Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Interaction-resolved decomposition of multi-qubit unitaries via computational-basis phases

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A parity-weighted sum of computational-basis phases exactly isolates every k-body interaction in a locally diagonalizable n-qubit unitary, turning multi-qubit gate synthesis into a diagonal-frame control problem.

desk verdict Sound control framework with a real branch-ambiguity flaw in the 'unique invariants' claim; fixable and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.18375 v2 pith:YFUMPGVX submitted 2026-02-20 quant-ph

Bora Baran , Tommaso Calarco , Matthias M. Mueller , Felix Motzoi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881Q93 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords support-selectivephaseinvariantsdiagonalmapWalsh-Hadamardexpansionk-bodyinteractiondecompositionquantumoptimalcontrolmulti-qubitgatesnitrogen-vacancyspinregistertripartiteentanglement
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

Any n-qubit unitary can be written, in a suitable basis, as diagonal phases on the computational-basis states. This paper's central claim is that the many-body interaction content hidden in those phases can be extracted exactly: for any subset of qubits S, a parity-weighted average of the phases returns precisely the component supported on S and nothing else. That gives a coordinate system for quantum optimal control in which one can target, say, a pure three-body phase with all two-body phases forced to zero, while leaving single-qubit phases free. The authors prove the construction analytically and demonstrate it by synthesizing ZZZ and XZZ tripartite entangling gates in a simulated room-temperature nitrogen-vacancy spin register, reaching about 99.8% process fidelity in single microwave pulses of 1.25–1.5 microseconds. If the claim holds, scalable control and characterization of multi-qubit gates can work from the 2^n diagonal phases rather than the full 4^n unitary.

What carries the argument

The central object is the support-selective phase invariant Δ_S(ϕ), a signed parity average of the diagonal phase values: Δ_S(ϕ) = (−1)^{|S|}2^{-−n} Σ_x (−1)^{Σ_{i∈S} x_i} ϕ(x). It acts as an exact filter on the Walsh–Hadamard expansion of the phase map, returning only the k-body component supported on the subset S. The invariant carries the argument: it converts multi-qubit interaction structure into individually addressable scalar targets, and since it is differentiable in the phases it plugs directly into a control cost function. The second ingredient is the diagonalizing frame V: the invariants describe physical interactions only when V is local for the operations of interest, which the

What would settle it

Take an entangling unitary that is not locally diagonalizable and compute the phase invariants Δ_S in two different diagonalizing frames; if the extracted k-body coefficients differ, the invariants are exact only as frame coordinates, not as physical interaction content. For the NV demonstration, rerun the pulse optimization with the auxiliary-manifold term H_0^(RWA)(t) included and check whether coherent nuclear rotations approach ~2θ_i; if they do, the reported fidelities of 0.9978 and 0.9985 are optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves (Proposition 2) that for any diagonal phase map ϕ on {0,1}^n, the quantity Δ_S(ϕ) = 2^{-−|S̄|} Σ_{x_{S̄}} δ_S[ϕ(x_S, x_{S̄})] — equivalently (−1)^{|S|}2^{-−n} Σ_x (−1)^{Σ_{i∈S} x_i} ϕ(x) — equals the Walsh–Hadamard coefficient supported exactly on S and is invariant under adding any phase contribution supported on any other subset. The proof combines discrete derivatives that annihilate Walsh characters not containing S with averaging over complementary bits that kills characters containing S plus extra qubits. On this basis the authors define a π-periodic cost function over target values Δ*_S, allowing k-body-resolved optimal control. They use it to synthesize e^{i(π/4)ZZZ}

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gate of interest is locally diagonalizable, so the computational-basis phase map and its k-body coefficients describe the physical interactions rather than the diagonalizing frame; in the NV demo the model also drops an auxiliary-manifold term that the authors' own Appendix C(j) says can coherently rotate nuclei by up to about 2θ_i over the pulse times, so the quoted fidelities are optimistic if that term is material.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the invariants are exact, a control pulse can be optimized to realize a prescribed k-body interaction content (for example, a pure ZZZ term with zero ZZ terms) without ever specifying the full target unitary, avoiding over-constrained objectives.
  • Characterization and cost evaluation scale with the 2^n diagonal phases of the gate in its diagonalizing frame, instead of the 4^n entries of a general unitary — a quadratic reduction in the number of parameters.
  • For the simulated NV register, the invariants yield single-pulse ZZZ and XZZ entanglers in 1.5 µs and 1.25 µs with fidelities 0.9978 and 0.9985, respectively, which the authors estimate is 10–100 times faster than existing multi-qubit NV entanglers built from two-qubit gate sequences.
  • The non-diagonal XZZ example shows the method is not limited to naturally diagonal gates: any gate with a local diagonalizing frame can be optimized inside that frame and transformed back.
  • XZZ-type terms appear in stabilizer measurements, so this offers a direct route to faster syndrome extraction for quantum error correction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • For a generic n-qubit unitary whose diagonalizing frame is entangling, the parity sums still yield a well-defined coordinate system, but the extracted k-body coefficients describe the frame's content, not the gate's physical interactions; a natural strategy the paper leaves implicit is to search over diagonalizing frames to minimize entanglement in V and thereby make the invariants physically mean
  • Because each Δ_S is a linear combination of 2^n experimentally measurable phases, the same invariants could drive closed-loop calibration: measure the diagonal phases with the paper's |+⟩-basis probing, compute the invariants, and feed them back into the optimizer without full process tomography.
  • Editorial note on the demonstration: the fidelity numbers should be read with the model's own caveat, stated in Appendix C(j), that the auxiliary-manifold term H_0^(RWA) can coherently rotate nuclei by up to about 2θ_i over pulses of 1–2 µs and is neglected; if that rotation is not negligible, the quoted fidelities are optimistic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 introduces a framework for decomposing the phase map of a diagonalized n-qubit unitary into k-body interaction contributions via parity-weighted sums (support-selective phase invariants). The theoretical core defines discrete derivative operators on the Boolean cube, proves (Prop. 1) that these annihilate Walsh characters not containing the support S, and (Prop. 2) that averaging over complementary variables isolates exactly the S-supported contribution. An alternating-sum form (Eq. 23, Appendix A) and explicit three-qubit formulas (Appendix B) are provided. The framework is then used to formulate a control cost function (Eq. 25) targeting selected k-body phases, and demonstrated numerically on a simulated NV-14N-13C-13C register: a diagonal ei(π/4)ZZZ gate at fidelity 0.9978 and a Hadamard-frame-synthesized ei(π/4)XZZ gate at fidelity 0.9985. The authors claim a 10-100x speedup over existing NV multi-qubit entanglers and argue the phase-invariant objective reduces characterization and optimization overhead.

Significance. If the central claim is made precise, the support-selective phase invariants are a genuinely useful coordinate system for locally diagonalizable multi-qubit gates. The algebraic derivations are clean and closed-form: Props. 1-2 and the Appendix A alternating-sum identity are exact linear identities, not fits to data, and the three-qubit formulas in Appendix B check out. The paper also ships reproducible code on Zenodo/GitHub (ref. [77]) and the reported fidelities are computed against the target unitary, an independent metric from the cost function, so I do not share the circularity concern. The broad 'n-qubit unitary' framing, however, is currently too strong: the decomposition is defined for a chosen diagonalizing frame and a chosen real lift of the phase map, and as stated the paper does not give a canonical lift. The phase-lift issue is load-bearing, because it affects even naturally diagonal gates and the claimed uniqueness of the k-body resolution. The numerical NV demonstration is also weakened by the explicit neglect of a term that the paper's own Appendix C(j) says can be material at the demonstrated pulse durations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (6), Prop. 2, Eq. (23)] There is a domain inconsistency that undermines the claim of uniqueness. Eq. (6) defines the phase map as φ:{0,1}^n→R/2πZ, but the Walsh expansion (7)-(8), the discrete derivatives (11)-(12), and the invariants (22)-(23) all require a chosen real-valued lift φ:{0,1}^n→R. The invariants are not invariant under adding 2π to a single phase value. For example, for n=3 the identity gate has the equivalent lifts φ≡0 and φ_000=2π (all other φ_x=0). The first gives all Δ_S=0; the second gives Δ_{abc}=-π/4 and each two-body Δ=π/4. Thus Proposition 2's statement that Δ_S 'returns precisely the contribution to φ supported on S' and is invariant under adding any phase contribution supported on R≠S is a statement about a chosen lift, not about the unitary defined by Eq. (6). The cost function (25) is not invariant under this physically irrelevant redefinition. The numerical simulations may implicitly
  2. [Sec. II.A.1, Eq. (1); Conclusion] The framework's physical meaning depends on the diagonalizing frame V being local for the operations of interest. For a generic n-qubit unitary, V is entangling, and the k-body coefficients of the phase map then describe the frame's content rather than the physical interaction structure of the gate. The paper's examples (single/commuting Pauli-string generators, controlled-phase, Ising, Hadamard-sandwiched XZZ) are all locally diagonalizable, but the abstract and conclusion claim the decomposition applies to 'n-qubit unitaries' and 'arbitrary n-qubit transformations.' This overstates the established scope: the decomposition is a property of the diagonal phase map in a fixed frame. I recommend either restricting the claims to locally diagonalizable targets or explicitly presenting the invariants as frame-relative quantities, which still has value for control but is not the same as an intr
  3. [Appendix C(j), Secs. III.B and III.C] The numerical model neglects the auxiliary-manifold nuclear term H_0^(RWA)(t). Appendix C(j) itself states that for pulse durations of ~1-2 µs these residual oscillations 'can accumulate small but coherent nuclear rotations (amplitude ≲ 2θ_i), and H_0^(RWA)(t) should then be retained in quantitative simulations.' The two demonstrations use T=1.5 µs and T=1.25 µs, precisely in this regime, yet the reported fidelities (Eqs. 36 and 45) are computed without that term. This makes the quantitative claim of a 'realistic' NV simulation and the quoted fidelities potentially optimistic. Please include the term in the simulations or estimate its effect for the specific θ_i values in Table I and show it is negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The single-qubit line writes χ_{i,j}(x); this should be χ_i(x) (or χ_{\{i\}}(x)).
  2. [Figs. 2 and 5 captions] Fig. 2 says the three-body invariant converges to -3π/4, while the text (Sec. III.B) says Δ≈π/4 modulo π. Please state the π-periodicity convention explicitly here, since the reader must infer that -3π/4 and π/4 differ by π and are considered equivalent in the cost function.
  3. [Sec. IV] The conclusion contains a duplicated phrase: 'with reduced with reduced optimization overhead.' Also the sentence 'This reduces characterization costs quadratically with qubit number' should be reconciled with the scaling discussion in the Introduction (Θ(2^n) vs Θ(4^n) is an exponential reduction in the number of parameters, not a quadratic reduction in qubit number).
  4. [Throughout] The paper alternates between 'real-valued phase map' and 'phase map ϕ:{0,1}^n→R/2πZ.' Please standardize the terminology and explicitly state the lift convention used in the numerical simulations, ideally in Sec. II.A.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase invariants are exact linear identities, and reported fidelities use an independent target-unitary metric; the 2π-lift ambiguity is a correctness caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation (Prop. 2, Eqs. 22-23) is self-contained Boolean Fourier analysis: Δ_S(φ) is defined as an averaged discrete derivative, and the proof shows it annihilates all Walsh characters with support not exactly S and equals ±b_φ(S). This is an algebraic identity, not a fit or a prediction from fitted parameters. The target values Δ⋆_S in Eq. (33) are chosen from the target gate, but the reported F_ZZZ=0.9978 and F_XZZ=0.9985 are computed against the full target unitaries via Eqs. (36)/(45), an independent metric from the cost function J_3q. Physical parameters come from external literature (Table I, refs. [51,79]), and self-citations [10,15,26,47,77] are not used to justify the core theorem. The main caveat is the branch-lift issue: Eq. (6) defines φ:{0,1}^n→R/2πZ, while Eqs. (7)-(8) and Appendix A use real-valued phases, so a 2π shift of one phase value changes the Δ_S values (e.g., φ_000→φ_000+2π shifts every three- and two-body invariant by π/4). This makes 'unique' k-body content physically lift-dependent; however, it is a well-definedness/correctness problem, not circularity, because for any fixed lift the derivation is internally consistent. Appendix C(j)'s acknowledgment that the neglected auxiliary-manifold term can rotate nuclei by ≲2θ_i is an explicit model limitation and affects fidelity estimates, but does not make the derivation circular. Overall: no predicted quantity reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation is textbook Boolean-Fourier analysis applied to a unitary's phase map; its mathematical axioms are standard. Load-bearing domain assumptions: (i) local diagonalizability of targets, which confines the 'interaction' interpretation to a restricted class (Eq. 1, Sec. II.A.1); (ii) the RWA/first-order-misalignment truncation of the NV Hamiltonian, with the auxiliary-manifold wobble explicitly neglected (App. C(j)); (iii) literature-sourced register parameters (Table I). Free parameters are methodological choices (cost weights, taper fraction, regularizer strengths, pulse tone count) that shape the demo but are not fitted to data; the π-periodicity convention is an interpretive equivalence, not a fitted constant.

free parameters (4)
  • Cost weights w_|S| (Eq. 25) = not reported (demo: w_1=0, w_2,w_3>0)
    Chosen by hand to weight |S|-body terms in J_3q; the text says weights were chosen so only |S|≥2 contribute but never lists values.
  • Tukey taper fraction α = 0.15
    Eq. (27); chosen by hand; affects pulse smoothness and attainable fidelity.
  • Regularization strengths (leakage, non-unitarity, rapid-variation penalties) = not specified
    Sec. III.B: 'Additional regularization terms penalize leakage, non-unitarity, and rapid control variations' — magnitudes absent, influencing the converged pulse.
  • CRAB tone count n and initial guesses (a_i, ω_i, φ_i) = not stated
    Eqs. (26)/(28): the number of Fourier tones and the initialization strategy are not given; these co-determine reachable fidelity.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Any n-qubit unitary is diagonalizable (spectral theorem); the diagonal phase map fully characterizes U_diag in its frame
    Eqs. (1)-(6), cited to Nielsen & Chuang [41]; background for representing targets as phase maps.
  • standard math Every real function on the Boolean cube has a unique Walsh-Hadamard expansion
    Eqs. (7)-(9), cited to O'Donnell [43], Welch et al. [44], Terras [45]; the whole invariant construction is this expansion.
  • domain assumption The diagonalizing frame V is local for the targeted operations
    Sec. II.A.1: 'many operations of practical relevance ... are locally diagonalizable'; only then do ∆_S values map to physical k-body interaction phases.
  • domain assumption RWA and first-order small-angle (θ_i ≪ 1) expansion of the NV Hamiltonian; auxiliary-manifold nuclear wobble H_0^(RWA) neglected
    Appendix C(d),(j): 'we neglect these residual nuclear terms in the model Hamiltonian for demonstrative purposes', with the disclosed caveat of ≲2θ_i coherent nuclear rotations over 1-2 µs pulses.
  • domain assumption NV register physical parameters from literature/typical ranges
    Appendix D, Table I: values 'correspond to typical experimental ranges reported in Refs. [51,79]'.
  • domain assumption π-periodic equivalence of phase invariants identifies physically equivalent interactions
    Sec. IIC after Eq. (25): shifting ∆_S by π flips only the sign of e^{-i∆_S Z_S}; the cost uses cos(2(∆_S−∆*_S)) and Fig. 2 accepts −3π/4 ≡ π/4.
  • ad hoc to paper Time-integrated exposure model D = exp(−exposure/T2*) approximates dephasing loss
    Eq. (37): presented as 'a simple approximative measure', used only to quote rough upper-bound fidelities (Eqs. 38, 46).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interaction-resolved decomposition of multi-qubit unitaries via computational-basis phases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFUMPGVX

@misc{pith2026260218375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interaction-resolved decomposition of multi-qubit unitaries via computational-basis phases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFUMPGVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.18375}
}
read the original abstract

In multi-qubit quantum control, target unitary operations are commonly specified through full-unitary target descriptions and assessed through global comparison measures. In this work, we introduce an interaction-resolved decomposition of n-qubit unitaries that provides explicit access to their many-body interaction structure through computational-basis phases collected in a diagonalizing frame. Such a frame is conveniently given by local rotations for many operationally relevant operations, including gates generated by single Pauli strings or commuting sets of Pauli strings, such as stabilizer operations, controlled-phase gates, Toffoli-type operations, and Ising interactions. We derive parity-weighted sums of these computational-basis phases that exactly and uniquely resolve k-body interaction terms supported on arbitrary qubit subsets, which we term support-selective phase invariants. These invariants provide an interaction-resolved coordinate system that organizes unitary operations according to their multipartite interaction structure, giving direct access to local, pairwise, tripartite, and general k-partite interaction content underlying entangling operations. This enables the formulation of selective quantum optimal control targets for synthesizing desired combinations of many-body interactions. We supplement this with numerical demonstrations for a representative hardware model, a realistic nitrogen-vacancy spin register, where we synthesized isolated tripartite interactions up to local equivalence within a single control pulse, guided by these invariants, for both diagonal (ZZZ) and non-diagonal (XZZ) terms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Optimized microwave envelope realizing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Time evolution of the phase invariants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Three-qubit population dynamics during the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Time evolution of the phase invariants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Three-qubit population dynamics during the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Control Protocols for Entangling Gates for Group-IV Color-Centers in Diamond

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Three entangling gate types (ZZ, ZX, YY) for group-IV color centers are analyzed via dynamical decoupling, double-quantum transitions, optimal control, and algebraic decomposition, yielding quantum speed limits and pr...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [77]

    Fermionic quantum process- ing with programmable neutral atom arrays.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(35):e2304294120, 2023

    Daniel González-Cuadra, Dolev Bluvstein, Marcin Kali- nowski, Raphael Kaubruegger, Nishad Maskara, Piero Naldesi, Torsten V Zache, Adam M Kaufman, Mikhail D Lukin, Hannes Pichler, et al. Fermionic quantum process- ing with programmable neutral atom arrays.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(35):e2304294120, 2023

    2023

  2. [1]

    Diagonal Phase Map Any n-qubit unitary operator Utarget is diagonalizable [41], i.e., there exists a unitary transformationV such that Udiag =V Utarget V † = X ⃗ x∈{0,1}n eiϕ(⃗ x)|⃗ x⟩ ⟨⃗ x|.(1) While such a diagonalizing transformation need not be local, many operations of practical relevance in quantum control, such as gates generated by Pauli-product H...

  3. [2]

    Walsh Hadamard Expansion Next, we consider that such a phase mapϕ(⃗ x)is simply a real-valued function on the Boolean cube{0, 1}n; it therefore admits a standard representation in terms of Boolean Fourier analysis [43, 45]. In particular, any real- valued function on{0, 1}n has a unique expansion in the {±1}-valued characters, known as the Walsh-Hadamard ...

  4. [3]

    Here, we define for each qubit indexi∈ {1,

    Discrete Derivatives The discrete derivative operator originally stems from the analysis of Boolean functions and provides a derivative for discrete functions on the binary hypercube [43]. Here, we define for each qubit indexi∈ {1, . . . , n}the normalized single qubit discrete derivative operator, as (δiϕ)(x1, . . . , xn) := 1 2 ϕ(x1, . . . , xi−1,1, . ....

  5. [4]

    Quantum optimal control in quan- tum technologies

    Christiane P Koch, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Gun- ther Dirr, Stefan Filipp, Steffen J Glaser, Ronnie Kosloff, Simone Montangero, Thomas Schulte-Herbrüggen, Do- minique Sugny, et al. Quantum optimal control in quan- tum technologies. strategic report on current status, vi- sions and goals for research in europe.EPJ Quantum Technology, 9(1):19, 2022

    2022

  6. [5]

    High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral- atom quantum computer.Nature, 622(7982):268–272, 2023

    Simon J Evered, Dolev Bluvstein, Marcin Kalinowski, Sepehr Ebadi, Tom Manovitz, Hengyun Zhou, Sophie H Li, Alexandra A Geim, Tout T Wang, Nishad Maskara, et al. High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral- atom quantum computer.Nature, 622(7982):268–272, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Time- optimal control of a solid-state spin amidst dynamical quantum wind.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):108, 2024

    Yang Dong, Wang Jiang, Xue-Dong Gao, Cui Yu, Yong Liu, Shao-Chun Zhang, Xiang-Dong Chen, Ibério de PR Moreira, Josep Maria Bofill, Gael Sentís, et al. Time- optimal control of a solid-state spin amidst dynamical quantum wind.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):108, 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    14-qubit entanglement: Creation and coherence.Physical Review Letters, 106(13):130506, 2011

    Thomas Monz, Philipp Schindler, Julio T Barreiro, Michael Chwalla, Daniel Nigg, William A Coish, Max- imilian Harlander, Wolfgang Hänsel, Markus Hennrich, and Rainer Blatt. 14-qubit entanglement: Creation and coherence.Physical Review Letters, 106(13):130506, 2011

    2011

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multi- qubit gates with neutral atoms.Physical review letters, 123(17):170503, 2019

    Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giulia Semeghini, Ahmed Omran, Tout T Wang, Sepehr Ebadi, Hannes Bernien, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuletić, Hannes Pich- ler, et al. Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multi- qubit gates with neutral atoms.Physical review letters, 123(17):...

    2019

  2. [9]

    Generation and manipulation of schrödinger cat states in rydberg atom arrays.Science, 365(6453):570–574, 2019

    Ahmed Omran, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giulia Semeghini, Tout T Wang, Sepehr Ebadi, Hannes Bernien, Alexander S Zibrov, Hannes Pichler, Soonwon Choi, et al. Generation and manipulation of schrödinger cat states in rydberg atom arrays.Science, 365(6453):570–574, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Hardware-efficient and fast three-qubit gate in superconducting quantum circuits.Frontiers of Physics, 19(5):51205, 2024

    Xiao-Le Li, Ziyu Tao, Kangyuan Yi, Kai Luo, Libo Zhang, Yuxuan Zhou, Song Liu, Tongxing Yan, Yuanzhen Chen, and Dapeng Yu. Hardware-efficient and fast three-qubit gate in superconducting quantum circuits.Frontiers of Physics, 19(5):51205, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Microwave- activated high-fidelity three-qubit gate scheme for fixed- frequency superconducting qubits.Physical Review Ap- plied, 24(3):034064, 2025

    Kui Zhao, Wei-Guo Ma, Ziting Wang, Hao Li, Kaixuan Huang, Yun-Hao Shi, Kai Xu, and Heng Fan. Microwave- activated high-fidelity three-qubit gate scheme for fixed- frequency superconducting qubits.Physical Review Ap- plied, 24(3):034064, 2025

    2025

  5. [12]

    Fast microwave-driven three-qubit gates for cavity-coupled superconducting qubits.Physical Review B, 96(2):024504, 2017

    Edwin Barnes, Christian Arenz, Alexander Pitchford, and Sophia E Economou. Fast microwave-driven three-qubit gates for cavity-coupled superconducting qubits.Physical Review B, 96(2):024504, 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    Exper- imental error suppression in cross-resonance gates via multi-derivative pulse shaping.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):66, 2024

    Boxi Li, Tommaso Calarco, and Felix Motzoi. Exper- imental error suppression in cross-resonance gates via multi-derivative pulse shaping.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):66, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Ul- trafast single qubit gates through multi-photon transition removal.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22365, 2025

    Y Gao, A Galicia, JD Jesus, Y Liu, Y Haddad, DA Volkov, JR Guimarães, H Bhardwaj, M Jerger, M Neis, et al. Ul- trafast single qubit gates through multi-photon transition removal.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22365, 2025

    2025

  8. [15]

    Opti- mal control of fast and high-fidelity quantum gates with electron and nuclear spins of a nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond.Phys

    Yi Chou, Shang-Yu Huang, and Hsi-Sheng Goan. Opti- mal control of fast and high-fidelity quantum gates with electron and nuclear spins of a nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond.Phys. Rev. A, 91:052315, May 2015

    2015

  9. [16]

    Grace, Constantin Brif, Herschel Rabitz, Daniel A

    Matthew D. Grace, Constantin Brif, Herschel Rabitz, Daniel A. Lidar, Ian A. Walmsley, and Robert L. Kosut. Fidelity of optimally controlled quantum gates with ran- domly coupled multiparticle environments.Journal of Modern Optics, 54(16-17):2339–2349, 2007

    2007

  10. [17]

    Optimal control of families of quantum gates.Physical review letters, 129(5):050507, 2022

    Frédéric Sauvage and Florian Mintert. Optimal control of families of quantum gates.Physical review letters, 129(5):050507, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Circuit design for a star-shaped spin- qubit processor via algebraic decomposition and optimal control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16900, 2025

    Yaqing X Wang, Tommaso Calarco, Felix Motzoi, and Matthias M Müller. Circuit design for a star-shaped spin- qubit processor via algebraic decomposition and optimal control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16900, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Optimalcontrol of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms.Journal of magnetic reso- nance, 172(2):296–305, 2005

    Navin Khaneja, Timo Reiss, Cindie Kehlet, Thomas Schulte-Herbrüggen, andSteffenJGlaser. Optimalcontrol of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms.Journal of magnetic reso- nance, 172(2):296–305, 2005

    2005

  13. [20]

    Second order gradient ascent pulse engineering.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 212(2):412– 417, 2011

    Pierre de Fouquieres, Sophie G Schirmer, Steffen J Glaser, and Ilya Kuprov. Second order gradient ascent pulse engineering.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 212(2):412– 417, 2011

    2011

  14. [21]

    Optimal control methods for rapidly time- varying hamiltonians.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molec- ular, and Optical Physics, 84(2):022307, 2011

    F Motzoi, Jay M Gambetta, Seth T Merkel, and Frank K Wilhelm. Optimal control methods for rapidly time- varying hamiltonians.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molec- ular, and Optical Physics, 84(2):022307, 2011

    2011

  15. [22]

    Spinach–a software library for simulation of spin dynamics in large spin systems.Journal of magnetic resonance, 208(2):179– 194, 2011

    Hannah J Hogben, Matthew Krzystyniak, Gareth TP Charnock, Peter J Hore, and Ilya Kuprov. Spinach–a software library for simulation of spin dynamics in large spin systems.Journal of magnetic resonance, 208(2):179– 194, 2011

    2011

  16. [23]

    Krotov: A python implemen- tation of krotov’s method for quantum optimal control

    Michael Goerz, Daniel Basilewitsch, Fernando Gago- Encinas, Matthias G Krauss, Karl P Horn, Daniel M Reich, and Christiane Koch. Krotov: A python implemen- tation of krotov’s method for quantum optimal control. SciPost physics, 7(6):080, 2019

    2019

  17. [24]

    Monotonically convergent optimization in quantum control using krotov’s method.The Journal of chemical physics, 136(10), 2012

    Daniel M Reich, Mamadou Ndong, and Christiane P Koch. Monotonically convergent optimization in quantum control using krotov’s method.The Journal of chemical physics, 136(10), 2012

    2012

  18. [25]

    Optimal control theory for a unitary operation under dissipative evolution.New Journal of Physics, 16(5):055012, 2014

    Michael H Goerz, Daniel M Reich, and Christiane P Koch. Optimal control theory for a unitary operation under dissipative evolution.New Journal of Physics, 16(5):055012, 2014

    2014

  19. [26]

    Chopped random-basis quantum optimiza- tion.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 84(2):022326, 2011

    Tommaso Caneva, Tommaso Calarco, and Simone Mon- tangero. Chopped random-basis quantum optimiza- tion.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 84(2):022326, 2011

    2011

  20. [27]

    Dressing the chopped-random-basis 12 optimization: A bandwidth-limited access to the trap-free landscape.Physical Review A, 92(6):062343, 2015

    Niklas Rach, Matthias M Müller, Tommaso Calarco, and Simone Montangero. Dressing the chopped-random-basis 12 optimization: A bandwidth-limited access to the trap-free landscape.Physical Review A, 92(6):062343, 2015

    2015

  21. [28]

    Optimal control technique for many-body quan- tum dynamics.Physical review letters, 106(19):190501, 2011

    Patrick Doria, Tommaso Calarco, and Simone Mon- tangero. Optimal control technique for many-body quan- tum dynamics.Physical review letters, 106(19):190501, 2011

    2011

  22. [29]

    One decade of quantum optimal control in the chopped random basis

    Matthias Mueller, Ressa Suhardiman Said, Fedor Jelezko, Tommaso Calarco, and Simone Montangero. One decade of quantum optimal control in the chopped random basis. Reports on Progress in Physics, 2022

    2022

  23. [30]

    Steffen J Glaser, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Chris- tiane P Koch, Walter Köckenberger, Ronnie Kosloff, Ilya Kuprov, Burkhard Luy, Sophie Schirmer, Thomas Schulte- Herbrüggen, et al. Training schrödinger’s cat: Quantum optimal control: Strategic report on current status, vi-...

    2015

  24. [31]

    Continuous quantum gate sets and pulse-class meta- optimization.PRX Quantum, 3(4):040311, 2022

    Francesco Preti, Tommaso Calarco, and Felix Motzoi. Continuous quantum gate sets and pulse-class meta- optimization.PRX Quantum, 3(4):040311, 2022

    2022

  25. [32]

    Steering the optimization pathway in the control land- scape using constraints.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 88(5):053409, 2013

    José P Palao, Daniel M Reich, and Christiane P Koch. Steering the optimization pathway in the control land- scape using constraints.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 88(5):053409, 2013

    2013

  26. [33]

    Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future

    Constantin Brif, Raj Chakrabarti, and Herschel Rabitz. Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future. New Journal of Physics, 12(7):075008, 2010

    2010

  27. [34]

    Geometric theory of nonlocal two-qubit operations

    Jun Zhang, Jiri Vala, Shankar Sastry, and K Birgitta Wha- ley. Geometric theory of nonlocal two-qubit operations. Physical Review A, 67(4):042313, 2003

    2003

  28. [35]

    Counteracting systems of diabaticities using drag con- trols: The status after 10 years (a).Europhysics Letters, 123(6):60001, 2018

    LS Theis, F Motzoi, S Machnes, and FK Wilhelm. Counteracting systems of diabaticities using drag con- trols: The status after 10 years (a).Europhysics Letters, 123(6):60001, 2018

    2018

  29. [36]

    Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Con- cepts, methods, and applications.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045001, 2019

    David Guéry-Odelin, Andreas Ruschhaupt, Anthony Kiely, Erik Torrontegui, Sofia Martínez-Garaot, and Juan Gonzalo Muga. Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Con- cepts, methods, and applications.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045001, 2019

    2019

  30. [37]

    Classical feature map surrogates and metrics for quan- tum control landscapes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25930, 2025

    Martino Calzavara, Tommaso Calarco, and Felix Motzoi. Classical feature map surrogates and metrics for quan- tum control landscapes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25930, 2025

    2025

  31. [38]

    Effi- cient quantum state tomography.Nature communications, 1(1):149, 2010

    Marcus Cramer, Martin B Plenio, Steven T Flammia, RolandoSomma, DavidGross, StephenDBartlett, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, David Poulin, and Yi-Kai Liu. Effi- cient quantum state tomography.Nature communications, 1(1):149, 2010

    2010

  32. [39]

    Control- ling quantum many-body systems using reduced-order modeling.Physical Review Research, 6(1):013161, 2024

    IA Luchnikov, MA Gavreev, and AK Fedorov. Control- ling quantum many-body systems using reduced-order modeling.Physical Review Research, 6(1):013161, 2024

    2024

  33. [40]

    Selective and efficient estimation of parameters for quantum process tomography.Physical review letters, 100(19):190403, 2008

    Ariel Bendersky, Fernando Pastawski, and Juan Pablo Paz. Selective and efficient estimation of parameters for quantum process tomography.Physical review letters, 100(19):190403, 2008

    2008

  34. [41]

    Quantum tomography with random diagonal unitary maps and statistical bounds on information generation using random matrix theory

    Sreeram PG and Vaibhav Madhok. Quantum tomography with random diagonal unitary maps and statistical bounds on information generation using random matrix theory. Physical Review A, 104(3), September 2021

    2021

  35. [42]

    Partial standard quantum process tomography.Quantum information processing, 12(2):1379–1393, 2013

    Xiaohua Wu and Ke Xu. Partial standard quantum process tomography.Quantum information processing, 12(2):1379–1393, 2013

    2013

  36. [43]

    Demonstration of entanglement-enhanced phase estimation in solid.Nature Communications, 6(1):6726, 2015

    Gang-Qin Liu, Yu-Ran Zhang, Yan-Chun Chang, Jie- Dong Yue, Heng Fan, and Xin-Yu Pan. Demonstration of entanglement-enhanced phase estimation in solid.Nature Communications, 6(1):6726, 2015

    2015

  37. [44]

    Quantum compu- tation and quantum information.Phys

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum compu- tation and quantum information.Phys. Today, 54(2):60, 2001

    2001

  38. [45]

    Chapman and hall/CRC, 2021

    Domenico d’Alessandro.Introduction to quantum control and dynamics. Chapman and hall/CRC, 2021

    2021

  39. [46]

    Cam- bridge University Press, 2014

    Ryan O’Donnell.Analysis of boolean functions. Cam- bridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  40. [47]

    Efficient quantum circuits for diag- onal unitaries without ancillas.New Journal of Physics, 16(3):033040, 2014

    Jonathan Welch, Daniel Greenbaum, Sarah Mostame, and Alan Aspuru-Guzik. Efficient quantum circuits for diag- onal unitaries without ancillas.New Journal of Physics, 16(3):033040, 2014

    2014

  41. [48]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    Audrey Terras.Fourier Analysis on Finite Groups and Applications, volume 43 ofLondon Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    1999

  42. [49]

    Optimizing for an arbi- trary perfect entangler

    Paul Watts, Jiří Vala, Matthias M Müller, Tommaso Calarco, K Birgitta Whaley, Daniel M Reich, Michael H Goerz, and Christiane P Koch. Optimizing for an arbi- trary perfect entangler. i. functionals.Physical Review A, 91(6):062306, 2015

    2015

  43. [50]

    Optimizing for an arbitrary perfect entangler

    Michael H Goerz, Giulia Gualdi, Daniel M Reich, Chris- tiane P Koch, Felix Motzoi, K Birgitta Whaley, Jiří Vala, Matthias M Müller, Simone Montangero, and Tommaso Calarco. Optimizing for an arbitrary perfect entangler. ii. application.Physical Review A, 91(6):062307, 2015

    2015

  44. [51]

    Characterization of two-qubit perfect entanglers.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(5):052313, 2004

    AT Rezakhani. Characterization of two-qubit perfect entanglers.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(5):052313, 2004

    2004

  45. [52]

    Romana Schirhagl, Kevin Chang, Michael Loretz, and Christian L. Degen. Nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond: Nanoscale sensors for physics and biology.Annual Re- view of Physical Chemistry, 65(1):83–105, 2014. PMID: 24274702

    2014

  46. [53]

    PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, 2012

    Philipp Neumann.Towards a Room Temperature Solid State Quantum Processor – The Nitrogen-Vacancy Center in Diamond. PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, 2012. PhD thesis

    2012

  47. [54]

    Optimisation of di- amond quantum processors.New Journal of Physics, 22(9):093068, sep 2020

    YunHeng Chen, Sophie Stearn, Scott Vella, Andrew Horsley, and Marcus W Doherty. Optimisation of di- amond quantum processors.New Journal of Physics, 22(9):093068, sep 2020

    2020

  48. [55]

    A ten-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute.Physical Review X, 9(3):031045, 2019

    Conor E Bradley, Joe Randall, Mohamed H Abobeih, Re- mon C Berrevoets, Maarten J Degen, Michiel A Bakker, Matthew Markham, Daniel J Twitchen, and Tim H Taminiau. A ten-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute.Physical Review X, 9(3):031045, 2019

    2019

  49. [56]

    Single-gate, multipartite entanglement on a room-temperature quantum register.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08465, 2025

    Joseph D Minnella, Mathieu Ouellet, Amelia R Klein, and Lee C Bassett. Single-gate, multipartite entanglement on a room-temperature quantum register.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08465, 2025

    2025

  50. [57]

    Generation of genuine all-way entanglement in defect- nuclear spin systems through dynamical decoupling se- quences.Quantum, 8:1304, 2024

    Evangelia Takou, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E Economou. Generation of genuine all-way entanglement in defect- nuclear spin systems through dynamical decoupling se- quences.Quantum, 8:1304, 2024

    2024

  51. [58]

    Doherty, Chunhui Rita Du, and Gregory D

    Marcus W. Doherty, Chunhui Rita Du, and Gregory D. Fuchs. Quantum science and technology based on color centers with accessible spin.Journal of Applied Physics, 131(1):010401, 2022

    2022

  52. [59]

    Revealing the emergence of classicality using nitrogen-vacancy centers

    Thomas K Unden, Daniel Louzon, Michael Zwolak, Wo- jciech Hubert Zurek, and Fedor Jelezko. Revealing the emergence of classicality using nitrogen-vacancy centers. 13 Physical review letters, 123(14):140402, 2019

    2019

  53. [60]

    Krotov method for optimal control of closed quantum systems.Russian Mathematical Surveys, 74(5):851, 2019

    Oleg V Morzhin and Alexander N Pechen. Krotov method for optimal control of closed quantum systems.Russian Mathematical Surveys, 74(5):851, 2019

    2019

  54. [61]

    Henriksen

    Niels E. Henriksen. Laser control of chemical reactions. Chem. Soc. Rev., 31:37–42, 2002

    2002

  55. [62]

    Quantum speed limit for non-markovian dynamics.Physical review letters, 111(1):010402, 2013

    Sebastian Deffner and Eric Lutz. Quantum speed limit for non-markovian dynamics.Physical review letters, 111(1):010402, 2013

    2013

  56. [63]

    Quantum decay and the mandelstam-tamm-energy inequality.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 16(13):2993, 1983

    Kamal Bhattacharyya. Quantum decay and the mandelstam-tamm-energy inequality.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 16(13):2993, 1983

    1983

  57. [64]

    Quantum optimal control in a chopped basis: Appli- cations in control of bose-einstein condensates.Physical Review A, 98(2):022119, 2018

    JJWH Sorensen, MO Aranburu, T Heinzel, and JF Sher- son. Quantum optimal control in a chopped basis: Appli- cations in control of bose-einstein condensates.Physical Review A, 98(2):022119, 2018

    2018

  58. [65]

    Optimization of pulses with low bandwidth for improved excitation of multiple-quantum coherences in nmr of quadrupolar nuclei.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 152(5), 2020

    Jens Jakob Sørensen, Jacob Søgaard Nyemann, Felix Mot- zoi, Jacob Sherson, and Thomas Vosegaard. Optimization of pulses with low bandwidth for improved excitation of multiple-quantum coherences in nmr of quadrupolar nuclei.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 152(5), 2020

    2020

  59. [66]

    Distributed entanglement.Physical Review A, 61(5):052306, 2000

    Valerie Coffman, Joydip Kundu, and William K Woot- ters. Distributed entanglement.Physical Review A, 61(5):052306, 2000

    2000

  60. [67]

    Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways.Physical Review A, 62(6):062314, 2000

    Wolfgang Dür, Guifre Vidal, and J Ignacio Cirac. Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways.Physical Review A, 62(6):062314, 2000

    2000

  61. [68]

    Observation of measurement-induced en- tanglement and quantum trajectories of remote supercon- ducting qubits.Physical review letters, 112(17):170501, 2014

    Nicolas Roch, Mollie E Schwartz, Felix Motzoi, Christo- pherMacklin, RajamaniVijay, AndrewWEddins, Alexan- der N Korotkov, K Birgitta Whaley, Mohan Sarovar, and Irfan Siddiqi. Observation of measurement-induced en- tanglement and quantum trajectories of remote supercon- ductin...

    2014

  62. [69]

    Ultralong spin coherence time in isotopically engineered diamond.Nature materials, 8(5):383–387, 2009

    Gopalakrishnan Balasubramanian, Philipp Neumann, Daniel Twitchen, Matthew Markham, Roman Kolesov, Norikazu Mizuochi, Junichi Isoya, Jocelyn Achard, Jo- hannes Beck, Julia Tissler, et al. Ultralong spin coherence time in isotopically engineered diamond.Nature materials, 8(5):38...

    2009

  63. [70]

    Room-temperaturequantumbit memory exceeding one second.Science, 336(6086):1283– 1286, 2012

    Peter Christian Maurer, Georg Kucsko, Christian Latta, Liang Jiang, Norman Ying Yao, Steven D Bennett, Fer- nando Pastawski, David Hunger, Nicholas Chisholm, MatthewMarkham, etal. Room-temperaturequantumbit memory exceeding one second.Science, 336(6086):1283– 1286, 2012

    2012

  64. [71]

    California Institute of Technology, 1997

    Daniel Gottesman.Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. California Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  65. [72]

    Surface codes: Towards practi- cal large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(3):032324, 2012

    Austin G Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M Martinis, and Andrew N Cleland. Surface codes: Towards practi- cal large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(3):032324, 2012

    2012

  66. [73]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery.Quantum, 3:128, 2019

    Daniel Litinski. A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery.Quantum, 3:128, 2019

    2019

  67. [74]

    Improved electron- nuclear quantum gates for spin sensing and control.PRX Quantum, 6(2):020309, 2025

    HB Van Ommen, GL Van De Stolpe, N Demetriou, HKC Beukers, Jiwon Yun, TRJ Fortuin, M Iuliano, AR-P Mont- blanch, R Hanson, and TH Taminiau. Improved electron- nuclear quantum gates for spin sensing and control.PRX Quantum, 6(2):020309, 2025

    2025

  68. [75]

    Universal control and error correction in multi-qubit spin registers in diamond.Nature nanotechnology, 9(3):171–176, 2014

    Tim Hugo Taminiau, Julia Cramer, Toeno van der Sar, Viatcheslav V Dobrovitski, and Ronald Hanson. Universal control and error correction in multi-qubit spin registers in diamond.Nature nanotechnology, 9(3):171–176, 2014

    2014

  69. [76]

    Quantum optimization with arbitrary connectivity using rydberg atom arrays.PRX Quantum, 4(1):010316, 2023

    Minh-Thi Nguyen, Jin-Guo Liu, Jonathan Wurtz, Mikhail D Lukin, Sheng-Tao Wang, and Hannes Pich- ler. Quantum optimization with arbitrary connectivity using rydberg atom arrays.PRX Quantum, 4(1):010316, 2023

    2023

  70. [78]

    Controlling quantum many-body dynamics in driven rydberg atom arrays.Science, 371(6536):1355–1359, 2021

    Dolev Bluvstein, Ahmed Omran, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giulia Semeghini, Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T Wang, Alexios A Michailidis, Nishad Maskara, Wen Wei Ho, et al. Controlling quantum many-body dynamics in driven rydberg atom arrays.Science, 371(6536):1355–1359, 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    Hardware- efficient, fault-tolerant quantum computation with ryd- berg atoms.Physical Review X, 12(2):021049, 2022

    Iris Cong, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Dolev Blu- vstein, Sheng-Tao Wang, and Mikhail D Lukin. Hardware- efficient, fault-tolerant quantum computation with ryd- berg atoms.Physical Review X, 12(2):021049, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Towards scalable multi-qubit optimal control via interaction decomposition in the diago- nal frame.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18714747,

    Bora Baran. Towards scalable multi-qubit optimal control via interaction decomposition in the diago- nal frame.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18714747,

    doi

  73. [82]

    Oxford university press, 2001

    Arthur Schweiger and Gunnar Jeschke.Principles of pulse electron paramagnetic resonance. Oxford university press, 2001

    2001

  74. [83]

    A P Nizovtsev, S Ya Kilin, A L Pushkarchuk, V A Pushkarchuk, and F Jelezko. Theoretical study of hy- perfine interactions and optically detected magnetic reso- nance spectra by simulation of the c291[nv]-h172 diamond cluster hosting nitrogen-vacancy center.New Journal of Physi...

    2014

  75. [84]

    13C2 (I= 1 2) γ/2π(MHz/T) 3.077 10.71 10.71 Azz (MHz)−2.142.281−1.011 A⊥ (MHz) 0.00 0.240 0.014 Q(MHz)−5.010.00 0.00 Accordingly, under the RWA the nuclear sector becomes H (R W A) 0 (t)≈ X i (γiB0θi) I ′iycos(γ iB0t) +I ′ixsin(γ iB0t) ≈0 H (R W A) −1 ≈ − X i (ωi −γ iB0)I ′ iz...

  76. [2026]

    Software

    Zenodo, Version v1.0.2. Software

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.