Mater., vol. 8, pp. 383–387, 2009

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Coherence of nitrogen-vacancy electronic spin ensembles in diamond,

    P. L. Stanwixet al., “Coherence of nitrogen-vacancy electronic spin ensembles in diamond,”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 82, p. 201201, Nov 2010

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    Origins of Diamond Surface Noise Probed by Correlating Single-Spin Measurements with Surface Spectroscopy,

    S. Sangtawesinet al., “Origins of Diamond Surface Noise Probed by Correlating Single-Spin Measurements with Surface Spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 9, p. 031052, Sep 2019

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Creation of nitrogen-vacancy centers in chemical vapor deposition diamond for sensing applications,

    T. Luoet al., “Creation of nitrogen-vacancy centers in chemical vapor deposition diamond for sensing applications,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 24, p. 033030, mar 2022

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Trapped-ion quantum computers,

    C. Hempel, “Trapped-ion quantum computers,” inQuantum Technolo- gies. Trends and Implications for Cyber Defense(J. Jang-Jaccard, P. Caroff, E. Blezinger, V . Mulder, A. Mulder, and V . Lenders, eds.), pp. 15–24, Cham: Springer Nature, 2026

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit,

    T. P. Hartyet al., “High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 113, p. 220501, Nov 2014

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Single-qubit quantum memory exceeding ten-minute coherence time,

    Y . Wanget al., “Single-qubit quantum memory exceeding ten-minute coherence time,”Nat. Photon., vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 646–650, 2017

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceed- ing one hour,

    P. Wanget al., “Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceed- ing one hour,”Nat. Commun., vol. 12, p. 233, 2021

    work page 2021