pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.13499 · v1 · pith:HNLOVGEXnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · 🪐 quant-ph

Observation of Non-Gaussian Magnon Dynamics in a Two-Dimensional Long-Range XY Model

S.-A. Guo , J.-Y. Tan , J. Ye , Y. Jiang , L. Zhang , Y.-X. Chen , H.-J. Chen , H.-Y. Hu
show 6 more authors
W.-X. Guo B.-X. Qi L. He Z.-C. Zhou Y.-K. Wu L.-M. Duan
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 06:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords non-Gaussian dynamicsmagnon excitationsXY modeltrapped ion simulatorlong-range interactionsspin correlationsquantum many-body systemsHolstein-Primakoff approximation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Trapped ion simulator isolates non-Gaussian magnon dynamics in two-dimensional long-range XY model independent of calibration errors.

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

The paper shows that a trapped-ion quantum simulator can prepare magnon excitations at varying densities in a two-dimensional XY model with engineered long-range interactions and track the resulting evolution. Single-spin observables follow the expected Hamiltonian, while high-order spin correlations deviate from both mean-field theory and the Holstein-Primakoff approximation. These deviations persist in a manner that does not depend on precise knowledge of experimental parameters, thereby witnessing non-Gaussian evolution. The demonstration supplies a concrete experimental path from dynamics that remain classically simulatable to regimes where quantum many-body effects become dominant.

Core claim

We demonstrate the crossover between Gaussian and non-Gaussian dynamics on a two-dimensional XY model with long-range and spatially structured interaction using a trapped ion quantum simulator. We prepare different initial densities of magnon excitations and verify the dynamics of single-spin observables for the engineered Hamiltonian. Then we compare the high-order spin correlations with the mean-field solution and the Holstein-Primakoff approximation, and demonstrate the non-Gaussian behavior in a way independent of the calibration errors.

What carries the argument

Comparison of measured high-order spin correlations against mean-field and Holstein-Primakoff predictions, which isolates non-Gaussian contributions without requiring accurate calibration of Hamiltonian parameters.

If this is right

  • Varying the initial magnon density produces a tunable crossover between Gaussian and non-Gaussian regimes.
  • Single-spin observables remain consistent with the engineered long-range XY Hamiltonian.
  • High-order correlations furnish an error-robust witness of non-Gaussianity.
  • The platform supplies a verifiable route toward interaction regimes where classical simulation becomes intractable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The calibration-independent witness could be applied to other quantum simulators to certify non-Gaussian behavior without full Hamiltonian tomography.
  • Extending the same initial-state preparation to three-dimensional or disordered long-range models would test whether the crossover persists when mean-field approximations become less reliable.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field solution and Holstein-Primakoff approximation accurately capture the Gaussian component of the dynamics so that any observed deviations can be attributed to non-Gaussian evolution.

What would settle it

High-order spin correlations that remain consistent with mean-field and Holstein-Primakoff predictions across all tested magnon densities would falsify the claim of having observed non-Gaussian dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13499 by B.-X. Qi, H.-J. Chen, H.-Y. Hu, J. Ye, J.-Y. Tan, L. He, L.-M. Duan, L. Zhang, S.-A. Guo, W.-X. Guo, Y. Jiang, Y.-K. Wu, Y.-X. Chen, Z.-C. Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Experimental scheme. We apply counter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) under a weak initial excitation, suggesting good Gaussian dynamics for the spins. In comparison, for a stronger excitation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Dynamics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Non-Gaussian evolution of high-order spin correlations characterizes important properties of quantum many-body systems. In practice, decoherence, statistical fluctuation and miscalibration of experimental parameters all hinder the witness of non-Gaussian dynamics. Here we demonstrate the crossover between Gaussian and non-Gaussian dynamics on a two-dimensional XY model with long-range and spatially structured interaction using a trapped ion quantum simulator. We prepare different initial densities of magnon excitations and verify the dynamics of single-spin observables for the engineered Hamiltonian. Then we compare the high-order spin correlations with the mean-field solution and the Holstein-Primakoff approximation, and demonstrate the non-Gaussian behavior in a way independent of the calibration errors. Our work provides a verifiable path from classically simulatable dynamics to regimes where quantum advantage may emerge.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration, using a trapped-ion quantum simulator, of the crossover from Gaussian to non-Gaussian magnon dynamics in a two-dimensional XY model with long-range and spatially structured interactions. Different initial magnon densities are prepared, single-spin observables are verified against the engineered Hamiltonian, and high-order spin correlations are compared to mean-field and Holstein-Primakoff predictions to establish non-Gaussian behavior independent of calibration errors.

Significance. If the central attribution holds, the work supplies a concrete experimental route from classically simulatable regimes to non-Gaussian many-body dynamics in a long-range 2D system, with potential implications for identifying the onset of quantum advantage in quantum simulators.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; comparison to approximations (Methods/Results sections on high-order correlations)] The claim that deviations from mean-field and Holstein-Primakoff predictions demonstrate non-Gaussian dynamics independent of calibration errors (abstract) rests on the assumption that these approximations exhaust all Gaussian (quadratic) contributions. In a 2D lattice with long-range, spatially structured couplings, the Holstein-Primakoff expansion around a mean-field state can omit momentum-dependent fluctuation corrections or residual Gaussian terms at moderate magnon densities; any such omission would misclassify Gaussian physics as non-Gaussian and weaken the calibration-error independence argument.
minor comments (1)
  1. Specify the precise interaction range, lattice geometry, and magnon-density regime in which the Holstein-Primakoff truncation is expected to remain valid.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comment on our manuscript. We address the major concern point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract; comparison to approximations (Methods/Results sections on high-order correlations)] The claim that deviations from mean-field and Holstein-Primakoff predictions demonstrate non-Gaussian dynamics independent of calibration errors (abstract) rests on the assumption that these approximations exhaust all Gaussian (quadratic) contributions. In a 2D lattice with long-range, spatially structured couplings, the Holstein-Primakoff expansion around a mean-field state can omit momentum-dependent fluctuation corrections or residual Gaussian terms at moderate magnon densities; any such omission would misclassify Gaussian physics as non-Gaussian and weaken the calibration-error independence argument.

    Authors: The Holstein-Primakoff (HP) transformation yields the exact quadratic bosonic Hamiltonian for the magnon modes once the long-range, spatially structured XY couplings are Fourier-transformed; all Gaussian (quadratic) contributions, including momentum-dependent fluctuation corrections, are thereby included by construction. The mean-field solution is the corresponding classical limit. Any deviation of measured high-order correlations from these predictions must therefore originate from higher-order (anharmonic) terms in the spin Hamiltonian, which generate non-Gaussian dynamics. For the moderate magnon densities realized in the experiment the 1/S expansion parameter remains controlled, rendering residual Gaussian corrections beyond the quadratic HP level negligible. The calibration-error independence follows from the separate verification that single-spin observables agree with the engineered Hamiltonian across the explored parameter range; plausible miscalibrations cannot simultaneously reproduce the observed higher-order deviations while preserving the lower-order agreement. We will add one clarifying sentence in the Methods section stating that the HP approximation incorporates the complete quadratic dynamics for the given interaction structure. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: non-Gaussian claim rests on external approximations

full rationale

The paper's central step compares measured high-order spin correlations against independent mean-field and Holstein-Primakoff predictions to attribute deviations to non-Gaussian dynamics. These approximations are standard theoretical constructions not derived from or fitted to the experimental high-order data within the paper, nor are they justified via self-citation chains that reduce to the target result. The claim of calibration-error independence follows directly from this external comparison without self-referential redefinition or renaming of known patterns. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no details on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5725 in / 1113 out tokens · 23605 ms · 2026-06-27T06:39:36.459420+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Swingle, Unscrambling the physics of out-of-time- order correlators, Nature Physics14, 988 (2018)

    B. Swingle, Unscrambling the physics of out-of-time- order correlators, Nature Physics14, 988 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    G¨ uhne and G

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Schwinger, On the green’s functions of quantized fields

    J. Schwinger, On the green’s functions of quantized fields. i, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences37, 452 (1951)

    1951

  9. [9]

    Schwinger, On the green’s functions of quantized fields

    J. Schwinger, On the green’s functions of quantized fields. ii, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences37, 455 (1951)

    1951

  10. [10]

    Schweigler, V

    T. Schweigler, V. Kasper, S. Erne, I. Mazets, B. Rauer, F. Cataldini, T. Langen, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmiedmayer, Experimental characterization of a quantum many-body system via higher-order correla- tions, Nature545, 323 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Schuch, J

    N. Schuch, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, Quantum states on harmonic lattices, Communications in Mathematical Physics267, 65 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    X.-B. Wang, T. Hiroshima, A. Tomita, and M. Hayashi, Quantum information with gaussian states, Physics Re- ports448, 1 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Continuous vari- able quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond, Open Systems & Information Dynamics21, 1440001 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    Surace and L

    J. Surace and L. Tagliacozzo, Fermionic Gaussian states: an introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 54 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    G. C. Wick, The evaluation of the collision matrix, Phys. Rev.80, 268 (1950)

    1950

  16. [16]

    S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 097904 (2002)

    2002

  17. [17]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Positive wigner functions ren- der classical simulation of quantum computation efficient, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  18. [18]

    N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Universal quantum com- putation with continuous-variable cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 110501 (2006)

    2006

  19. [19]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum informa- tion with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  20. [20]

    C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silberhorn, and I. Jex, Gaussian boson sampling, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 170501 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, V. D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Vernon, N. Quesada, and J. Lavoie, Quantum computational ad- vantage with a programmable photonic processor, Nature 606, 75 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    H.-L. Liu, H. Su, Y.-H. Deng, S.-Q. Gong, Y.-C. Gu, H.-Y. Tang, M.-H. Jia, Q. Wei, Y.-K. Song, D.-Z. Wang, M.-Y. Zheng, F.-X. Chen, L.-B. Li, S.-Y. Ren, X.-Z. Zhu, 6 M.-H. Wang, Y.-J. Chen, Y.-F. Liu, L.-S. Song, P.-Y. Yang, J.-S. Chen, H. An, L. Zhang, L. Gan, G.-w. Yang, J.-M. Xu, Y.-M. He, H. Wang, H.-S. Zhong, M.-C. Chen, X. Jiang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, X...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586- 2026

  24. [24]

    Somma, H

    R. Somma, H. Barnum, G. Ortiz, and E. Knill, Efficient solvability of hamiltonians and limits on the power of some quantum computational models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 190501 (2006)

    2006

  25. [25]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell,et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zh...

    2021

  27. [27]

    DeCross, R

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, J. Cline, J. Colina, D. DelVento, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, C. N. Gilbreth, J. Giles, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, A. Hansen, N. Hewitt, I. Hoffman, C. Holliman, R. B. Hutson, T. Jacobs, J. Johansen, P...

    2025

  28. [28]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, K. Boothby, F. Altomare, M. Asad, A. J. Berkley, M. Boschnak, K. Chern, H. Christiani, S. Cibere, J. Connor, M. H. Dehn, R. Desh- pande, S. Ejtemaee, P. Farre, K. Hamer, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, M. W. Johnson, S. Kortas, E. Ladizinsky...

    2025

  30. [30]

    D. A. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, G. Aigeldinger, A. Ajoy, R. Alcaraz, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. As- faw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Ba- con, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, C. Bengs, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bo- vaird, D. Bowers, L. Brill, M. Broughton, D. A...

    2025

  31. [31]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005). 7

    2005

  32. [32]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  33. [33]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Many- body quantum spin dynamics with monte carlo trajecto- ries on a discrete phase space, Phys. Rev. X5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  34. [34]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Dynamics of correlations in two-dimensional quantum spin models with long-range interactions: a phase-space monte-carlo study, New Journal of Physics17, 065009 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Pucci, A

    L. Pucci, A. Roy, and M. Kastner, Simulation of quantum spin dynamics by phase space sampling of bogoliubov- born-green-kirkwood-yvon trajectories, Phys. Rev. B93, 174302 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Phys. Rev.58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  37. [37]

    Manousakis, The spin-½heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its application to the cuprous oxides, Rev

    E. Manousakis, The spin-½heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its application to the cuprous oxides, Rev. Mod. Phys.63, 1 (1991)

    1991

  38. [38]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Keldysh field theory for driven open quantum systems, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 096001 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    Aharonov, Quantum to classical phase transition in noisy quantum computers, Phys

    D. Aharonov, Quantum to classical phase transition in noisy quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A62, 062311 (2000)

    2000

  40. [40]

    Trivedi and J

    R. Trivedi and J. I. Cirac, Transitions in computational complexity of continuous-time local open quantum dy- namics, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 260405 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed in- teracting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  42. [42]

    Kraus, H

    B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Preparation of entangled states by quan- tum markov processes, Phys. Rev. A78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  43. [43]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quan- tum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  44. [44]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, Y. Wang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y.-L. Xu, C. Zhang, Y.-Z. Xu, B.-X. Qi, P.-Y. Hou, L. He, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Hamilto- nian learning for 300 trapped ion qubits with long-range couplings, Science Advances11, eadt4713 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R.-Y. Yan, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-L. Xu, B.- W. Li, Y.-H. Hou, Y.-Z. Xu, W.-X. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, L. He, and L.-M. Duan, A site- resolved two-dimensional quantum simulator with hun- dreds of trapped ions, Nature630, 613 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    C. H. Baldwin, B. J. Bjork, M. Foss-Feig, J. P. Gae- bler, D. Hayes, M. G. Kokish, C. Langer, J. A. Sedlacek, D. Stack, and G. Vittorini, High-fidelity light-shift gate for clock-state qubits, Phys. Rev. A103, 012603 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    K. R. Brown, A. W. Harrow, and I. L. Chuang, Arbitrar- ily accurate composite pulse sequences, Phys. Rev. A70, 052318 (2004)

    2004

  48. [48]

    observation of non- gaussian magnon dynamics in a two- dimensional long-range XY model

    S.-A. Guo, Data for “observation of non- gaussian magnon dynamics in a two- dimensional long-range XY model” (2026), https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32370780.v1. Supplemental Material for “Observation of Non-Gaussian Magnon Dynamics in a Two-Dimensional Long-Range XY Model” S.-A. Guo, 1 J.-Y. Tan,1 J. Ye,1 Y. Jiang, 1 L. Zhang,1 Y.-X. Chen, 1 H.-J. Ch...

    work page doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.32370780.v1 2026

  49. [49]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R.-Y. Yan, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-L. Xu, B.-W. Li, Y.-H. Hou, Y.-Z. Xu, W.-X. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, L. He, and L.-M. Duan, A site-resolved two-dimensional quantum simulator with hundreds of trapped ions, Nature630, 613 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, Y. Wang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y.-L. Xu, C. Zhang, Y.-Z. Xu, B.-X. Qi, P.-Y. Hou, L. He, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Hamiltonian learning for 300 trapped ion qubits with long-range couplings, Science Advances11, eadt4713 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Roman, A

    C. Roman, A. Ransford, M. Ip, and W. C. Campbell, Coherent control for qubit state readout, New Journal of Physics22, 073038 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    C. L. Edmunds, T. R. Tan, A. R. Milne, A. Singh, M. J. Biercuk, and C. Hempel, Scalable hyperfine qubit state detection via electron shelving in the 2D5/2 and 2F7/2 manifolds in 171yb+, Phys. Rev. A104, 012606 (2021)

    2021