Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Rydberg mediated entanglement in a two-dimensional neutral atom qubit array

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Rydberg-mediated CZ gate entangles two qubits in a 121-site 2D neutral-atom array with measured Bell fidelity 0.86(2) and inferred gate fidelity 0.89.

desk verdict Raw Bell fidelity 0.86(2) is a real step forward in 2D neutral atom arrays; the corrected 0.89 is model-dependent and should be treated as such. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06103 v2 pith:GBZ3UJ6O submitted 2019-08-16 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

T. M. Graham , M. Kwon , B. Grinkemeyer , Z. Marra , X. Jiang , M. T. Lichtman , Y. Sun , M. Ebert
show 1 more author
M. Saffman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords RydbergblockadeneutralatomqubitarrayCZgateBellstatefidelityquantumprocessmatrixopticallatticetwo-qubitentanglement
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

This paper reports a two-qubit entangling gate in a 121-site two-dimensional array of neutral cesium atoms, with a measured Bell-state fidelity of $F_{\rm Bell}=0.86(2)$. After correcting for state-preparation-and-measurement errors with a process-matrix error model, the authors infer $F_{\rm Bell}^{\rm -SPAM}=0.88$, and after removing single-qubit gate errors they infer an intrinsic CZ gate fidelity of $F_{\rm Bell}^{C_Z}=0.89$. The result matters because it moves neutral-atom arrays toward a scalable architecture: the same hardware supports site-addressed gates throughout the array, and the error model identifies finite atom temperature and laser noise, not Rydberg physics, as the dominant remaining infidelity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rydberg CZ gate: two laser pulses on a control atom (a $\pi$ pulse, then another $\pi$ pulse after a gap) and one $2\pi$ pulse on the target atom, using two-photon excitation to the $66s_{1/2}$ Rydberg state. The Rydberg blockade, in which one atom's Rydberg excitation suppresses the other's, imprints the controlled phase that creates entanglement. The supporting machinery is the $\chi$-matrix process model, which propagates every measured or calculated error source through the full pulse sequence as independent quantum channels and yields the corrected fidelity values.

What would settle it

Run interleaved randomized benchmarking on the CZ gate in the same array and compare the extracted fidelity with the corrected $F_{\rm Bell}^{C_Z}=0.89$; if benchmarking returns a systematically lower fidelity, one or more calibrated terms in the error model are over-attributing error to SPAM, single-qubit gates, or assumed dephasing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Rydberg blockade mechanism, implemented as the standard $\pi$--gap--$2\pi$--gap--$\pi$ pulse sequence between two hyperfine clock states and a $66s_{1/2}$ Rydberg state, can entangle two qubits in a two-dimensional optical-lattice array at $F_{\rm Bell}=0.86(2)$ raw, rising to $F_{\rm Bell}^{C_Z}=0.89$ once SPAM and single-qubit errors are accounted for. The evidence is population data and a parity oscillation amplitude $C=0.391(6)$, together with a $\chi$-matrix error budget whose predicted output $F_{\rm Bell}=0.853$ matches the measurement. The corrected value is the paper's headline claim: it separates the CZ gate's intrinsic quality from the measurement overhead.

Load-bearing premise

The corrected 0.89 fidelity stands only if the error model includes every real error source and those errors combine as independent memoryless processes; the paper assumes memory effects are small and calibrates its Rydberg laser-dephasing term and atom position spread to match the data rather than measuring them outright.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A neutral-atom architecture with site-addressable gates throughout a large 2D array can sustain two-qubit entangling operations near the 0.89 level, not just in one-dimensional or few-qubit settings.
  • Because the dominant errors are finite atom temperature and laser phase and intensity noise, straightforward technical improvements such as colder atoms and quieter lasers should directly raise the gate fidelity.
  • Rydberg lifetime and blockade-strength errors are each below 1%, so the choice of Rydberg state and lattice spacing is not the bottleneck in this geometry.
  • Combined with demonstrated single-qubit fidelities above 0.99 and atom rearrangement capabilities, the setup provides the ingredients for multi-qubit algorithms on a 2D array.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the same error model holds after cooling to a few microkelvin and resonator-filtering the Rydberg lasers, the gate fidelity should climb well above 0.95; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • My inference: the unexplained Rydberg laser dephasing term (0.018 unblockaded versus 0.006 blockaded per $\pi$ pulse) is the least physically motivated entry in the error budget; a side-by-side measurement of ground-Rydberg Ramsey decay with and without laser illumination would separate it from genuine laser noise.
  • My inference: a direct measurement of the atom localization width $\sigma$, rather than the inferred $\sigma=0.16\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, would tighten the error budget; trap-frequency spectroscopy can provide that measurement.
  • My inference: interleaved randomized benchmarking of the CZ gate in the same array would test whether the Markovian error model's corrected fidelity is trustworthy, since benchmarking does not rely on the same SPAM corrections.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports improved Rydberg-mediated two-qubit entanglement in a 121-site two-dimensional neutral-atom array defined by blue-detuned lines of light. The authors measure a Bell-state fidelity of F_Bell = 0.86(2) from populations and parity oscillations, and then use a detailed χ-matrix error model to correct for state preparation and measurement (SPAM) errors, inferring F_Bell^{-SPAM} = 0.88, and for single-qubit errors, inferring F_Bell^{CZ} = 0.89 for the Rydberg C_Z gate. The error budget identifies finite atom temperature and laser noise as the dominant remaining error sources. The supplementary material provides the supporting calculations for atomic parameters, single-qubit errors, SPAM errors, and the process-matrix propagation, as well as explicit statements of the model's limitations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper represents a meaningful advance for neutral-atom quantum computing: it demonstrates a two-qubit Rydberg C_Z gate in a scalable 2D geometry with a raw Bell fidelity of 0.86(2), which is a direct observable with clear methods, and it provides a detailed, state-dependent error model that goes beyond a simple multiplicative error budget. The explicit identification of finite temperature and laser noise as dominant errors is useful guidance for the field. The main strength is the direct parity-oscillation and population measurement; the main gap is that the headline corrected fidelity of 0.89 is not a direct measurement but the output of an error model containing calibrated terms with acknowledged uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM-I H and SM-IV B] The corrected fidelity F_Bell^{CZ}=0.89 rests on the 'Rydberg laser dephasing' term of 0.018 per non-blockaded and 0.006 per blockaded Rydberg pi pulse. The supplement states explicitly that the model does not explain this additional dephasing term and that it must be included to make the eye-diagram simulation consistent, with the value extracted from the same eye-diagram experiment that the model is meant to reproduce. Since this term is the largest single Rydberg-gate error in Table I, the model-based subtraction could absorb unmodeled errors, such as non-Markovian effects or a leakage channel, into an attributed dephasing channel. The authors should either supply an independent measurement or physical mechanism for this term, or visibly weaken the claim attached to F_Bell^{CZ}=0.89 and instead emphasize the directly measured F_Bell=0.86(2).
  2. [SM-I E and SM-I F] The atom-position error sigma=0.16 micrometers used for entry a.5 is not measured directly; it is inferred from observed ground-Rydberg Rabi errors, and the supplement states that confidence in this estimate is lower than for other entries. The laser noise error of 0.0025 per pi pulse is similarly described as difficult to quantify, with 'relatively large uncertainties.' Because a.5 and a.6 are jointly extracted from 2-pi Rabi data and have similar physical effects (leaving population in the Rydberg state), the partition between them is not unique. The corrected fidelities should be reported with uncertainties propagated from these inputs, rather than as point values.
  3. [SM-IV E] The error propagation uses chi-matrices, which cannot represent non-Markovian processes; the supplement assumes that such effects are small. Given that the a.8 dephasing term is calibrated from the same eye-diagram data used to check the model, the assumption that the residual is a Markovian dephasing channel is precisely the load-bearing assumption for F_Bell^{CZ}=0.89. A master-equation treatment or, preferably, a direct characterization of the CZ gate (e.g., randomized benchmarking or process tomography of the two-qubit gate) would be needed to substantiate the corrected value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'neutra l' should be 'neutral'.
  2. [Abstract and Table I] The corrected fidelities F_Bell^{-SPAM} and F_Bell^{CZ} are quoted without uncertainties; please add a statement clarifying that these are model point estimates, and avoid implying they have the same statistical status as the measured F_Bell=0.86(2).
  3. [SM-I A] In the discussion of ground-Rydberg Doppler dephasing, the relation between the measured Ramsey coherence time T2,gR=4 microseconds and the calculated T2,D=6 microseconds is stated but not derived; a short explanation of why the calculation is preferred for Table I would aid the reader.
  4. [Table I and SM-II] The entry 'global per atom per micro wave pi/2 pulses' should read 'microwave,' and the Stark-shift pulse entry should specify whether the 0.006 error is per pulse or per gate, for consistency with the other entries.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Corrected CZ fidelity inherits a fitted dephasing residual, but the raw Bell measurement is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Material SM-IV B, 'CZ Gate'; Tables I/SM-I item a.8; main-text conclusion 'F^CZ_Bell = 0.89'.]
    "Our models do not explain this additional dephasing term; however, we need to include this effect to make our model consistent. We have extracted the value of this dephasing term by simulating the eye diagram experiment using quantum process matrices and determined the dephasing probability that is introduced by the 2π Rydberg pulse."

    The headline corrected fidelity F^CZ_Bell = 0.89 is not a direct measurement; it is the output of the process-matrix error model after SPAM and single-qubit errors are set to zero. The model's largest Rydberg-gate error is the 'Rydberg laser dephasing' term (0.018 per non-blockaded pi pulse), which the paper states is not explained and was included only 'to make our model consistent' with the eye-diagram experiment. That term is extracted by fitting the same process-matrix simulation to eye-diagram data, i.e., to a measurement of the same CZ gate sequence used in the Bell-state experiment.

full rationale

The directly measured Bell fidelity F_Bell = 0.86(2) is an external experimental result and is not circular; it anchors the paper independently of the error model. The circularity burden sits in the corrected/inferred values. To obtain F^CZ_Bell = 0.89, the paper propagates a quantum-process-matrix model and then removes SPAM and single-qubit errors. That model contains an unexplained 'Rydberg laser dephasing' term (a.8) whose value is extracted by simulating the eye-diagram experiment, a measurement of the same CZ gate sequence. The paper openly says the term is needed 'to make our model consistent' and that the models do not explain it. Thus the headline intrinsic gate fidelity is partly a function of a fitted catch-all residual rather than a first-principles prediction. This is not full equivalence, because the Bell-state data were not used to fit a.8 and because other error entries (Doppler dephasing, radiative lifetime, scattering, crosstalk, SPAM) are independently measured or calculated. The atom-position localization sigma is also inferred from observed Rabi errors rather than measured directly, adding further model dependence, though its contribution is smaller. In addition, the abstract's attribution of the dominant errors to finite temperature and laser noise sits in tension with Table I, where a.8 is the largest single Rydberg-gate error; that is a correctness/consistency concern rather than a circularity. Overall, the raw measurement and the model's consistency check (predicted F_Bell = 0.853 versus observed 0.86(2)) provide external anchoring, but the corrected 0.89 value should be read as model-inferred with a calibrated residual, not as an independent gate fidelity measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measured Bell fidelity does not rest on the error model. The corrected fidelities, F_Bell^-SPAM = 0.88 and F_Bell^CZ = 0.89, rest on an error budget whose inputs include empirical calibrations: atom localization sigma chosen to match Rabi errors, laser noise interpolated between simulations, Rydberg laser dephasing extracted from eye-diagram and Ramsey data, and SPAM parameters estimated or measured. These are inputs, not first-principles predictions.

free parameters (8)
  • Transverse atom localization sigma = 0.16 micrometers
    Not directly measured; initial estimate from trap parameters (0.27 micrometers) gave pulse errors too large, so sigma was reduced to 0.16 micrometers to match observed ground-Rydberg Rabi population errors (SM-I E). Error budget for atom position in Rydberg beams depends on it.
  • Axial atom localization sigma_z = 1.47 micrometers
    Estimated from trap parameters (Ta = 15 microkelvin, trap depth 285 microkelvin, line width wline = 1.0 micrometers, SM-I E). Used in the 3D position-averaging error calculation.
  • Rydberg laser dephasing error per Rydberg pi pulse = 0.018 non-blockaded, 0.006 blockaded
    Not predicted from first principles; extracted from ground-Rydberg Ramsey and eye-diagram measurements to make the error model consistent with observations (SM-I H, SM-IV B). Materially affects the inferred CZ fidelity.
  • Laser noise error per atom per pi pulse = 0.0025
    Chosen between simulated servo-bump errors of 0.04 at -20 dBr and 0.002 at -30 dBr; the paper states the value is an estimate with large uncertainty (SM-I F).
  • Optical pumping error per atom = 0.005
    Estimated from the ratio of pumping to depumping times for mf = 0 preparation (SM-III B). Used in SPAM correction to arrive at F_Bell^-SPAM.
  • Global microwave pi/2 dephasing error per pulse = 0.0028
    Extracted by modeling Ramsey experiments with process matrices (SM-II A). Used in single-qubit error correction.
  • Stark-shift pulse error for local rotation = 0.006
    Extracted from microwave Ramsey experiments with a local pi/2 gate modeled with process matrices (SM-II B). Used in single-qubit error correction.
  • Readout loss per atom per readout = 0.0025
    Measured from double-readout retention statistics for control and target sites (SM-III A). Part of SPAM correction.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Quantum process (chi-matrix) formalism correctly describes error propagation for this system.
    Used throughout SM-IV to combine error channels; assumes operations are linear, completely positive maps.
  • domain assumption Error channels are Markovian and independent, so they can be composed in sequence without memory effects.
    SM-IV E states the model does not allow non-Markovian processes and assumes such effects are small.
  • domain assumption Rydberg blockade shift for Cs 66s at nearest-neighbor distance is B/2pi = 45 MHz.
    Used in SM-I D to calculate blockade leakage error epsilon = Omega^2 / (8 B^2).
  • domain assumption Atom temperature Ta = 15 microkelvin, measured by trap-drop and recapture and Ramsey experiments, is representative during the CZ gate.
    Used in SM-I A to compute Doppler dephasing and in SM-I E for the position distribution.
  • domain assumption Atomic structure parameters for Cs (7p1/2 lifetime 155 ns, 66s lifetime 130 microseconds, magnetic sensitivities) are accurate.
    Used in SM-I B and C for radiative lifetime and scattering error estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rydberg mediated entanglement in a two-dimensional neutral atom qubit array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBZ3UJ6O

@misc{pith2026190806103,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rydberg mediated entanglement in a two-dimensional neutral atom qubit array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBZ3UJ6O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06103}
}
abstract

We demonstrate high fidelity two-qubit Rydberg blockade and entanglement in a two-dimensional qubit array. The qubit array is defined by a grid of blue detuned lines of light with 121 sites for trapping atomic qubits. Improved experimental methods have increased the observed Bell state fidelity to $F_{\rm Bell}=0.86(2)$. Accounting for errors in state preparation and measurement (SPAM) we infer a fidelity of $F_{\rm Bell}^{\rm -SPAM}=0.88$. Accounting for errors in single qubit operations we infer that a Bell state created with the Rydberg mediated $C_Z$ gate has a fidelity of $F_{\rm Bell}^{C_Z}=0.89$. Comparison with a detailed error model based on quantum process matrices indicates that finite atom temperature and laser noise are the dominant error sources contributing to the observed gate infidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06103 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) Atomic qubit array. a) Averaged fluo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) Single site ground-Rydberg Rabi os [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) Population in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online) Bell state preparation: a) pulse se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The population error corresponding to the values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerical solutions for the population and phase err [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Numerical solutions for the population error due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A summary of error sources and how they are incorporat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Visual representation of the error channels and corr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An analogous result holds for the effective observed coherence of the ground-Rydberg Rabi oscillations shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Sub-microsecond entangling gate between trapped ions via Rydberg interaction

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A 700 ns controlled-phase gate between two trapped Rydberg ions was demonstrated with 78% Bell-state fidelity, with projected errors below 0.2% for improved parameters.

  2. Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multi-qubit gates with neutral atoms

    quant-ph 2019-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A global two-pulse Rydberg-excitation protocol realizes high-fidelity two- and three-qubit gates on neutral atom arrays, operated in parallel on multiple atom pairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    We have imple- mented this using acousto-optic deflectors to create the lines and thereby generated arrays with up to 196 trap- ping sites and an average of 110 trapped atoms

    Alternatively the Talbot planes can be eliminated by making each line a different frequency. We have imple- mented this using acousto-optic deflectors to create the lines and thereby generated arrays with up to 196 trap- ping sites and an average of 110 trapped atoms. Details of this approach will be given elsewhere[18]. The trapped Cs atoms are optically p...

    work page

  2. [2]

    887 single qubit errors global per atom per µ wave π/ 2 pulses (4 total) (measured) 0

    006 (blockaded) F CZ Bell = 0. 887 single qubit errors global per atom per µ wave π/ 2 pulses (4 total) (measured) 0. 0028 Stark-shift pulse (measured) 0. 006 F − SP AM Bell = 0. 877 SP AM errors readout loss per atom per readout (initial and final) (measur ed) 0. 0025 optical pumping per atom (estimated) 0. 005 state measurement error per atom (measured) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Quantum computers,

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, “Quantum computers,” Nature 464, 45 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    High-fidelity quantum logic gates us- ing trapped-ion hyperfine qubits,

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, “High-fidelity quantum logic gates us- ing trapped-ion hyperfine qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016); J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, “High-fidelity uni- versal gate set for 9Be...

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance,

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A.Megrant, A. Veitia, D.Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C.White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B.Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. OMalley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cle- land, and J. M. Martinis, “Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, ” Na...

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer,

    K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. M. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, K. M. Hudek, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Wong-Campos, S. Allen, J. Apisdorf, P. Solomon, M. Williams, A. M. Ducore, A. Blinov, S. M. Kreike- meier, V. Chaplin, M. Keesan, C. Monroe, and J. Kim, “Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer,” arXi...

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Quantum information with Rydberg atoms,

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, “Quantum information with Rydberg atoms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms,

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e , and M. D. Lukin, “Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208–2211 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Random- ized benchmarking of single-qubit gates in a 2D array of neutral-atom qubits,

    T. Xia, M. Lichtman, K. Maller, A. W. Carr, M. J. Piotrowicz, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman, “Random- ized benchmarking of single-qubit gates in a 2D array of neutral-atom qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 100503 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Single- qubit gates based on targeted phase shifts in a 3D neutral atom array,

    Y. Wang, A. Kumar, T.-Y. Wu, and D. S. Weiss, “Single- qubit gates based on targeted phase shifts in a 3D neutral atom array,” Science 352, 1562 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Atom-by-atom assem- bly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays,

    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 assem- bly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays,” Sci- ence 354, 1024 (2016); D. Barredo, S. de Les´ el´ euc, V. Lienhard...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Rydberg-blockade controlled-NOT gate and entangle- ment in a two-dimensional array of neutral-atom qubits,

    K. Maller, M. T. Lichtman, T. Xia, Y. Sun, M. J. Pi- otrowicz, A. W. Carr, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman, “Rydberg-blockade controlled-NOT gate and entangle- ment in a two-dimensional array of neutral-atom qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 92, 022336 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Entangling atomic spins with a Rydberg-dressed spin-flip blockade,

    Y.-Y. Jau, A. M. Hankin, T. Keating, I. H. Deutsch, and G. W. Biedermann, “Entangling atomic spins with a Rydberg-dressed spin-flip blockade,” Nat. Phys. 12, 71 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Entangling two individual atoms of different isotopes via rydberg blockade,

    Yong Zeng, Peng Xu, Xiaodong He, Yangyang Liu, Min Liu, Jin Wang, D. J. Papoular, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and Mingsheng Zhan, “Entangling two individual atoms of different isotopes via rydberg blockade,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 160502 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Entanglement of neutral-atom qubits with long ground-Rydberg coherence times,

    C. J. Picken, R. Legaie, K. McDonnell, and J. D. Pritchard, “Entanglement of neutral-atom qubits with long ground-Rydberg coherence times,” Quant. Sci. Technol. 4, 015011 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    High-fidelity control and entanglement of Rydberg-atom qubits,

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, “High-fidelity control and entanglement of Rydberg-atom qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 123603 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    High-fidelity single-qubit gates on neutral atoms in a two-dimensional magic-intensity op- tical dipole trap array,

    Cheng Sheng, Xiaodong He, Peng Xu, Ruijun Guo, Kunpeng Wang, Zongyuan Xiong, Min Liu, Jin Wang, and Mingsheng Zhan, “High-fidelity single-qubit gates on neutral atoms in a two-dimensional magic-intensity op- tical dipole trap array,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 240501 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Two- dimensional lattice of blue-detuned atom traps using a projected Gaussian beam array,

    M. J. Piotrowicz, M. Lichtman, K. Maller, G. Li, S. Zhang, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman, “Two- dimensional lattice of blue-detuned atom traps using a projected Gaussian beam array,” Phys. Rev. A 88, 013420 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Coherent operations, entanglement, and progress towards quantum search in a large 2D ar- ray of neutral atom qubits,

    M. T. Lichtman, “Coherent operations, entanglement, and progress towards quantum search in a large 2D ar- ray of neutral atom qubits,” PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Graham, B

    T. Graham, B. Grinkemeyer, and et al., manuscript in preparation (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    which includes referenc es [5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30–39]

    Supplementary material at ... which includes referenc es [5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30–39]

  14. [22]

    Magic- wavelength optical traps for Rydberg atoms,

    S. Zhang, F. Robicheaux, and M. Saffman, “Magic- wavelength optical traps for Rydberg atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 043408 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Trapping and Rydberg excitation of a single atom qubit in a blue detuned bottle beam,

    S. Zhang, “Trapping and Rydberg excitation of a single atom qubit in a blue detuned bottle beam,” PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Analysis of imperfections in the coher- ent optical excitation of single atoms to Rydberg states,

    S. de L´ es´ eleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, “Analysis of imperfections in the coher- ent optical excitation of single atoms to Rydberg states,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 053803 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Our expression for T2, D is √ 2 larger than that in [28] where this dephasing mechanism was first pointed out

  18. [26]

    Fidelity of a Rydberg blockade quan- tum gate from simulated quantum process tomography,

    X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, L. Isenhower, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, “Fidelity of a Rydberg blockade quan- tum gate from simulated quantum process tomography,” Phys. Rev. A 85, 042310 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: Progress and challenges,

    M. Saffman, “Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: Progress and challenges,” J. Phys. B 49, 202001 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    A high fidelity Rydberg blockade entangling gate us- ing shaped, analytic pulses,

    L. S. Theis, F. Motzoi, F. K. Wilhelm, and M. Saffman, “A high fidelity Rydberg blockade entangling gate us- ing shaped, analytic pulses,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 032306 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Deterministic entanglement of two neu- tral atoms via Rydberg blockade,

    X. L. Zhang, L. Isenhower, A. T. Gill, T. G. Walker, and 6 M. Saffman, “Deterministic entanglement of two neu- tral atoms via Rydberg blockade,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 030306(R) (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using Rydberg blockade,

    T. Wilk, A. Ga¨ etan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Miroshny - chenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, “Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using Rydberg blockade,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010502 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multi-qubit gates with neutral atoms,

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, “Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multi-qubit gates with neutral atoms,” arXiv:1908.06101 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Analysis of a quantum logic device based on dipole-dipole interactions of opti- cally trapped Rydberg atoms,

    M. Saffman and T. G. Walker, “Analysis of a quantum logic device based on dipole-dipole interactions of opti- cally trapped Rydberg atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 022347 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Rydberg state mediated quantum gates and entanglement of pairs of neutral atoms,

    M. Saffman, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, L. Isenhower, and T. G. Walker, “Rydberg state mediated quantum gates and entanglement of pairs of neutral atoms,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 264, 012023 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Comparison of Gaussian and super Gaus- sian laser beams for addressing atomic qubits,

    K. Gillen-Christandl, G. Gillen, M. J. Piotrowicz, and M. Saffman, “Comparison of Gaussian and super Gaus- sian laser beams for addressing atomic qubits,” Appl. Phys. B 122, 131 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Quasiclassical calculations of blackbody- radiation-induced depopulation rates and effective life- times of Rydberg nS, nP, and nD alkali-metal atoms with n <= 80,

    I. I. Beterov, I. I. Ryabtsev, D. B. Tretyakov, and V. M. Entin, “Quasiclassical calculations of blackbody- radiation-induced depopulation rates and effective life- times of Rydberg nS, nP, and nD alkali-metal atoms with n <= 80,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 052504 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Erratum: Quasiclassical calculations of blackbody-radiation-induced depopulation rates and ef- fective lifetimes of Rydberg nS, nP, and nD alkali-metal atoms with n <= 80,

    I. I. Beterov, I. I. Ryabtsev, D. B. Tretyakov, and V. M. Entin, “Erratum: Quasiclassical calculations of blackbody-radiation-induced depopulation rates and ef- fective lifetimes of Rydberg nS, nP, and nD alkali-metal atoms with n <= 80,” Phys. Rev. A 80, 059902 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Quantum gates in mesoscopic atomic ensem- bles based on adiabatic passage and Rydberg blockade,

    I. I. Beterov, M. Saffman, E. A. Yakshina, V. P. Zhukov, D. B. Tretyakov, V. M. Entin, I. I. Ryabtsev, C. W. Mansell, C. MacCormick, S. Bergamini, and M. P. Fe- doruk, “Quantum gates in mesoscopic atomic ensem- bles based on adiabatic passage and Rydberg blockade,” Phys. Rev. A...

    2013

  30. [38]

    Parallel low-loss measurement of multiple atomic qubits,

    M. Kwon, M. F. Ebert, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, “Parallel low-loss measurement of multiple atomic qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180504 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    ac Stark shift of the Cs microwave atomic clock transitions,

    P. Rosenbusch, S. Ghezali, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flam- baum, K. Beloy, and A. Derevianko, “ac Stark shift of the Cs microwave atomic clock transitions,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 013404 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Doubly magic optical trap- ping for Cs atom hyperfine clock transitions,

    A. W. Carr and M. Saffman, “Doubly magic optical trap- ping for Cs atom hyperfine clock transitions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 150801 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Anal- ysis of dephasing mechanisms in a standing-wave dipole trap,

    S. Kuhr, W. Alt, D. Schrader, I. Dotsenko, Y. Mirosh- nychenko, A. Rauschenbeutel, and D. Meschede, “Anal- ysis of dephasing mechanisms in a standing-wave dipole trap,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 023406 (2005). . 7 SUPPLEMENTAR Y MATERIAL FOR R YDBERG MEDIATED ENTANGLEMENT IN A TWO-DIME...

    2005

  34. [42]

    servo bumps

    006 (blockaded) F CZ Bell = 0. 887 b) single qubit errors b.1) global per atom per µ wave π/ 2 pulses (4 total) (measured) 0. 0028 b.2) Stark-shift pulse (measured) 0. 006 F − SP AM Bell = 0. 877 c) SP AM errors c.1) readout loss per atom per readout (initial and final) (me asu...

  35. [43]

    As mentioned in Sec

    This rotation is performed with a mi- crowave pulse resonant with the energy splitting between the two qubit states. As mentioned in Sec. II A, several factors can cause errors in microwave rotation. This er- ror comes in as dephasing about the rotation axis on the Bloch spher...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.