Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Efficient Assembly of a Defect-Free Quantum Register of 1024 Neutral-Atom Qubits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports rapid assembly of a defect-free 1024-site neutral-atom qubit register with 99.3% filling.

desk verdict A credible kiloqubit-scale assembly result on a modular MLA platform, but the defect-free claim needs a full-array detection calibration to fully land. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12021 v1 pith:ULGDOZCS submitted 2026-08-12 quant-ph

Lukas Sturm , Marcel Mittenbuehler , Tim Gollerthan , Malte Schlosser , Gerhard Birkl This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords neutralatomqubitsopticaltweezerarraysdefect-freeassemblymicrolensbeamshapingparallelizedtransportquantumregisteracousto-opticdeflectors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a two-dimensional array of 1024 laser-trapped rubidium atoms on a regular 32×32 grid, with 99.3(2)% of sites occupied and a median rearrangement time around 10 ms. The central claim is that splitting the creation of homogeneous, high-power tweezer arrays into two separate optical functions—a beam shaper that flattens the laser profile and a microlens array that forms the trap pattern—removes the main scaling bottleneck, while parallelized acousto-optic transport tweezers with real-time intensity control move atoms quickly enough to beat vacuum-limited losses. If correct, this puts neutral-atom quantum registers above the kiloqubit level in a single plane, with 4.5% trap-frequency uniformity and assembly speeds suited to quantum computing and simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modular microoptical light-shaping chain: a diffractive beam shaper converts a Gaussian beam into a flat-top profile with 94.5% efficiency, and that uniform illumination feeds two interleaved microlens arrays that form homogeneous 43×43 trap grids; a separate dynamic port adds acousto-optic-deflector tweezers whose multi-frequency intensities are synthesized in real time so that parallelized transport trajectories keep constant trap depth. On the algorithm side, the rearrangement scheme reduces the two-dimensional problem to successive one-dimensional passes, uses a greedy nearest-assignment to map available atoms to empty target sites while preserving order, and parks surplus atoms in structured reservoir bands around the target pattern. The authors quantify assembly with a survival model $\bar p = \exp(-t/\tau_{\mathrm{eff}})$ and a binomial cumulative formula for the expected maximum filling after $n_r$ rearrangement repeats.

What would settle it

Re-image the same 1024-site register twice without moving or losing atoms and count site-by-site disagreements; if the per-site detection fidelity over the full array is below the assumed 99.8%, the reported filling fraction and defect-free certification would need to be revised downward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors demonstrate a regular 32×32 quantum processor filled to 99.3(2)% and repeatedly rearranged to a defect-free pattern by combining homogenized microlens-array traps with parallelized multi-tweezer transport. Two interleaved 43×43 microlens arrays, illuminated by diffractive top-hat beam shapers, produce more than 3500 sites with 3.65(3) µm spacing, 0.86(7) µm waist, and a radial trap-frequency spread of only 4.5% over the central 32×32 region. Up to 38 steerable tweezers work simultaneously, executing deterministic row/column moves via a greedy nearest-assignment algorithm; a 1024-atom target pattern is assembled with a median rearrangement time of 9.6 ms, versus 88.1 ms for single-tweezer transport, a factor-9 speedup. Repeating the sequence up to 12–50 times raises the cumulative maximum filling toward 99.3–100%, and a binomial model with effective lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{eff}}$ connects transport duration, repetition count, and filling fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The claim's load-bearing premise is that the fluorescence image used to certify the defect-free register detects each atom with the 99.8% single-atom fidelity measured in the authors' earlier work; if full-array detection is less reliable, the 99.3% filling and the defect-free single shots would overstate the true qubit count.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A neutral-atom quantum processor can now start from a 1024-site register with 99.3% filling, so atom assembly is no longer the dominant obstacle at the kiloqubit scale.
  • The 4.5% rms trap-frequency spread over the processor region means qubits across the array experience nearly identical trapping conditions, simplifying uniform gate and Rydberg interaction control.
  • A factor-9 speedup from parallel transport reduces a complete 1024-qubit rearrangement to about 10 ms, allowing many rearrangement attempts within the reported vacuum-limited atom lifetime.
  • Because the beam shaper and microlens array are separate modules, larger registers can be targeted by increasing laser power and redesigning the shaper rather than by re-engineering the trap-array optics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: if the reported filling and transport time reproduce, the natural next measurement is an in situ detection-fidelity test on the full 32×32 array; a per-site fidelity below the assumed 99.8% would directly lower the certified qubit count.
  • Our inference: the repeated-rearrangement routine acts as a virtual atom-lifetime extension, so combining it with the measured 10 s static lifetime suggests a route toward defect-free assembly of 5000- or 10000-site registers, an extrapolation the paper does not make.
  • Our inference: the real-time multi-frequency acousto-optic control could be extended to curved or crossing transport trajectories, enabling cyclic rearrangement schedules instead of row/column passes, and possibly to dual-species registers by swapping beam-shaping parameters and array pitch.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a micro-optical architecture for neutral-atom qubit arrays that combines diffractive beam shaping with microlens-array (MLA) patterning to create homogenized 43×43 tweezer arrays with more than 3500 sites. The authors demonstrate trap-frequency uniformity of 4.5% in the central 32×32 region, parallelized AOD-based transport with up to 38 simultaneously steered tweezers, and the assembly of a 32×32 (1024-site) quantum processing unit with a reported cumulative maximum filling fraction of 99.32^{+0.19}_{-0.20}% (reported as 99.3(2)% in the abstract/conclusion) and a single-shot fluorescence image of a defect-free 1024-qubit register. A simple exponential-loss model (Eqs. 1–2) is used to quantify the benefit of parallelization and repeated rearrangement sequences, yielding a speedup factor of 9 and a median rearrangement time of 9.6 ms for 1024 sites.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a significant advance in the neutral-atom quantum-computing platform: it demonstrates a scalable, passive-optics route to large, uniform tweezer arrays and kiloqubit-scale defect-free registers with millisecond-scale assembly. The paper's strengths include a transparent experimental model with explicitly stated loss and fidelity parameters, site-resolved characterizations, and clear acknowledgment of reduced efficiency in the first rearrangement sequences. The architecture's modularization of intensity homogenization and patterning is a genuine technical contribution. However, the headline claim of a defect-free 1024-qubit register rests on a detection fidelity cited from prior work, not re-measured on the full array, and on a maximum-over-repetitions filling statistic rather than a sustained configuration; both points need to be addressed before the claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.A and III.B, Fig. 1(a), Fig. 5(a)] The central claim of a defect-free 1024-qubit register (Fig. 1(a)) and the reported filling fraction of 99.32% (Fig. 5(a), Section III.B) rest on single-shot fluorescence images being an unbiased record of site occupancy. The only detection-fidelity value quoted in the manuscript, 99.8(2)%, is taken from the authors' earlier work [20] and is not re-measured for the full 43×43 array or for the post-rearrangement conditions (different background, atom temperature, and transport history). The paper does not report per-site false-positive and false-negative rates. This matters because for a truly full 1024-site array, a symmetric per-site error of 0.2% gives only about a 13% probability that a single image appears perfectly filled, while an uncalibrated false-positive rate on empty sites would inflate the apparent filling fraction. I ask the authors to provide an in-situ detection calibration for the full array, quantify false positives and false negatives, and show that the 99.32% cumulative statistic and the defect-free image are consistent with the calibrated fidelity (e.g., by reporting the number of runs that achieved 100% filling and the per-trial success probability).
  2. [Abstract; Section III.B; Conclusion] The phrase 'sustained near-unity filling fraction of 99.3(2)%' overstates what is measured. Figure 5(a) reports the 'cumulative maximum filling fraction'—the average, over 1000 runs, of the maximum filling achieved during n_r=12 rearrangement sequences for the 1024-site target. This is not a time-averaged or terminal filling fraction, and it does not indicate that the register is 'sustained' at 99.3% outside the brief moments captured by the best image. The paper does not report the filling distribution after each sequence or the fraction of runs that reached 100% at n_q=1024. Please report the per-sequence filling distribution (e.g., mean and standard deviation of filling at the end of each rearrangement sequence, and the success probability of a fully filled image per run) and adjust the abstract and conclusion wording accordingly.
  3. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says the data are not publicly available because they contain commercially sensitive information. Given that the paper's headline quantitative claims (the 99.3% filling statistic and the single-shot defect-free image) cannot be independently checked from the manuscript alone, this is a substantial limitation. I request that at least the processed per-site occupancy matrices (or histograms) underlying Figure 5(a) and the single-shot image in Figure 1(a) be deposited in a public repository, or that a detailed description of the image-analysis pipeline and thresholds be provided so the filling statistics can be reproduced from the raw data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.B] Typo: 'incorporting' should be 'incorporating'.
  2. [III.B (twice) and Fig. 5(b)] The word 'occurence' is misspelled as 'relative occurence' in two places in the body text; the correct spelling is 'occurrence'.
  3. [II.A, III.A, IV] The maximum number of parallel transport tweezers is given as 'up to 50' in the abstract, 'up to 43' in Section III.A, and 'up to 38' in the conclusion and Figure 5(b); please clarify which value refers to the system capability versus the observed maximum in the reported data.
  4. [III.B, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) introduces F as the binomial cumulative distribution function; this is stated in the text but should be defined explicitly alongside the equation, especially since the notation \(\bar{p}_{\rm cum}\) and \(\bar{p}_M\) are easily confused.
  5. [III.B, paragraph after Eq. (2)] The sentence 'The experimental data for repetitive parallelized transport of Fig. 5(a) are used to calculate the expected values for the other two transport protocols' is a clear disclosure that the model is fit to the same data it explains; this is acceptable for an empirical model, but the authors should state explicitly that this is not a parameter-free prediction and should provide a goodness-of-fit estimate (e.g., residuals or comparison to experimental uncertainties).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1024-site filling claim is a direct fluorescence measurement, and the effective-lifetime model is an explicitly stated fit rather than a hidden prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is experimental: the defect-free 1024-qubit register and the 99.3(2)% filling fraction are determined from single-shot fluorescence images and cumulative maximum filling statistics. The detection fidelity of 99.8(2)% is cited from the authors' prior work [20]; this is a reused calibration measurement, not a quantity derived from the present target claim, so it does not make the argument circular, though it is a verification concern. The effective-lifetime model in Sec. III.B defines pbar = exp(-t/tau_eff) and uses the measured cumulative maximum filling to infer tau_eff and to estimate single-repetition and single-tweezer fillings; the paper explicitly states that 'the experimental data for repetitive parallelized transport of Fig. 5(a) are used to calculate the expected values for the other two transport protocols,' so this is a transparent parameterized model fit rather than a first-principles prediction masquerading as independent. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument rests on an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two kinds of imported assumptions: experimental calibration inherited from prior papers (imaging fidelity, trap frequency mapping) and a statistical model (single-exponential lifetime, binomial trials) used to compute the expected performance figures. The model parameters are inferred from the measured filling data, so the model does not offer an independent prediction; it is a transparent fitting exercise.

free parameters (2)
  • tau_eff (effective atom lifetime) = not stated as a single number; inferred from measured filling fractions, order 10^1 to 10^2 seconds in Fig. 6
    Introduced in Eq. 1 to model all loss mechanisms as a single exponential. The value is obtained by fitting the measured cumulative filling fractions for repeated parallel transport, then used to calculate expected values for other protocols. This is a fitted, not independently measured, quantity.
  • p_M (single-rearrangement-sequence filling probability) = solved numerically from Eq. 2 using measured cumulative filling and n_r
    The effective single-sequence success probability is derived from the experimental cumulative maximum filling via the binomial model; it is not measured directly and is used to compare protocols.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All atom loss processes can be combined into a single exponential decay with an effective lifetime tau_eff (Eq. 1).
    The authors state this is a good approximation, but it neglects time-varying loss rates and correlations between sequences. Used to compute filling fractions and speedups.
  • domain assumption Each rearrangement sequence is an independent Bernoulli trial with identical per-atom survival probability p_M (Eq. 2).
    The binomial model for cumulative maximum filling assumes all atoms behave independently and that survival in one sequence does not affect the next. This is the basis for deriving expected filling values.
  • domain assumption The measured trap vibrational frequency uniformity reflects the light-field uniformity and therefore loading and transport performance.
    The paper uses nu_r as the proxy for trap uniformity; sites with insufficient statistics are blanked, and the mapping from recapture efficiency to nu_r assumes a simple parametric model.
  • domain assumption Single-atom detection fidelity is 99.8(2)% as reported in the cited prior work [20].
    The defect-free image is certified by fluorescence imaging; the fidelity is not re-measured in this manuscript and is load-bearing for the defect-free claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Assembly of a Defect-Free Quantum Register of 1024 Neutral-Atom Qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULGDOZCS

@misc{pith2026260812021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Assembly of a Defect-Free Quantum Register of 1024 Neutral-Atom Qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULGDOZCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12021}
}
read the original abstract

Low-entropy arrays of atomic quantum systems in optical tweezers offer unique prospects for fundamental research on few- and many-body systems as well as for extended applications in quantum technology. The significance of this approach relies on the achievable system size, its uniformity, and the rate of qubit allocation. We propel the neutral-atom quantum-technology platform by the rapid assembly of a regular two-dimensional quantum register of up to 1024 atomic qubits, enabled by a novel implementation of intensity-homogenized tweezer arrays and parallelized atom transport. Our highly efficient microoptical architecture modularizes intensity equalization and tweezer patterning in separate functional units, eliminating restrictions that arise for high-power, high-resolution, and large-scale light-field control within a single device. Arrays of precise grid structure, trap depth, and vibrational frequency with more than 3500 sites are demonstrated. Individual sites are interconnected by up to 50 parallelized transport tweezers with intensity and position control in real-time for swift qubit relocation. Multi-tweezer transport enables the operation of target patterns of up to 32 x 32 sites with sustained near-unity filling fraction. These results boost neutral-atom quantum information science above the kiloqubit level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12021 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Large-scale array of atomic qubits forming a quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of the optical setup. In two independent input ports, a diffractive beamshaper converts an input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial vibrational frequency νr in the homoge￾nized 43×43 site static tweezer array with the QPU (32×32 sites) indicated by dashed lines. (a) Site-resolved, color-coded representation of νr. Sites with insufficient statistics are left blank. (b) Spread of νr as deviation from the median for in￾creasing edge length of a central quadratic array. The 68th (black) and 95th (blue) percentiles are shown. the reservoir arr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parallelized rearrangement of atomic qubits into a defect-free 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Characteristics of parallelized assembly of target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: gives a color-coded density plot of the maximum filling fractions for the assembly of nq = {400, 625, 900, 1024} site target patterns using single￾repetition single-tweezer transport (yellow circles), single-repetition parallelized transport (blue squares), 4 6 8 10 10…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Pause, L

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits, Optica11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and computing with Rydberg-interacting qubits, AVS Quan- tum Science3, 023501 (2021)

    2021

  3. [2]

    Gross and W

    C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection, Nature Physics17, 1316 (2021)

    2021

  4. [3]

    Amico, M

    L. Amico, M. Boshier, G. Birkl, A. Minguzzi, C. Miniatura, L.-C. Kwek, D. Aghamalyan, V. Ahufinger, D. Anderson, N. Andrei,et al., Roadmap on atomtronics: State of the art and perspective, AVS Quantum Science 3, 039201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Grass, D

    T. Grass, D. Bercioux, U. Bhattacharya, M. Lewenstein, H. S. Nguyen, and C. Weitenberg, Colloquium: Synthetic quantum matter in nonstandard geometries, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 011001 (2025)

    2025

  6. [5]

    Dumke, M

    R. Dumke, M. Volk, T. M¨ uther, F. B. J. Buchkremer, G. Birkl, and W. Ertmer, Micro-optical realization of arrays of selectively addressable dipole traps: A scal- able configuration for quantum computation with atomic qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 097903 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [6]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020). 8

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules, Nature Physics17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Langen, G

    T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Quantum state manipulation and cooling of ultracold molecules, Nature Physics20, 702 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    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(2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. Hazzard, Quan- tum computation and quantum simulation with ultracold molecules, Nature Physics20, 730–740 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Shen and J

    H. Shen and J. Zhang, Entanglement-enhanced quantum metrology with neutral atom arrays, Natl. Sci. Rev.12, nwaf149 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories, Nature Physics21, 25–36 (2025)

    2025

  7. [14]

    Y. T. Chew, M. Poitrinal, T. Tomita, S. Kitade, J. Mauri- cio, K. Ohmori, and S. de L´ es´ eleuc, Ultraprecise holo- graphic optical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. A110, 053518 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Lin, H.-S

    R. Lin, H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, Z.-R. Zhao, L.-T. Zheng, T.-R. Hu, H.-M. Wu, Z. Wu, W.-J. Ma, Y. Gao, Y.-K. Zhu, Z.-F. Su, W.-L. Ouyang, Y.-C. Zhang, J. Rui, M.- C. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, AI-enabled parallel assembly of thousands of defect-free neutral atom arrays, Phys. R...

    2025

  9. [16]

    Cooper, J

    A. Cooper, J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. Endres, Alkaline-earth atoms in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. X8, 041055 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Z. Z. Yan, B. M. Spar, M. L. Prichard, S. Chi, H.-T. Wei, E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, K. R. A. Hazzard, and W. S. Bakr, Two-dimensional programmable tweezer arrays of fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 123201 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Radnaev, W

    A. Radnaev, W. Chung, D. Cole, D. Mason, T. Bal- lance, M. Bedalov, D. Belknap, M. Berman, M. Blakely, I. Bloomfield, P. Buttler, C. Campbell, A. Chopinaud, E. Copenhaver, M. Dawes, S. Eubanks, A. Friss, D. Gar- cia, J. Gilbert, M. Gillette, P. Goiporia, P. Gokhale, J. Goldwin...

    2025

  12. [19]

    Mittenb¨ uhler, L

    M. Mittenb¨ uhler, L. Sturm, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Model-based real-time synthesis of acousto-optically gen- erated laser-beam patterns and tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 064046 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    C. Fang, J. Miles, J. Goldwin, M. Lichtman, M. Gillette, M. Bergdolt, S. Deshpande, S. A. Norrell, P. Huft, M. A. Kats, and M. Saffman, Interleaved dual-species arrays of single atoms using a passive optical element and one trapping laser, Science Advances11, eadw4166 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    T.-W. Hsu, W. Zhu, T. Thiele, M. O. Brown, S. B. Papp, A. Agrawal, and C. A. Regal, Single-atom trapping in a metasurface-lens optical tweezer, PRX Quantum3, 030316 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Holman, Y

    A. Holman, Y. Xu, X. Sun, J. Wu, M. Wang, Z. Zhu, B. Seo, N. Yu, and S. Will, Trapping of single atoms in metasurface optical tweezer arrays, Nature649, 859–865 (2026)

    2026

  16. [24]

    Pause, T

    L. Pause, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Reservoir-based deterministic loading of single- atom tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L032009 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Gyger, M

    F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Sni- girev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033104 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    M. A. Norcia, H. Kim, W. B. Cairncross, M. Stone, A. Ryou, M. Jaffe, M. O. Brown, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. C. Bohdanowicz, A. Brown, K. Cas- sella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, J. Epstein, C. Griger, E. Halperin, F. Hummel, A. M. W. Jones, J. M. Kindem, J. King, K. Kotru,...

    2024

  19. [27]

    H¨ olzl, A

    C. H¨ olzl, A. G¨ otzelmann, E. Pultinevicius, M. Wirth, and F. Meinert, Long-lived circular Rydberg qubits of alkaline-earth atoms in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021024 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nakamura, T

    Y. Nakamura, T. Kusano, R. Yokoyama, K. Saito, K. Hi- gashi, N. Ozawa, T. Takano, Y. Takasu, and Y. Taka- hashi, Hybrid atom tweezer array of nuclear spin and optical clock qubits, Phys. Rev. X14, 041062 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Grinkemeyer, E

    B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado-Sanchez, I. Dimitrova, D. Shchepanovich, G. E. Mandopoulou, J. Borregaard, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Error-detected quantum operations with neutral atoms mediated by an optical cavity, Science387, 1301 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature647, 60–67 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit syste...

    2025

  24. [32]

    Y. Li, Y. Bao, M. Peper, C. Li, and J. D. Thompson, Fast, continuous and coherent atom replacement in a neutral atom qubit array (2025), arXiv:2506.15633

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. L. Shaw, A. Soper, D. Shadmany, A. Kumar, L. Palm, D.-Y. Koh, V. Kaxiras, L. Taneja, M. Jaffe, D. I. Schus- ter,et al., A cavity-array microscope for parallel single- atom interfacing, Nature650, 320–326 (2026). 9

    2026

  26. [34]

    J. D. Santis, B. Dura-Kov´ acs, M. ¨Onc¨ u, A. Bouscal, D. Vasileiadis, and J. Zeiher, Realization of a cavity- coupled Rydberg array (2026), arXiv:2602.12152

    2026

  27. [35]

    Sch¨ affner, T

    D. Sch¨ affner, T. Schreiber, F. Lenz, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Quantum sensing in tweezer arrays: Optical magnetometry on an individual-atom sensor grid, PRX Quantum5, 010311 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. Dark- wah Oppong, and A. M. Kaufman, Multi-qubit gates and Schr¨ odinger cat states in an optical clock, Nature634, 315 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kitson, W

    P. Kitson, W. J. Chetcuti, G. Birkl, L. Amico, and J. Polo, Rydberg atoms for electric field gradiometry, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 033010 (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    M. Qiao, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, L. Homeier, S. Hol- lerith, G. Bornet, R. Martin, B. G´ ely, L. Klein, D. Barredo, S. Geier, N.-C. Chiu, F. Grusdt, A. Bohrdt, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Realization of a doped quantum antiferromagnet in a Rydberg tweezer array, Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    S. J. Evered, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, T. Manovitz, D. Bluvstein, S. H. Li, N. Maskara, H. Zhou, S. Ebadi, M. Xu, J. Campo, M. Cain, S. Ostermann, S. F. Yelin, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing the Kitaev honeycomb model on a neutral-atom quantum...

    2025

  33. [41]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. van Dam, M. B. Hastings, A. Paz, M. P. da Silva, A. Sundaram, K. M. Svore, A. Vaschillo, Z. Wang, M. Zanner, W. B. Cairncross, C.-A. Chen, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. M. Kin- dem, J. King, ...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    W. C. Chung, D. C. Cole, P. Gokhale, E. B. Jones, K. W. Kuper, D. Mason, V. Omole, A. G. Radnaev, R. Rines, M. H. Teo, M. J. Bedalov, M. Blakely, P. D. But- tler, C. Carnahan, F. T. Chong, P. Goiporia, B. Heim, G. T. Hickman, R. A. Jones, P. Khalate, J.-S. Kim, M. T. Lichtman,...

    2025

  35. [43]

    Zhang, G

    B. Zhang, G. Liu, G. Bornet, S. P. Horvath, P. Peng, S. Ma, S. Huang, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Logical qubits with erasure conversion using metastable neutral atoms, Nature Physics22, 910–916 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gul- lans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Cain, ...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Schlosser, J

    M. Schlosser, J. Kruse, C. Gierl, S. Teichmann, S. Tichel- mann, and G. Birkl, Fast transport, atom sample split- ting and single-atom qubit supply in two-dimensional ar- rays of optical microtraps, New Journal of Physics14, 123034 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Schlosser, S

    M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, J. Kruse, and G. Birkl, Scalable architecture for quantum information process- ing with atoms in optical micro-structures, Quantum In- formation Processing10, 907 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    T. M. Graham, E. Oh, and M. Saffman, Multiscale ar- chitecture for fast optical addressing and control of large- scale qubit arrays, Appl. Opt.62, 3242 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Zhang, P

    B. Zhang, P. Peng, A. Paul, and J. D. Thompson, Scaled local gate controller for optically addressed qubits, Op- tica11, 227 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Schlosser, S

    M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, D. Sch¨ affner, D. Ohl de Mello, M. Hambach, J. Sch¨ utz, and G. Birkl, Scalable multilayer architecture of assembled single-atom qubit arrays in a three-dimensional Talbot tweezer lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 180601 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Pichard, D

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. M´ eriaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, B. Ximenez, A. Signoles, A. Browaeys, T. La- haye, and D. Dreon, Rearrangement of individual atoms in a 2000-site optical-tweezer array at cryogenic temper-...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    W. Tian, W. J. Wee, A. Qu, B. J. M. Lim, P. R. Datla, V. P. W. Koh, and H. Loh, Parallel assembly of arbitrary defect-free atom arrays with a multitweezer algorithm, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 034048 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Schymik, B

    K.-N. Schymik, B. Ximenez, E. Bloch, D. Dreon, A. Sig- noles, F. Nogrette, D. Barredo, A. Browaeys, and T. La- haye, In situ equalization of single-atom loading in large- scale optical tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. A106, 022611 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Sch¨ affner, T

    D. Sch¨ affner, T. Preuschoff, S. Ristok, L. Brozio, M. Schlosser, H. Giessen, and G. Birkl, Arrays of individ- ually controllable optical tweezers based on 3D-printed microlens arrays, Opt. Express28, 8640 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. B. Picard, H. Levine, M. Endres, J. Preskill, H.-Y. Huang, and D. Bluvstein, Shor’s algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 recon- figurable atomic qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.28627

    2026 arXiv

  49. [57]

    C. Zhao, C. Duckering, A. Gu, N. Maskara, and H. Zhou, Towards ultra-high-rate quantum error correction with reconfigurable atom arrays (2026), arXiv:2604.16209. 10

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. J. Menssen, T. Wang, M. Gullans, T. Manovitz, J. M. Taylor, J. Cong, J. Sinclair, Z. Aqua, D. J. Blu- menthal, J. P. B. Ataides, J. Borregaard, A. Browaeys, P. Cappellaro, S. Choi, A. Cooper, R. Cˆ ot´ e, J. P. Covey, A. Dauphin, I. Dimitrova, M. Eichenfield, D. Englund, J....

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    D. Lim, H. Mamann, G. Pichard, L. Bourachot, A. Lind- berg, C. Hamot, H. L. Bars, F. Fasola, S. Tan, G. Cournez, S. Dutartre, T. Cartry, S. Lemettre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, F. Ferreyrol, A. Collardey, A. Sig- noles, T. Lahaye, C. Monmeyran, and B. Ximenez, Defect-free arrays at...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.