pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03435 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.atom-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

A High Motional Frequency Ion Trapping Regime for Quantum Information Science

A. J. Rasmusson
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.atom-ph
keywords trapped ionsmotional frequencydecoherencelaser coolingquantum computingion trapsbosonic statesquantum error correction
0
0 comments X

The pith

High motional frequency regimes in trapped ions reduce decoherence and accelerate quantum experiments by more than an order of magnitude.

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

The paper proposes operating trapped atomic ions at high motional frequencies to address heating and dephasing that limit quantum gate fidelity, bosonic state lifetime, and cooling speed. This regime is presented as a way to shorten laser cooling times, improve coherence of motional states, and cut overall experimental duty cycles by more than tenfold, with even larger gains for error-corrected protocols. A sympathetic reader would see the change as reshaping how ion-trap experiments are designed and run, making complex quantum information tasks faster and more practical. The investigation includes concrete trap design paths and identifies a new cooling limit at these frequencies.

Core claim

High motional frequency ion trapping addresses motional state decoherence mechanisms and provides more than an order-of-magnitude speedup in experimental duty cycles with larger speed ups possible for quantum error correction protocols. We report clear design trajectories for ion traps to reach high motional frequency, a new limiting mechanism for laser cooling at these high frequencies, and discuss consequences for laser cooling, motional state coherence, fidelity and lifetime of nonclassical bosonic states, and scalability of experimental runtimes.

What carries the argument

The high motional frequency ion trapping regime, which raises the oscillation frequencies of the ions' quantum motional states inside the rf trap to weaken the relative impact of heating and dephasing.

If this is right

  • Two-qubit gate fidelities improve because motional heating and dephasing become less damaging.
  • Nonclassical bosonic states maintain higher fidelity and longer lifetimes.
  • Laser cooling times shorten due to the new operating regime and its identified limit.
  • Experimental duty cycles speed up by more than ten times, with larger gains for quantum error correction.
  • Ion trap designs gain new trajectories to reach the required frequencies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This approach may allow longer ion chains or more complex circuits before coherence limits are hit.
  • Trap electrode geometries and voltage handling will need redesign to support the higher frequencies without new instabilities.
  • The regime could influence how quantum networking and precision measurement experiments are timed and scaled.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed high-frequency regime can be realized in actual ion traps without introducing new decoherence sources that would cancel the gains in cooling speed, coherence time, and overall runtime.

What would settle it

An experiment that achieves the predicted high motional frequencies, measures cooling times and heating rates, and shows a clear reduction in experimental cycle duration by at least a factor of ten without offsetting new decoherence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03435 by A. J. Rasmusson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The effect of trap design parameters on confinement frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Summary schematic of the design flow for experimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of Doppler cooling rates and limits be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Cooling and heating processes effecting ¯n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Reduction of primary decoherence mechanisms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relative comparison of cooling load and average experimental runtime between an ion trap with 1 MHz or 40 MHz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Moving into the resolved sideband regime puts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate high frequency motional states of trapped atomic ions. Trapped ions in rf traps are confined by an approximate harmonic potential and exhibit quantum motional states that mediate essential techniques in quantum computing, simulation, networking, and precision measurement. However, motional state decoherence mechanisms, heating and dephasing, are broadly limiting: reduced two-qubit gate fidelities; lower fidelity and lifetime of highly nonclassical bosonic states; long laser cooling times; and large recoil heating rates. These also challenge the scalability of increasingly sophisticated protocols. We propose high motional frequency ion trapping as an operating regime that addresses these challenges and reshapes the design landscape for quantum information experiments and quantum control techniques. We report an experimentally motivated investigation of realizing this high-frequency regime and discuss the consequences for laser cooling, motional state coherence, fidelity and lifetime of nonclassical bosonic states, and scalability of experimental runtimes. We report clear design trajectories for ion traps to reach high motional frequency, a new limiting mechanism for laser cooling at these high frequencies, and more than an order-of-magnitude speedup in experimental duty cycles with larger speed ups possible for quantum error correction protocols. Taken together, high motional frequency ion trapping has broad implications for the future of quantum information experiments.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes operating trapped ions at high motional frequencies in RF traps as a regime to mitigate decoherence from heating and dephasing. It reports design trajectories for reaching this regime, identifies a new laser-cooling limit at high frequencies, and claims more than an order-of-magnitude speedup in experimental duty cycles (with larger gains possible for quantum error correction), along with improved coherence, nonclassical state fidelity, and scalability for quantum information science protocols.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the work could reshape ion-trap design for QIS by enabling faster runtimes and better handling of motional-state limitations. The experimentally motivated design trajectories and discussion of consequences for cooling, coherence, and QEC represent practical contributions. The paper grounds its approach in standard ion-trap physics rather than ad-hoc parameters.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (design trajectories): the assumption that anomalous heating and electrode noise scale as 1/ω (or better) lacks a quantitative bound or model showing that new sources (micromotion sidebands, surface noise) remain sub-dominant; without this, the net >10× duty-cycle gain is not demonstrated.
  2. [§5.2] §5.2 (laser cooling limit): the new high-frequency cooling limit is stated but the derivation of its scaling and comparison to recoil heating lacks explicit equations or numerical bounds confirming it does not offset the claimed coherence and runtime benefits.
  3. [§6] §6 (speedup claims): the order-of-magnitude duty-cycle improvement and larger QEC gains are presented without supporting calculations, error budgets, or direct comparison to baseline low-frequency operation in a table or figure.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Throughout] Notation for trap frequency ω and related parameters is introduced inconsistently across sections; a single definition table would improve clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for design trajectories should explicitly state the assumed noise model parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The comments identify areas where additional quantitative detail will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions as indicated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (design trajectories): the assumption that anomalous heating and electrode noise scale as 1/ω (or better) lacks a quantitative bound or model showing that new sources (micromotion sidebands, surface noise) remain sub-dominant; without this, the net >10× duty-cycle gain is not demonstrated.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit bound is needed. The original manuscript cites the standard 1/ω (or steeper) scaling of anomalous heating from the literature but does not quantify the crossover where micromotion sidebands or surface-patch noise would dominate. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection in §4 that (i) reproduces the expected heating-rate scaling with explicit formulas, (ii) estimates the micromotion-sideband contribution using the known RF drive amplitude and trap geometry, and (iii) bounds surface-noise heating using measured 1/f spectra extrapolated to the higher frequencies. These calculations show that the new sources remain at least an order of magnitude below the anomalous-heating floor for the parameter range of our design trajectories, thereby preserving the >10× net duty-cycle gain. A new figure will plot the total heating rate versus motional frequency with all contributions overlaid. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.2] §5.2 (laser cooling limit): the new high-frequency cooling limit is stated but the derivation of its scaling and comparison to recoil heating lacks explicit equations or numerical bounds confirming it does not offset the claimed coherence and runtime benefits.

    Authors: We accept that the derivation must be made fully explicit. The revised §5.2 will contain the complete rate-equation derivation of the high-frequency Doppler-cooling limit, starting from the modified Lamb-Dicke parameter and the frequency-dependent recoil heating term. We will insert the key scaling relation Γ_cool ∝ 1/ω_m and compare it numerically to the recoil-heating rate for the same trap parameters used in the design trajectories. The comparison will be presented both analytically and in a table of numerical values, demonstrating that the new limit remains well below the recoil floor and does not erode the coherence or runtime advantages claimed elsewhere in the paper. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§6] §6 (speedup claims): the order-of-magnitude duty-cycle improvement and larger QEC gains are presented without supporting calculations, error budgets, or direct comparison to baseline low-frequency operation in a table or figure.

    Authors: The referee is correct that §6 currently lacks the supporting quantitative material. We will expand the section with (i) an explicit error-budget table that decomposes the total experimental cycle time into cooling, gate, readout, and reset contributions for both high- and low-frequency regimes, (ii) a direct side-by-side comparison figure showing runtime versus number of qubits for representative QEC protocols, and (iii) the analytic scaling that yields the >10× (and larger for QEC) speedup. All numbers will be derived from the design trajectories already presented in §4, ensuring internal consistency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on standard ion-trap physics and design analysis

full rationale

The paper proposes high motional frequency trapping as an operating regime, reports experimentally motivated design trajectories for reaching it, identifies a new laser-cooling limit, and estimates duty-cycle speedups. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce any prediction or central result to the inputs by construction. The derivation chain relies on established harmonic-trap physics and scaling arguments rather than self-definitional steps or load-bearing self-references.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents identification of specific free parameters or invented entities; the proposal rests on the standard assumption that rf traps produce an approximate harmonic potential.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Trapped ions in rf traps are confined by an approximate harmonic potential
    Invoked in the opening sentence of the abstract as the basis for motional states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5520 in / 1062 out tokens · 45719 ms · 2026-05-13T18:49:59.687519+00:00 · methodology

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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A High Motional Frequency Ion Trapping Regime for Quantum Information Science

    have been directly observed in the quantum motion of trapped ions. Across these varied scientific aims, decoherence mech- anisms in trapped-ion systems largely acts on motional states and are often limiting. For example, two-qubit gate speeds and fidelities are constrained by the mo- tional frequency and cooling limits respectively [1, 12]. Experimental r...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    We assume the usual dependencies SE(ν) ∝ ν−αr−β 0 T +γ with T the temperature of the electrodes and typical exponent values being α ∼ 1, β ∼ 4, and γ ∼ 1 [16]

    Anomalous heating The heating rate due to anomalous heating mecha- nisms is commonly defined in the literature as ˙¯nan = e2 4mℏν SE(ν) (13) where e is the charge of the electron and SE(ν) is the spectral density of the electric-field noise at the motional frequency ν. We assume the usual dependencies SE(ν) ∝ ν−αr−β 0 T +γ with T the temperature of the el...

    work page

  3. [3]

    However, it has not previously been included in the derivation of the cooling limit, which focuses on optical processes

    Cooling limit with anomalous heating rate Anomalous heating is a primary heating mechanism during the execution of quantum operations. However, it has not previously been included in the derivation of the cooling limit, which focuses on optical processes. We now broaden the previous cooling limit derivation to include anomalous heating as shown in Fig. 4....

    work page

  4. [4]

    This is particularly salient when considering the requirements for the many mid-circuit measurements 7 in quantum error correction protocols

    Recoil (measurement) heating Recoil heating during state-dependent fluorescence measurements can easily constitute the largest contri- bution to motional excitation, even for short detection times [43]. This is particularly salient when considering the requirements for the many mid-circuit measurements 7 in quantum error correction protocols. Most of the ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    for a heavy ion at a low secular frequency of ∼ 1 MHz. Even a relatively high anomalous heating rate of 1000 q/s over a 2 ms experiment would only heat an ion on average 2 quanta per shot making the recoil heating due to measurement by far the dominant source of mo- tional excitation per cycle. Increasing ν to 2π× 10 MHz (not yet in the resolved regime) c...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Consider quantum error correction (QEC) pro- tocols which utilize mid-circuit measurements to extract error information

    Quantum Error Correction Cooling Load By significantly reducing cooling times, larger scale and more complex experimental directions are made at- tainable. Consider quantum error correction (QEC) pro- tocols which utilize mid-circuit measurements to extract error information. QEC protocols will have much higher cooling loads because of the increased numbe...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Hughes, R

    A. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. L¨ oschnauer, H. Knaack, R. Matt, C. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. Harty, and R. Sutherland, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17286 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    S. A. Moses et al., Physical Review X 13, 041052 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. Home, Nature 566, 513 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Matsos, C

    V. Matsos, C. Valahu, M. Millican, T. Navickas, X. Kolesnikow, M. Biercuk, and T. Tan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05455 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Monroe et al., Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 025001 (2021)

    C. Monroe et al., Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 025001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Whitlow, Z

    J. Whitlow, Z. Jia, Y. Wang, C. Fang, J. Kim, and K. R. Brown, Nature Chemistry 15, 1509 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    A. T. Than, S. V. Kadam, V. Vikramaditya, N. H. Nguyen, X. Liu, Z. Davoudi, A. M. Green, and N. M. Linke, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11477 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    J.-S. Chen, S. M. Brewer, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. R. Leibrandt, and D. B. Hume, Physical Review Let- ters 118, 053002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    P. O. Schmidt, T. Rosenband, C. Langer, W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland, Science 309, 749 (2005)

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    J. F. Niedermeyer et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08037 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    J. Liu, Q. Wu, J. E. Moore, H. Haeffner, and C. W. W¨ achtler, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18423 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Savill-Brown, J

    I. Savill-Brown, J. J. Hope, A. K. Ratcliffe, V. D. Vaidya, H. Liu, S. A. Haine, C. R. Viteri, and Z. Mehdi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11385 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Pino et al

    J. Pino et al. , Nature 592, 209 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Ransfordet al., Helios: A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2511.05465 [quant-ph]

    A. Ransford et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05465 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 103, 259 (1998)

    work page 1998

  22. [22]

    Brownnutt, M

    M. Brownnutt, M. Kumph, P. Rabl, and R. Blatt, Re- views of modern Physics 87, 1419 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Rasmusson, M

    A. Rasmusson, M. D’Onofrio, Y. Xie, J. Cui, and P. Richerme, Physical Review A 104, 043108 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    M. C. Marshall et al. , Physical Review Letters 135, 033201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    D’Onofrio, Y

    M. D’Onofrio, Y. Xie, A. J. Rasmusson, E. Wolanski, J. Cui, and P. Richerme, Physical Review Letters 127, 020503 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    S. R. Jefferts, C. Monroe, E. Bell, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review A 51, 3112 (1995)

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    Matthiesen, Q

    C. Matthiesen, Q. Yu, J. Guo, A. M. Alonso, and H. H¨ affner, Physical Review X11, 011019 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Mikhailovskii et al

    V. Mikhailovskii et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.16407 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Q. Yu, A. M. Alonso, J. Caminiti, K. M. Beck, R. T. Sutherland, D. Leibfried, K. J. Rodriguez, M. Dhital, B. Hemmerling, and H. H¨ affner, Physical Review A 105, 022420 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    R. F. Wuerker, H. Shelton, and R. Langmuir, Journal of Applied Physics 30, 342 (1959)

    work page 1959

  31. [31]

    K. J. Arnold, R. Kaewuam, A. Roy, E. Paez, S. Wang, and M. Barrett, Physical Review A 94, 052512 (2016)

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Kozlov, M

    M. Kozlov, M. Safronova, J. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 045005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    J. M. Dreiling, A. S. Naing, J. N. Tan, J. Hanson, S. Hoogerheide, and S. M. Brewer, Journal of Applied Physics 126, (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Mølmer and A

    K. Mølmer and A. Sørensen, Physical Review Letters 82, 1835 (1999)

    work page 1999

  35. [35]

    Sedlacek, A

    J. Sedlacek, A. Greene, J. Stuart, R. McConnell, C. Bruzewicz, J. Sage, and J. Chiaverini, Physical Review A 97, 020302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    S¨ agesser, S

    T. S¨ agesser, S. Jain, P. Hrmo, A. Ferk, M. Simoni, Y. Cui, C. Mordini, D. Kienzler, and J. Home, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17528 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Siverns, L

    J. Siverns, L. Simkins, S. Weidt, and W. Hensinger, Ap- plied Physics B 107, 921 (2012)

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    Srinivas et al

    R. Srinivas et al. , Nature 597, 209 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Quantum Error-Corrected Computation of Molecular Energies

    K. Yamamoto et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09133 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    D. J. Wineland and W. M. Itano, Physical Review A 20, 1521 (1979)

    work page 1979

  41. [41]

    W. M. Itano and D. Wineland, Physical Review A 25, 35 (1982)

    work page 1982

  42. [42]

    Stenholm, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 699 (1986)

    S. Stenholm, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 699 (1986)

    work page 1986

  43. [43]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 281 (2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    E. C. Reed, L. Qi, and K. R. Brown, Physical Review A 110, 013123 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    P. A. Ivanov, N. V. Vitanov, and K. Singer, Scientific reports 6, 28078 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    H. Wu, G. D. Mitts, C. Z. Ho, J. A. Rabinowitz, and E. R. Hudson, Nature Physics 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Matsos, C

    V. Matsos, C. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. Rao, M. Millican, X. Kolesnikow, M. Biercuk, and T. Tan, Physical Review Letters 133, 050602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Chiaverini and J

    J. Chiaverini and J. Sage, Physical Review A 89, 012318 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Rasmusson, I

    A. Rasmusson, I. Jung, F. G. Schroer, A. Kyprianidis, and P. Richerme, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecu- lar and Optical Physics 57, 225002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Talukdar, D

    I. Talukdar, D. Gorman, N. Daniilidis, P. Schindler, S. Ebadi, H. Kaufmann, T. Zhang, and H. H¨ affner, Physical Review A 93, 043415 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    C. H. Valahu, I. Apostolatos, S. Weidt, and W. K. Hensinger, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 55, 204003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, and D. J. Wineland, science 272, 1131 (1996)

    work page 1996

  53. [53]

    Q. A. Turchette et al. , Physical Review A 61, 063418 (2000)

    work page 2000

  54. [54]

    T. J. Yoder, E. Schoute, P. Rall, E. Pritchett, J. M. Gam- betta, A. W. Cross, M. Carroll, and M. E. Beverland, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03094 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    M. Ye, D. Wecker, and N. Delfosse, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07057 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    J. Kwon, W. J. Setzer, M. Gehl, N. Karl, J. Van Der Wall, R. Law, M. G. Blain, D. Stick, and H. J. McGuinness, Nature communications 15, 3709 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Physical review letters 104, 063002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  58. [58]

    Bowler, J

    R. Bowler, J. Gaebler, Y. Lin, T. R. Tan, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. Home, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, 12 Physical review letters 109, 080502 (2012)

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    H¨ affner, C

    H. H¨ affner, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Physics reports 469, 155 (2008)

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    Kyprianidis, A

    A. Kyprianidis, A. Rasmusson, and P. Richerme, New Journal of Physics 26, 023033 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Solomons, Y

    Y. Solomons, Y. Kadish, L. Peleg, J. Nemirovsky, A. B. Kish, and Y. Shapira, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14331 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Richerme, Quantum Science and Technology (2025)

    P. Richerme, Quantum Science and Technology (2025)

    work page 2025