Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 89 references

Mid-circuit ground-state cooling and ancilla readout in the $\textit{omg}$ architecture

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that in the omg architecture, a ground-state ion can sympathetically cool a shared motional mode to the ground state and then act as a non-destructive readout ancilla for a co-trapped metastable qubit.

desk verdict A genuine first demonstration of single-species mid-circuit ground-state cooling and ancilla readout, with the main caveat that the supporting model's 'prediction' is actually a fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13181 v1 pith:L3MD3X5L submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph

Sean Brudney , Connor Burns , Gabriel J. Gregory , Evan Ritchie , David J. Wineland , David T.C. Allcock , Jameson O'Reilly This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords trapped-ionquantumcomputingomgarchitecturemetastablequbitsmid-circuitcoolingmeasurement-basedancillareadoutlogicspectroscopysympathetic
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 an experiment with two co-trapped 40Ca+ ions, one storing a qubit in the long-lived D5/2 metastable manifold and the other serving as a ground-state ancilla. Its central claim is that dissipative operations applied only to the ancilla cool the shared center-of-mass motion to the ground state ($\bar{n}=0.02(1)$) without measurably disturbing the metastable qubit's lifetime or coherence, and that the same ancilla can then read out the metastable qubit non-destructively through fluorescence. If the claim holds, the omg architecture provides the two key mid-circuit primitives, recooling after measurement or shuttling and syndrome extraction, without the second atomic species that dual-species experiments require. The authors present this as the first demonstration of sympathetic ground-state cooling and ancilla readout compatible with mid-circuit operation in a single-species, mixed-metastable-ground crystal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'mg crystal': two co-trapped 40Ca+ ions, one encoded in the metastable D5/2 manifold (the m-qubit or data qubit) and one in S1/2 (the g-qubit or ancilla), whose shared radial center-of-mass mode is the motional bus. Cooling proceeds by shelving g-qubit population into $\lvert\uparrow_o\rangle \equiv \lvert D_{5/2}, m_J = -5/2\rangle$, driving the 729 nm phonon-subtracting sideband to $\lvert\downarrow\rangle$, optically pumping all S1/2 population back to $\lvert\uparrow\rangle$, repeating the sideband-and-pump cycle, and then using the ancilla's fluorescence as a pre-selection herald: a dark ancilla means the mode is cold enough to proceed. The sideband's dependence on Fock state $n$ is what makes the protocol selective, ground-state population is not driven because there is no phonon to subtract, while $n>0$ population is deshelved and re-pumped. The same motion bus is used for readout: quantum logic spectroscopy writes the m-qubit state onto the phonon mode, or a state-dependent optical dipole force displaces $\lvert 0\rangle$ and $\lvert 1\rangle$ by different amounts, and the g-qubit's fluorescence reports the result.

What would settle it

Independently verify the dark-check herald: after a successful fluorescence check, drive a 729 nm carrier or phonon-adding probe on the $\lvert\uparrow_o\rangle$ transition and look for any population that was hidden while dark; if the check is exact, no such population appears, and Raman-sideband thermometry must agree with the carrier-based readout. Alternatively, suppress the 729 nm servo bumps and check whether the final $\bar{n}$ falls from 0.032(5) toward 0.001(1) as the model predicts; if it does not, the model's error attribution is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single species of trapped ion can host both roles in a quantum processor: the metastable m-qubit holds information while the identical ground-state g-qubit absorbs the dissipative processes needed for cooling and measurement. After a fluorescence check heats the two-ion crystal to $\bar{n}\approx 17$, Doppler plus EIT cooling returns the radial COM mode to near its ground state, and a measurement-based sideband sequence, shelving the ancilla to $\lvert\uparrow_o\rangle$, driving the 729 nm phonon-subtracting sideband, and re-pumping repeatedly, reaches $\bar{n}=0.02(1)$ with a pre-selection efficiency of 0.79(5). None of the cooling or readout beam sets measurably changes the D5/2 lifetime or the coherence of a protected two-m-qubit subspace. Using quantum logic spectroscopy and a spin-dependent-force displacement, the ancilla's fluorescence reports the m-qubit state with fidelities of 92-97% and bit-flip rates of 0.4-0.7%, which is non-destructive at the level of ordinary state-preparation-and-measurement. The paper therefore claims the first demonstration of non-destructive sympathetic ground-state cooling and ancilla readout compatible with mid-circuit operation in the omg architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The entire protocol leans on the assumption that a dark ancilla after the fluorescence check really means the shared motional mode is in the ground state; if off-resonant 729 nm light can make hot population appear dark, the quoted $\bar{n}=0.02(1)$ could be biased low.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After a mid-circuit fluorescence check heats the crystal to about 17 quanta, roughly 1 ms of Doppler cooling followed by 1 ms of EIT cooling returns the shared mode near its ground state without measurably changing the metastable qubit's lifetime or coherence.
  • Measurement-based cooling reaches a measured $\bar{n}=0.02(1)$, and the paper's numerical model predicts $\bar{n}=0.001(1)$ once servo-bump noise in the 729 nm laser is suppressed, placing the method on par with conventional Raman sideband cooling.
  • The single-shot ancilla readout reaches 92.2(8)% fidelity for $\lvert 0\rangle$ and 97.4(5)% for $\lvert 1\rangle$, with bit-flip rates of 0.4-0.7%, so the readout is non-destructive at the level of the generic m-qubit state-preparation-and-measurement error budget.
  • Together, these primitives make co-trapped ground- and metastable-encoded ions a single-species path to mid-circuit syndrome extraction and post-shuttling recooling for measurement-based quantum error correction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dark fluorescence pre-selection truly certifies the ground state, the same check can serve as a motional erasure detector: a bright ancilla after cooling flags that the mode was not in the ground state, turning cooling failures into detectable erasure events rather than undetected errors.
  • Because the modeled bottleneck is 729 nm laser phase noise, cleaning the laser spectrum should lift the predicted ground-state population toward 0.999; this is a sharp, testable prediction of the paper's own model rather than a demonstrated result.
  • The spin-dependent-force readout's 'dark' fidelity is set by how completely the two displacement pulses cancel, so any improvement in motional coherence or a switch to polarized running-wave geometry should push single-shot readout toward the 99% threshold the paper identifies for quantum error correction.
  • The measurement-based cooling sequence should transfer to other species with a metastable state reachable by a narrow quadrupole transition and a repump closed on the ground manifold, provided the pumping light can be prevented from disturbing the data manifold.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of mid-circuit sympathetic cooling and ancilla readout in a single-species 40Ca+ 'omg' architecture, in which one ion serves as a ground-state ancilla and the other encodes a metastable qubit. The authors implement measurement-based cooling of the radial center-of-mass mode by repeatedly driving a phonon-subtracting 729 nm sideband from an auxiliary D5/2 state and using a fluorescence check to herald success. They report a final mean phonon number nbar=0.02(1) after three optimized sideband pulses, a per-cycle pre-selection efficiency epsilon=0.79(5), and no significant degradation of the metastable-qubit lifetime or Ramsey coherence under the cooling beams. They then demonstrate two ancilla-readout methods: quantum logic spectroscopy with fidelities 92.2(8)% and 97.4(5)% for the |0> and |1> states and bit-flip probabilities below 1%, and a spin-dependent-force readout with repeated non-destructive operation. A numerical Lindblad model including two off-resonant carrier couplings is used to explain the cooling floor and project improvements from suppressing servo bumps.

Significance. If the claims hold, this work is an important advance for trapped-ion quantum information: it provides a route to mid-circuit ground-state cooling and non-destructive ancilla readout without two-species hardware overhead, which is directly relevant to shuttling-based processing and measurement-based quantum error correction. The paper's strengths include explicit statistical uncertainties on all headline numbers, a thermometry scheme (976 nm stimulated Raman sidebands) that is independent of the cooling interaction, careful state-readout calibration in the Supplementary Material, and a numerical model that identifies a concrete technical limitation (729 nm servo bumps). The experimental data are presented transparently, and the limitations are discussed rather than hidden. However, the strength of the central claims is currently limited by three issues: the fidelity of the fluorescence check as a ground-state witness, the statistical power of the coherence-preservation checks, and the population-only evidence for non-destructive readout.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III and SM Section II] The dark-fluorescence check is not an unambiguous witness for the motional ground state. The off-resonant |↑> ↔ D5/2,mJ=-1/2 carrier coupling, with relative strength 0.019(1) and fitted Rabi frequency Ωb=2π×53(3) Hz, can drive hot population from |↑> into a dark D5/2 sublevel; Section III states that this 'turns hot population dark, at which point it can again contribute to the final temperature.' Because the 976 nm Raman thermometer addresses transitions between m-qubit states and does not detect population in D5/2,mJ=-1/2, the reported nbar=0.02(1) may underestimate the true COM-mode temperature, and the pre-selection efficiency epsilon=0.79(5) may be inflated by false-dark events. The model prediction nbar=0.032(5) is not an independent validation because Ωb and Ωa are fitted to calibration data from the same cooling sequence using the same fluorescence-based temperature proxy. Please provide a direct experimental bound on the population remaining in D5/2,mJ=-1/2 after the cooling sequence, or otherwise demonstrate that this false-dark channel is negligible for the ground-state cooling claim.
  2. [Section II, Fig. 3(b)] The coherence-preservation evidence is underpowered relative to the claim in the abstract that the m-qubit is cooled 'without disturbing coherence.' The parity decay constants are ν=1.2±0.3 s (no lasers), 2±1 s (FC), 3±2 s (Doppler), and 0.8±0.5 s (EIT). These values are all consistent within their errors, but the EIT value is also consistent with a factor-of-three degradation compared with the no-lasers baseline. A null result with such broad confidence intervals does not justify an unconditional statement of non-disturbance. Please report a confidence bound on the degradation ratio or equivalently soften the claim to state that no significant degradation was observed within the current sensitivity.
  3. [Section IV.A] The claim that the QLS ancilla readout is 'non-destructive' is supported only by population bit-flip probabilities (0.7(1)% for |0> and 0.4(1)% for |1>), not by a measurement of phase coherence. The readout sequence applies 729 nm carrier and sideband pulses to the m-qubit and to the shared motion, which can in principle dephase the m-qubit even if the populations are preserved. No Ramsey, echo, or process-tomography data after the readout sequence are reported. Please either provide a coherence-preservation measurement after the readout or qualify the claim as non-destructive at the population level within the qubit subspace.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III] The overhead estimate 'the need to repeat the sequence after a failed attempt increases the time by a factor of 2−ε' is incorrect: for success probability ε, the expected number of attempts is 1/ε, so the expected time is T/ε, not (2−ε)T.
  2. [Section IV.A] The sentence 'The highest fidelity results occur at the lowest measured nbar value of 0.04(2) achieved using five sideband pulses' appears inconsistent with the nbar=0.02(1) quoted for three sideband pulses in Section III; please clarify which cooling configuration applies to the readout characterization.
  3. [Sections II and III] There are two grammatical typos: 'does not significantly effect' should read 'does not significantly affect' in the discussions of lifetime and coherence, and SM Section II contains 'Monte-Carlo uncertainy estimation,' which should be 'uncertainty.'
  4. [Section V and Abstract] The phrase 'in the omg or dual-type architecture' is ambiguous, and if 'dual-type' means dual-species, the 'first demonstration' claim should be reconciled with Refs. [15] and [34], which already demonstrate sympathetic cooling and mid-circuit measurement in two-species systems.
  5. [SM Figure 9 caption] The notation '(Ω/2ω)^2∼10^-4' uses Ω for what appears to be the carrier Rabi frequency, while the surrounding text defines Ω as the cooling-sideband Rabi frequency (π/170 μs); please define both quantities explicitly to avoid confusion.
  6. [Section IV.B] The measured displacement-rate ratio 1.86(10) differs from the Clebsch-Gordan expectation of 1.67 by about 2σ; the text labels this 'slightly higher' without discussing possible systematic contributors such as polarization impurity, which would be useful for assessing the SDF readout calibration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Lindblad model's "predicted" n̄=0.032(5) is produced by off-resonant couplings fit to calibration runs of the same cooling sequence; the measured n̄=0.02(1) is direct evidence and stands independently.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Material Section II; main-text Section III]
    "Calibration data was taken by driving a phonon-subtracting sideband of a two-photon Raman transition after a measurement-based cooling sequence with variable pulse times and number. ... The fluorescence probability measured as a function of the number of cooling pulses and each cooling pulse’s duration is sufficient to numerically estimate the couplings Ωa and Ωb ... Given the present values in our system, the model predicts a final temperature of n̄=0.032(5), consistent with our measured value."

    The couplings Ωa and Ωb are fitted to fluorescence-probability data from the same measurement-based cooling sequence, which is a proxy for exactly the temperature the model later outputs. The "predicted" n̄=0.032(5) is therefore generated by parameters calibrated on the same kind of cooling-run data; its consistency with the measured n̄=0.02(1) is a consistency check of the fit, not an independent validation. The headline measured value is direct, but the model's quantitative claims about limiting errors and the idealized floor inherit the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—ground-state cooling to n̄=0.02(1)—is a direct measurement via 976 nm stimulated-Raman sideband thermometry with Fock-state fits, not an output of the Lindblad model. The only identified circular element is the model "prediction": SM Section II fits the off-resonant coupling strengths Ωa and Ωb to fluorescence probability versus cooling-pulse number and duration from the same measurement-based cooling sequence, and Section III then reports the model's final temperature n̄=0.032(5) as consistent with the measured value. That agreement is a consistency check of a fit, not an independent first-principles result. The dark-fluorescence-check caveat (off-resonant |↑⟩→|D5/2,mJ=−1/2⟩ carrier coupling can turn hot population dark) is a genuine uncertainty about the faithfulness of the cooling witness and could bias n̄ and ε, but it is a correctness risk rather than a derivational circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found: Ref. [45], the authors' prior demonstration of the m-qubit Raman transition, is used as a technique reference, not as an argument that forces the conclusion. Because the measured headline result has independent content but one model "prediction" reduces to fitted inputs, the overall circularity score is 6.

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

The measured results stand on their own; the model adds interpretation. The main fitted inputs are the two off-resonant carrier couplings. Background assumptions are standard Lindblad/Lamb-Dicke theory. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Off-resonant carrier coupling Ωa = 2π × 470(20) Hz
    Fitted to calibration data from measurement-based cooling sequences (SM Section II); used in the Lindblad model to compute final temperatures and to project limits.
  • Off-resonant carrier coupling Ωb = 2π × 53(3) Hz
    Fitted to the same calibration data; represents coupling to the S1/2,mJ=+1/2 to D5/2,mJ=-1/2 carrier transition.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation and Lamb-Dicke expansion for 729 nm sideband pulses
    Used in Eq. (3) and throughout the cooling simulation in SM Section II.
  • standard math Lindblad master equation with Markovian dissipators for dephasing and heating
    SM Section II: motional dephasing T2,m=4 ms, spin dephasing T2,s*=1 ms, heating rate 1 quanta/s.
  • domain assumption Spin and motional dephasing times T2,m=4 ms, T2,s*=1 ms, and heating rate 1 quanta/s are treated as fixed inputs
    Used in the simulation model in SM Section II; the paper does not derive these from the presented data.
  • domain assumption The radial COM mode is the dominant shared mode and the cooling and readout act on it
    The paper cools and probes the 1.86 MHz radial COM mode; other modes are assumed to be colder or less coupled, consistent with standard linear trap parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mid-circuit ground-state cooling and ancilla readout in the $\textit{omg}$ architecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3MD3X5L

@misc{pith2026260813181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mid-circuit ground-state cooling and ancilla readout in the $\textitomg$ architecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3MD3X5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13181}
}
abstract

The trapped-ion optical-metastable-ground ($\textit{omg}$) architecture for quantum processors promises the full functionality of two-species experiments, including sympathetic cooling and non-destructive ancilla readout, without the corresponding hardware overhead. We confirm that we can cool a global motional mode of a mixed metastable-ground state Coulomb crystal to the motional ground state via dissipative operations on the ground ($\textit{g}$) qubit without disturbing coherence of the metastable ($\textit{m}$) qubit. This enables quantum logic spectroscopy to non-destructively readout the state of the $\textit{m}$ qubit using fluorescence detection of the $\textit{g}$ qubit. Extensions of these demonstrations to larger system sizes should enable the mitigation of motional heating after ion shuttling and syndrome extraction for quantum error correction, both crucial primitives for future fault-tolerant quantum computers based on trapped ions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Experiment overview. (a) Cartoon of two ions in the trap with directions and wavelengths of incident laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Fluorescence heating (solid blue) and RF displacement (dashed orange). (b) Doppler cooling after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Preservation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of ground-state cooling techniques on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagram of our measurement-based cooling technique. Relative motional populations are represented by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Readout fidelity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Steps for determining population of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Schematic illustration of cooling sideband and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Simulated final average mode occupation ¯n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Heatmaps depicting (a/c) the temperature ¯n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chiaverini, D

    J. Chiaverini, D. Leibfried, T. Schaetz, M. D. Bar- rett, R. B. Blakestad, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, E. Knill, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, and D. J. Wineland, Nature432, 602 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    E. M. Kessler, P. K´ om´ ar, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190403 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Pezz` e and A

    L. Pezz` e and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 210503 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Foss-Feig, D

    M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, and A. C. Potter, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033002 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Tantivasadakarn, A

    N. Tantivasadakarn, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verre- sen, PRX Quantum4, 020339 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    V. So, M. D. Suganthi, A. Menon, M. Zhu, R. Zhu- ravel, H. Pu, P. G. Wolynes, J. N. Onuchic, and G. Pagano, Science Advances10(2024), 10.1126/sciadv.ads8011

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.ads8011 2024

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Singh, C

    K. Singh, C. E. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, Science380, 1265 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    DeCross, E

    M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, Phys. Rev. X13, 041057 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. X9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    C. Noel, P. Niroula, D. Zhu, A. Risinger, L. Egan, D. Biswas, M. Cetina, A. V. Gorshkov, M. J. Gul- lans, D. A. Huse, and C. Monroe, Nature Physics 18, 760 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    J. M. Koh, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Nature Physics19, 1314 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    D. J. Larson, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 70 (1986)

    1986

  7. [15]

    Negnevitsky, M

    V. Negnevitsky, M. Marinelli, K. K. Mehta, H.-Y. Lo, C. Fl¨ uhmann, and J. P. Home, Nature563, 527 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Demon- stration of logical qubits and repeated error correc- tion with better-than-physical error rates,

    A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. C. III, A. Chernogu- zov, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, Y. ...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. J. Rasmusson, I. Jung, F. G. Schroer, A. Kypri- anidis, and P. Richerme, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics57, 225002 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Motlakunta, N

    S. Motlakunta, N. Kotibhaskar, C.-Y. Shih, A. Vogliano, D. McLaren, L. Hahn, J. Zhu, R. Habl¨ utzel, and R. Islam, Nature Communica- tions15, 6575 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    M. A. Rowe, A. Ben-Kish, B. Demarco, D. Leibfried, V. Meyer, J. Beall, J. Britton, J. Hughes, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovic,et al., arXiv preprint quant- ph/0205094 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    J. P. Gaebler, C. H. Baldwin, S. A. Moses, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, and J. M. Pino, Phys. Rev. A104, 062440 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. An- cona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn, J. G. Bohnet, N. C. Brown, N. Q. Burdick, W. C. Burton, S. L. Campbell, J. P. Campora, C. Carron, J. Cham- bers, J. W. Chan, Y. H. Chen, A. Chernoguz...

    2023

  14. [22]

    C. J. Ballance, V. M. Sch¨ afer, J. P. Home, D. J. Szwer, S. C. Webster, D. T. C. Allcock, N. M. Linke, T. P. Harty, D. P. L. Aude Craik, D. N. Stacey, A. M. Steane, and D. M. Lucas, Nature528, 384 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    High-fidelity, single-shot, quantum-logic-assisted readout in a mixed-species ion chain,

    C. Bruzewicz, R. McConnell, J. Sedlacek, J. Stuart, W. Loh, J. Sage, and J. Chiaverini, “High-fidelity, single-shot, quantum-logic-assisted readout in a mixed-species ion chain,” (2017), arXiv:1706.05102 [physics.atom-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. A. Norcia, W. B. Cairncross, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, K. Cas- sella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, J. Epstein, C. Griger, A. M. W. Jones, H. Kim, J. M. Kin- dem, J. King, S. S. Kondov, K. Kotru, J. Lauigan, M. Li, M. Lu, E. Megidish, J. Marjanovic, M...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Non-invasive mid- circuit measurement and reset on atomic qubits,

    Z.-Y. Chen, I. Goetting, G. Toh, Y. Yu, M. Sha- laev, S. Saha, A. Kalakuntla, H. B. Shi, C. Mon- roe, A. Kozhanov, and C. Noel, “Non-invasive mid- circuit measurement and reset on atomic qubits,” (2025), arXiv:2504.12538 [quant-ph]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Sympathetic cooling in trapped ions with spectral selectivity via the zee- man shift,

    K. Ranawat, J. Yu, A. V. Horn, J. Whitlow, K. R. Brown, and J. Kim, “Sympathetic cooling in trapped ions with spectral selectivity via the zee- man shift,” (2026), arXiv:2605.27577 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Microwave-driven same-species sympathetic cooling for trapped ions,

    M. C. Smith, E. Vandrey, A. D. Leu, N. Drotleff, A. Agrawal, K. Miyanishi, D. M. Lucas, and M. F. Gely, “Microwave-driven same-species sympathetic cooling for trapped ions,” (2026), arXiv:2607.20292 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Riebe, H

    M. Riebe, H. H¨ affner, C. F. Roos, W. H¨ ansel, J. Benhelm, G. P. T. Lancaster, T. W. K¨ orber, C. Becher, F. Schmidt-Kaler, D. F. V. James, and R. Blatt, Nature429, 734 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    D. T. C. Allcock, W. C. Campbell, J. Chiaverini, I. L. Chuang, E. R. Hudson, I. D. Moore, A. Rans- ford, C. Roman, J. M. Sage, and D. J. Wineland, Appl. Phys. Lett.119, 214002 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Yang, J.-Y

    H.-X. Yang, J.-Y. Ma, Y.-K. Wu, Y. Wang, M.-M. Cao, W.-X. Guo, Y.-Y. Huang, L. Feng, Z. C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Nat. Phys.18, 1058 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Feng, Y.-Y

    L. Feng, Y.-Y. Huang, Y.-K. Wu, W.-X. Guo, J.-Y. Ma, H.-X. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. Wang, C.-X. Huang, C. Zhang, L. Yao, B.-X. Qi, Y.-F. Pu, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Nature Communications15, 204 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. R¨ onchen, A. Jenkins, and A. M. Kaufman, Phys. Rev. X13, 041035 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    J.-S. Chen, S. M. Brewer, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. R. Leibrandt, and D. B. Hume, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 053002 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Eschner, G

    J. Eschner, G. Morigi, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B20, 1003 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    I. D. Moore, W. C. Campbell, E. R. Hudson, M. J. Boguslawski, D. J. Wineland, and D. T. C. Allcock, Phys. Rev. A107, 032413 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Eschner, B

    J. Eschner, B. Appasamy, and P. E. Toschek, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2435 (1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    C. Lee, S. C. Webster, J. Mosca Toba, O. Corfield, G. Porter, and R. C. Thompson, Phys. Rev. A107, 033107 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    A. L. Shaw, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Science388, 845 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Qichen, Q

    Q. Qichen, Q. Zhao, M. D. K. Lee, Z. Zhang, N. Jayjong, K. J. Arnold, and M. D. Barrett, Phys. Rev. A113, 013109 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    Y. Wu, S. Kolkowitz, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Nat. Commun.13, 4657 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    M. Kang, W. C. Campbell, and K. R. Brown, PRX Quantum4, 020358 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Quantum ldpc codes for erasure-biased atomic quantum processors,

    L. Pecorari and G. Pupillo, “Quantum ldpc codes for erasure-biased atomic quantum processors,” (2025), arXiv:2502.20189 [quant-ph]

    2025

  36. [44]

    High-fidelity heralded quan- tum state preparation and measurement,

    A. S. Sotirova, J. D. Leppard, A. Vazquez-Brennan, S. M. Decoppet, F. Pokorny, M. Malinowski, and C. J. Ballance, “High-fidelity heralded quan- tum state preparation and measurement,” (2024), arXiv:2409.05805 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    High- fidelity entanglement of metastable trapped-ion qubits with integrated erasure conversion,

    A. Quinn, G. J. Gregory, I. D. Moore, S. Brud- ney, J. Metzner, E. R. Ritchie, J. O’Reilly, D. J. Wineland, and D. T. C. Allcock, “High- fidelity entanglement of metastable trapped-ion qubits with integrated erasure conversion,” (2024), arXiv:241.12727 [atom-ph]

    2024

  38. [46]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Nature622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Scholl, A

    P. Scholl, A. L. Shaw, R. B.-S. Tsai, R. Finkelstein, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Nature622, 273 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    X. Shi, J. Sinanan-Singh, K. DeBry, S. L. Todaro, I. L. Chuang, and J. Chiaverini, Phys. Rev. A111, L020601 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    J. D. Sterk, H. Coakley, J. Goldberg, V. Hietala, J. Lechtenberg, H. McGuinness, D. McMurtrey, L. P. Parazzoli, J. Van Der Wall, and D. Stick, npj Quantum Information8, 68 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    P. O. Schmidt, T. Rosenband, C. Langer, W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland, Science 309, 749 (2005). 11

    2005

  43. [51]

    D. B. Hume, C. W. Chou, D. R. Leibrandt, M. J. Thorpe, D. J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 243902 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Wineland, W

    D. Wineland, W. Itano, J. Bergquist, J. Bollinger, and J. Prestage, Ann. Phys. Fr10, 737 (1985)

    1985

  45. [53]

    Kreuter, C

    A. Kreuter, C. Becher, G. P. T. Lancaster, A. B. Mundt, C. Russo, H. H¨ affner, C. Roos, W. H¨ ansel, F. Schmidt-Kaler, R. Blatt, and M. S. Safronova, Physical Review A71, 032504 (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    Benhelm, G

    J. Benhelm, G. Kirchmair, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. A77, 062306 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    S. R. Vizvary, Z. J. Wall, M. J. Boguslawski, M. Bareian, A. Derevianko, W. C. Campbell, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 263201 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    D. M. Meekhof, C. Monroe, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 1796 (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    C. R. Clark, C. D. Herold, J. T. Merrill, H. N. Tinkey, W. Rellergert, R. Clark, R. Brown, W. D. Robertson, C. Volin, K. Maller,et al., Physical Re- view A107, 043119 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Lancellotti, S

    F. Lancellotti, S. Welte, M. Simoni, C. Mordini, T. Behrle, B. de Neeve, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, and J. Home, Physical Review Research6, L032059 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Ransford, M

    A. Ransford, M. Allman, J. Arkinstall, J. Cam- pora III, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, A. Hall,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05465 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters 74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  53. [61]

    Schneider and G

    S. Schneider and G. J. Milburn, Physical Review A 57, 3748 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Chwalla, K

    M. Chwalla, K. Kim, T. Monz, P. Schindler, M. Riebe, C. Roos, and R. Blatt, Applied Physics B89, 483 (2007)

    2007

  55. [63]

    C. J. Ballance,High-fidelity quantum logic in Ca +, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    Marzoli, J

    I. Marzoli, J. I. Cirac, R. Blatt, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A49, 2771 (1994)

    1994

  57. [65]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, S. R. Jef- ferts, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and P. Gould, Physical Review Letters75, 4011 (1995)

    1995

  58. [66]

    C. Wang, C. Huang, H. Zhang, H. Hu, Z. Mao, P. Hou, Y. Wu, Z. Zhou, and L. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 010601 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    A. S. Sotirova,Trapped Ion Quantum Information Processing Using Multiple Qubit Encodings, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Yi, Y.-Y

    Y.-J. Yi, Y.-Y. Chen, Y.-H. Hou, Y.-K. Wu, L. Zhang, C. Zhang, Y.-L. Xu, J. Ye, W.-X. Guo, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, P.-Y. Hou, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. A113, 052435 (2026)

    2026

  61. [69]

    L. Li, W. Huie, N. Chen, B. DeMarco, and J. P. Covey, Physical Review Applied18, 064005 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Physical review letters 121, 123603 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    S. Xu, X. Xia, Q. Yu, A. Parakh, S. Khan, E. Megidish, B. You, B. Hemmerling, A. Jayich, K. Beck,et al., Nature645, 362 (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    A. H. Myerson, D. J. Szwer, S. C. Webster, D. T. C. Allcock, M. J. Curtis, G. Imreh, J. A. Sherman, D. N. Stacey, A. M. Steane, and D. M. Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 200502 (2008)

    2008

  65. [73]

    Crain, C

    S. Crain, C. Cahall, G. Vrijsen, E. E. Wollman, M. D. Shaw, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and J. Kim, Commun. Phys.2, 97 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Barrett, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovi´ c, C. Langer, T. Rosenband,et al., Nature422, 412 (2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    Baek, S.-H

    S. Baek, S.-H. Lee, D. Min, and J. Kim, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02890 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Ruster, C

    T. Ruster, C. Schmiegelow, H. Kaufmann, C. Warschburger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. Poschinger, Applied Physics B122(2016), 10.1007/s00340-016-6527-4

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    Sutherland and R

    R. Sutherland and R. Srinivas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05768 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Sinanan-Singh, G

    J. Sinanan-Singh, G. L. Mintzer, I. L. Chuang, and Y. Liu, Quantum8, 1427 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    V. So, M. Duraisamy Suganthi, M. Zhu, A. Menon, G. Tomaras, R. Zhuravel, H. Pu, P. G. Wolynes, J. N. Onuchic, and G. Pagano, Nature Communi- cations (2025)

    2025

  72. [80]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barberena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Science373, 673 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    C. H. Valahu, M. P. Stafford, Z. Huang, V. G. Mat- sos, M. J. Millican, T. Chalermpusitarak, N. C. Menicucci, J. Combes, B. Q. Baragiola, and T. R. Tan, Science Advances11, eadw9757 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    C. Fang, Y. Wang, K. Sun, and J. Kim, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07564 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kr¨ amer, D

    S. Kr¨ amer, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, Computer Physics Communications227, 109 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, Jour- nal of Research of the National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology103, 259 (1998). 12 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL I. QUBIT READOUT A.mgCrystal Readout Three fluorescence checks (FCs) ...

    1998

  77. [85]

    The first FC is performed

  78. [86]

    If one bright ion is detected during the FC, theg- qubit was in|↑⟩

    S 1/2 population is optically pumped to D 3/2 by applying just the 397 nm beam. If one bright ion is detected during the FC, theg- qubit was in|↑⟩. Otherwise, the 729 nmπ-pulse shelved|↓⟩population in|D 5/2,m=−5/2⟩where it will remain for the rest of the full readout se- quenc...

  79. [87]

    The second FC is performed

  80. [88]

    If one more bright ion is detected than was in the first FC (recall that population in D 3/2 will flu- oresce), them-qubit was in|1⟩

    S 1/2 population is optically pumped to D 3/2 by applying just the 397 nm beam. If one more bright ion is detected than was in the first FC (recall that population in D 3/2 will flu- oresce), them-qubit was in|1⟩. Lastly, popula- tion remaining in|0⟩is detected, as diagrammed ...

  81. [89]

    This final FC ensures that all metastable population was detected

    The third FC is performed. This final FC ensures that all metastable population was detected. The FC results and their correspond- ing state detections can be found in Table I. If, before the readout sequence, them-qubit leaked to|↓⟩, then it will remain dark through all three...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.