Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Deterministic atom-shuttle interconnects via ultrafast atom-ion entangling gate

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deterministic controlled-Z gate between a Rydberg atom and a trapped ion can be realized in a single 5-microsecond trap period by balancing the charge-induced-dipole force with a spin-dependent optical Magnus force.

desk verdict Single-ion gate idea is clean and promising, but the multi-ion mode-closure schedule simulates a different force model than the one proposed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15597 v1 pith:YL7K6GDZ submitted 2026-07-17 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Mu Qiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph MSC 81P6881V80 PACS 03.67.Lx37.10.Ty32.80.Ee
keywords atom-ionentanglementcontrolled-ZgateRydbergatomtrappediongeometricphaseMagnusforcecharge-induced-dipoleinteractionhybridquantummemory
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 proposes a fast, deterministic entangling gate between a neutral Rydberg atom and a trapped ion. The gate balances the charge-induced-dipole attraction of the Rydberg atom with a spin-dependent optical Magnus force on the ion so that each logical branch traces a closed loop in phase space, accumulating a conditional π phase in one 5 µs trap period. If the force balance holds, the gate gives ~5 kHz atom shuttling between ion modules and enables hybrid qLDPC quantum memories where atoms compute and ions store, with orders of magnitude more operations than single-platform architectures. The core new object is the matching condition ΦCZ = −8π(ω_g/ω)² together with a Rydberg-toggling schedule that closes spectator modes in multi-ion crystals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matching condition between two state-dependent forces: the charge–induced-dipole (C4) attraction of a Rydberg-excited atom, which pulls the ion regardless of ion spin when the atom is in |r⟩, and the optical Magnus force from a tightly focused beam with a transverse polarization gradient, which pushes a stretched-Zeeman ion in opposite directions for |↑⟩ and |↓⟩. Tuned so both have amplitude ω_g, the Hamiltonian reduces to a constant displacement force on each branch, and the single-trap-period geometric phase is ΦCZ = −8π(ω_g/ω)²; setting ω_g = ω/(2√2) makes the controlled-Z phase equal to π. For multi-ion crystals, the paper adds Rydberg-state toggling: nanos

What would settle it

Measure the displacement of the ion's motional wavefunction (or the accumulated geometric phase) under the proposed Magnus beam configuration as a function of beam power; the paper predicts a linear force with coefficient g = 4Ũ₀λ̄/w₀², so a deviation beyond the ~1% matching tolerance would shift the CZ phase away from π. A direct version: run the proposed CZ sequence at d ≈ 12 µm with the Magnus beam on and off—the concurrence should reach ~1 at T = 5 µs only when the beam is on and matched, and the conditional phase should scale as −8π(ω_g/ω)² as the Magnus coupling is varied.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By balancing the attractive charge–induced-dipole (C4) force between a Rydberg atom and a trapped ion against a spin-dependent optical Magnus force on the ion, the paper shows that all four logical branches of the atom–ion qubit follow closed phase-space loops returning after one trap period T. The identity ΦCZ = −8π(ω_g/ω)² gives a π conditional phase at ω_g = ω/(2√2), making the interaction a controlled-Z gate in ~5 µs; the |r,↑⟩ branch stays stationary because the C4 pull cancels the Magnus push. For ion crystals, Rydberg-state toggling flips the sign of C4 on an optimized schedule that closes all spectator modes at t = T. Circuit-level Monte Carlo then claims a hybrid atom/ion qLDPC memo

Load-bearing premise

The gate rests on the assumption that a tightly focused beam's optical Magnus effect acts as a pure, spin-dependent constant force on the ion with amplitude g = 4Ũ₀λ̄/w₀², switchable in under a nanosecond and exactly matched to the C4 force; this force model is cited from other work on 171Yb⁺ stretched states and is not measured or demonstrated in this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deterministic atom–ion CZ gate in ~5 µs, with fidelity ≈97% at n = 60 and >99% at n = 80 or with circular Rydberg states, so ions and neutral atoms can be entangled without measurement.
  • Neutral atoms can act as fast flying interconnects: shuttling a tweezer between two ion modules gives ~5 kHz entanglement generation, about 20 times faster than heralded photonic links, out to ~2 mm separation.
  • Rydberg-state toggling closes spectator modes, so the gate works on ion crystals of at least 10 ions with ~97.4% fidelity and up to 100 ions with circular Rydberg states at ~99.9%; gate time grows linearly with N only for N ≳ 25.
  • Hybrid qLDPC memories with passive ion storage have per-operation logical error set by the write/read transfer cost rather than by continuous syndrome extraction, with transfer infidelity 2.67×10⁻⁴ at distance 6 and 2.22×10⁻⁵ at distance 12.
  • Because 87% of Rydberg decay is heralded erasure, even a ~2% atom–ion gate error can be converted into a correctable erasure channel, lowering the practical fidelity needed for fault tolerance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the optical Magnus force model is confirmed experimentally, the same matching condition may generalize to other spin-dependent forces, such as magnetic-field gradients, allowing fast neutral–ion gates without relying on a specific Rydberg pair.
  • The mode-closure schedule's ability to absorb the asymmetric 0.84 C4 ratio into segment durations suggests the gate is robust to modest miscalibration of the atom–ion distance or polarizability; this could be tested by measuring gate fidelity versus d without re-optimizing the schedule.
  • The paper's passive-storage argument implies that hybrid memories are most valuable for workloads with idle intervals of seconds to minutes; adapting it to circular Rydberg states reduces the decay floor by orders of magnitude, but requires the Purcell-enhancement assumption at the specific Yb transition to hold.
  • If the predicted ~5 kHz shuttle rate is realized, atom shuttling would become the interconnect of choice for modular processors with internode gaps below ~2 mm; a direct comparison with photonic links at larger gaps is an obvious next benchmark.
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 manuscript proposes a deterministic controlled-Z gate between a single trapped ion and a Rydberg-excited neutral atom, generated by the charge-induced-dipole (C4) force and balanced by a spin-dependent optical Magnus force. The single-ion derivation is self-contained: for matched C4 and Magnus amplitudes, each logical branch undergoes a closed phase-space loop in one trap period and the accumulated geometric phase yields a conditional π phase. The authors then introduce a Rydberg-state toggling protocol intended to close spectator ion-crystal modes, and use this gate to motivate a ~5 kHz atom-shuttle interconnect and hybrid atom/ion qLDPC memory architectures. The claims are supported by QuTiP simulations of the single-ion gate, MQDT-based C4 calculations cross-validated against 174Yb Stark measurements, and Stim/BP+OSD circuit-level Monte Carlo simulations for the architecture comparison.

Significance. If the central gate mechanism and its multi-ion extension are correct, this would be a significant advance: it offers a microsecond-scale, deterministic atom–ion interface, an order of magnitude faster than existing collisional or Rydberg-dressed proposals, and it gives a concrete route to hybrid qLDPC memories with passive ion storage. The paper is commendably explicit about error budgets, uses open-source numerical tools, reports machine-checked circuit simulations, and includes a careful MQDT-based state selection with quantitative caveats on absolute C4 calibration. However, the multi-ion and architecture-level claims rest on a mode-closure assumption that, as written, does not match the physical forces of the proposed toggle pair; this is a load-bearing issue that must be resolved before the scalability and hybrid-memory conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§S5, Eq. (S12) and §S6 'Implication for the toggle schedule'] The closure condition Eq. (S12) assumes a single common toggle function s(t) multiplying the force on every logical branch. With the selected 3P2/3D2 pair the Rydberg force is C·s_C(t) with s_C={+1,−0.84}, while the Magnus beam is described only as sign-reversed (Pockels cell/AOM), not amplitude-scaled. The branch forces are then −M s_M, +M s_M, C s_C−M s_M, and C s_C+M s_M, which are not proportional to a single s(t). In particular, with M=C the |r↑⟩ branch has residual force 0.16C on the 3D2 segments, so it is not 'trivially closed'; the |g⟩ branches see only ±M while |r↓⟩ sees {2C,−1.84C}. The quoted residuals (10^−18 at N=10, Table S4, Fig. S1) therefore appear to simulate a different Hamiltonian from the physically described one. Please redo the closure optimization with the actual branch-dependent forces, or explicitly specify and analyze an amplitude-tracking Magnus beam that make
  2. [§S5, Eqs. (S11)–(S12)] The mode-closure system includes only the N ion-chain normal modes. However, Eq. (S3) also contains a C4 force on the atom's own motional mode, −ℏω_g(a†_atom+a_atom)|r⟩⟨r|, so on the |r⟩ branches the atom mode is driven by −ω_g s_C(t) and must close as well. Fig. S1(e) states that the concurrence traces out 'all ten motional modes', but the atom is an eleventh driven oscillator. Unless the atom mode is intentionally decoupled or its residual displacement is shown to be negligible, the closure optimization is incomplete. Add the atom mode to Eq. (S12) or justify its omission quantitatively.
  3. [§S8.B, Fig. S5(a), Table S11] The hybrid-architecture advantage at p_aa=10^−3 is projected using the central 66× herald-boost factor, which is estimated from a single observed logical failure in 2.16×10^5 logical-rounds (Poisson 95% CI [12,2600]; the text itself acknowledges this). Table S11 then lists hybrid p_L values as low as ~3×10^−19, and the main text states 'orders of magnitude more operations'. The lower end of the confidence interval (12×) supports a more modest but still positive advantage; the upper-end projections are not statistically supported. Similarly, Table S9's T*_store≈360 s is a linear-log interpolation between T=300 s, whose Wilson CI includes 1.5×10^−3 (above the 2p_T≈5.3×10^−4 budget), and T=1000 s. Please provide dedicated Monte Carlo runs or rare-event splitting to sharpen these points, or frame the architecture conclusions around the lower-bound (12×) estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§S5, after Eq. (S12)] The sentence 'the |r,↑⟩ branch is trivially closed because its two force contributions cancel instantaneously' should be qualified: it holds only if the Magnus amplitude tracks the instantaneous C4 amplitude exactly, including the 0.84 amplitude ratio on the 3D2 segments.
  2. [Throughout] The text contains numerous encoding artifacts such as 'F ˜A¶rster', 'M ˜Aˇ zlmer', and 'Schr ˜A¶dinger'. These should be fixed before publication.
  3. [Fig. S2] The legend entries 'Opt. A' and 'current pair (mis-labelled)' are cryptic; please define them explicitly in the caption so the reader can map them to the states of Table S5.
  4. [§S2] The Rb-scaled C4 estimate for 6s60s 3S1 is later explicitly superseded by the MQDT-based values. Consider removing or clearly labeling this preliminary estimate to avoid confusing the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gate phase is derived from the stated Hamiltonian; C4 inputs are externally benchmarked and architecture results are Monte Carlo outputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the linearized C4 interaction (Eq. S1) and the Magnus force (Eq. S2), the branch force amplitudes and the conditional phase Phi_CZ = -8*pi*(omega_g/omega)^2 are computed analytically (Eqs. S5-S6); the pi condition is a design target that fixes omega_g = omega/(2*sqrt(2)) and d_CZ, not a quantity fitted to the target. The C4 values come from MQDT calculations cross-validated against independent 174Yb Stark measurements (Sec. S6), with explicit factor-3 calibration caveats, and the Magnus prefactor is cited to external theoretical work. The multi-ion mode-closure schedules are numerical optimizations of Eq. (S12); the quoted residuals are outputs, and the paper explicitly re-optimizes with the asymmetric {+1,-0.84} toggle sequence. The hybrid-qLDPC numbers are circuit-level Monte Carlo simulations with declared noise parameters, not fits to the conclusion. The self-citations (e.g., ion coherence Ref. [3]) supply supporting measured inputs, not the derivation chain. The skeptic's concern about whether sign-only Magnus toggling realizes a common s(t) on all branches is a physical-consistency question about the proposed apparatus, not a circular reduction of the gate prediction to its assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the scheme uses existing Rydberg states, the Coulomb field of an ion, and optical forces. The central derivation is self-contained, but the gate and architecture results depend on the listed force model, decay, cooling, and noise assumptions.

free parameters (6)
  • Atom-ion gate error p_ai = 1.5% central (also 2%)
    Chosen/assumed input for architecture Monte Carlo; not derived from the physics. Determines all logical error rates in the hybrid transfer and SE-internal protocols.
  • Atom-atom CZ error p_aa = 1e-3 near-term target; 5e-3 current
    Used in Fig 4(b) and Table S8; the 1e-3 value is projected, not demonstrated, and drives the hybrid advantage.
  • Rydberg decay lifetime τ_r(3D2) = ≈100 µs at 4 K (range 50-150 µs)
    Sets the dominant gate infidelity 2.4%; quoted from PairInteraction MQDT with no direct experimental check at n=60.
  • Absolute C4 scale and gate distance = |C4|≈1.9×10^-46 J m^4; d_CZ≈12 µm
    Computed from MQDT with O(factor 3) absolute calibration uncertainty; operating distance shifts within ~20%.
  • Heralded-erasure fraction η = 0.87
    Taken from Scholl et al.; the entire architecture advantage hinges on this fraction being high and detectable.
  • Technical error budget = ~1e-3 per gate
    Lumps motional heating, Magnus intensity noise, micromotion, and AC Stark shift; assumed rather than measured.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Harmonic-oscillator displacement operators generate closed phase-space loops with geometric phase 2πf².
    Standard result used in Eq. (S5) for the phase of each logical branch.
  • standard math A piecewise-constant sign sequence with N_seg segments can satisfy the 2N mode-closure constraints (Eq. S12).
    Counting argument: N_seg-1 real unknown durations vs 2N real closure equations; numerical optimizer used.
  • domain assumption Linearization of V=-C4/(d+x)^4 to first order in ℓ/d is valid, with anharmonic corrections controlled for n̄≲1.
    The gate Hamiltonian Eq. (S3) is the linearized model; Sec. S7 shows anharmonic infidelity grows with n̄ and exceeds budget at the Doppler limit.
  • domain assumption The optical Magnus force formula g=4Ũ0λ̄/w0² describes a constant spin-dependent force on the ion.
    Central to the gate; cited from Refs. [15,16] and not experimentally demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Rydberg decay in 171Yb is 87% heralded as erasure via atom-loss/autoionization detection.
    All architecture error-rate simulations use η=0.87 (Eq. S16), imported from Refs. [1,24].
  • domain assumption Ion clock-state coherence T2=10 h and passive storage up to ~360 s without syndrome extraction is sufficient.
    Hybrid memory design uses measured T2 from Refs. [3,4] and Table S9 simulation of passive-storage logical lifetime.
  • domain assumption Sub-Doppler cooling to n̄≈1 is available and compatible with the Rydberg atom.
    EIT or Raman cooling is required; the gate fails at the Doppler limit of 171Yb+ in a 200 kHz trap (Sec. S7).
  • domain assumption The ion can be held in magnetically sensitive stretched states for 5 µs with negligible dephasing.
    Gate operates in the |F=1, mF=±1⟩ basis; mapping to the clock states happens before/after the gate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic atom-shuttle interconnects via ultrafast atom-ion entangling gate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YL7K6GDZ

@misc{pith2026260715597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic atom-shuttle interconnects via ultrafast atom-ion entangling gate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YL7K6GDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15597}
}
abstract

Neutral-atom arrays and trapped-ion crystals offer complementary strengths for fault-tolerant quantum computing but lack a fast way to deterministically interact. Here we propose a controlled-$Z$ gate generated by the charge-induced-dipole ($C_4$) force between a Rydberg-excited atom and a trapped ion, balanced by a spin-dependent optical Magnus force on the ion that closes phase-space trajectories within a few microseconds. Toggling the Rydberg state extends the scheme to multi-ion crystals at negligible overhead. The resulting ${\sim}5\,$kHz atom shuttle accelerates short-distance QCCD links and enables hybrid qLDPC memories in which atom logical qubits are written onto an ion block treated as a passive storage zone. We perform circuit-level Monte Carlo simulations and find that the hybrid architecture supports orders of magnitude more operations than atom-only or ion-only architectures at fixed code distance and logical error rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. D. Bruzewicz and J. Chiaverini and R. McConnell and J. M. Sage , title =. Appl. Phys. Rev. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  2. [2]

    Wang and C.-Y

    P. Wang and C.-Y. Luan and M. Qiao and M. Um and J. Zhang and Y. Wang and X. Yuan and M. Gu and J. Zhang and K. Kim , title =. Nat. Commun. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  3. [3]

    Pi and X

    J. Pi and X. Liu and J. Cao and P. Wang and L. Ou and E. Gao and H. Tu and M. Zou and X. Zhang and J. Zhang and K. Kim , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2026 , archiveprefix =

    2026

  4. [4]

    Probing spin-motion coupling of two Rydberg atoms by a Stern-Gerlach-like experiment , author =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2025 , month =. doi:10.1103/jd4l-qy2j , url =

    work page doi:10.1103/jd4l-qy2j 2025

  5. [5]

    Monroe and R

    C. Monroe and R. Raussendorf and A. Ruthven and K. R. Brown and P. Maunz and L.-M. Duan and J. Kim , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  6. [6]

    J. M. Pino and J. M. Dreiling and C. Figgatt and J. P. Gaebler and S. A. Moses and M. S. Allman and C. H. Baldwin and M. Foss-Feig and D. Hayes and K. Mayer and C. Ryan-Anderson and B. Neyenhuis , title =. Nature , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  7. [7]

    S. A. Moses and others , title =. Phys. Rev. X , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  8. [8]

    Bowler and others , title =

    R. Bowler and others , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Ransford and others , title =

    A. Ransford and others , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2025 , archiveprefix =

    2025

  2. [10]

    P. H. Leung and K. A. Landsman and C. Figgatt and N. M. Linke and C. Monroe and K. R. Brown , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  3. [11]

    Leibfried and R

    D. Leibfried and R. Blatt and C. Monroe and D. Wineland , title =. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume =. 2003 , doi =

    2003

  4. [12]

    Bowers and D

    C. Bowers and D. Palani and J. Barta and T. Guglielmo and S. Libby and D. Leibfried and D. H. Slichter , title =. arXiv:2511.14364 , year =. 2511.14364 , archivePrefix =

  5. [13]

    Kaufmann and T

    H. Kaufmann and T. Ruster and C. T. Schmiegelow and M. A. Luda and V. Kaushal and J. Schulz and D. von Lindenfels and F. Schmidt-Kaler and U. G. Poschinger , title =. New J. Phys. , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  6. [14]

    P. T. H. Fisk and M. J. Sellars and M. A. Lawn and C. Coles and A. G. Mann and D. G. Blair , title =. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , volume =. 1995 , doi =

    1995

  7. [15]

    Olmschenk and K

    S. Olmschenk and K. C. Younge and D. L. Moehring and D. N. Matsukevich and P. Maunz and C. Monroe , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2007 , doi =

    2007

  8. [16]

    Mazzanti and R

    M. Mazzanti and R. Gerritsma and R. J. C. Spreeuw and A. Safavi-Naini , title =. Phys. Rev. Res. , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cui and others , title =

    J.-M. Cui and others , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2025 , archiveprefix =

    2025

  10. [18]

    Feldker and H

    T. Feldker and H. Fürst and H. Hirzler and N. V. Ewald and M. Mazzanti and D. Wiater and M. Tomza and R. Gerritsma , title =. Nat. Phys. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  11. [19]

    Bluvstein and A

    D. Bluvstein and A. A. Geim and S. H. Li and others , title =. Nature , year =. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09848-5 , note =

    doi

  12. [20]

    Bluvstein and S

    D. Bluvstein and S. J. Evered and A. A. Geim and S. H. Li and H. Zhou and T. Manovitz and S. Ebadi and M. Cain and M. Kalinowski and D. Hangleiter and J. P. Bonilla Ataides and N. Maskara and I. Cong and X. Gao and P. Sales Rodriguez and T. Karolyshyn and G. Semeghini and M. J...

    2024

  13. [21]

    D. R. Leibrandt and J. Labaziewicz and R. J. Clark and I. L. Chuang and R. J. Epstein and C. Ospelkaus and J. H. Wesenberg and J. J. Bollinger and D. Leibfried and D. J. Wineland and D. Stick and J. Sterk and C. Monroe and C.-S. Pai and Y. Low and R. Frahm and R. E. Slusher , ...

    2009

  14. [22]

    Brownnutt and M

    M. Brownnutt and M. Kumph and P. Rabl and R. Blatt , title =. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  15. [23]

    Mokhberi and others , title =

    A. Mokhberi and others , title =. Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  16. [24]

    Saffman and T

    M. Saffman and T. G. Walker and K. M. Quantum information with. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  17. [25]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye , title =. Nat. Phys. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  18. [26]

    Manetsch and others , title =

    H. Manetsch and others , title =. Nature , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  19. [27]

    Barredo and S

    D. Barredo and S. de L\'. An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays , journal =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  20. [28]

    Barredo and others , title =

    D. Barredo and others , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  21. [29]

    A. C. Hughes and others , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2025 , archiveprefix =

    2025

  22. [30]

    M. C. Smith and A. D. Leu and K. Miyanishi and M. F. Gely and D. M. Lucas , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , year =. 2412.04421 , archiveprefix =

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Peper and J

    T. Peper and J. R. K. Cline and E. Guardado-Sanchez and H. Pichler and J. P. Covey and J. D. Thompson , title =. Phys. Rev. X , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  24. [32]

    Kuroda and V

    R. Kuroda and V. M. Hughes and M. Poitrinal and M. Peper and J. D. Thompson , title =. arXiv:2507.11487 , year =. 2507.11487 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. D. Thompson and M. Peper and S. Cohen and R. Kuroda and V. M. Hughes , title =. 2025 , howpublished =

    2025

  26. [34]

    J. M. Accurate Modeling of. arXiv:2605.14993 , year =. 2605.14993 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kotochigova and S

    S. Kotochigova and S. Gupta and B. B. Blinov , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2025 , archiveprefix =

    2025

  28. [36]

    Secker and R

    T. Secker and R. Gerritsma and A. W. Glaetzle and A. Negretti , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  29. [37]

    R. C. Ultracold atom-ion collisions , journal =. 2000 , doi =

    2000

  30. [38]

    Tomza and K

    M. Tomza and K. Jachymski and R. Gerritsma and A. Negretti and T. Calarco and Z. Idziaszek and P. S. Julienne , title =. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  31. [39]

    N. V. Ewald and T. Feldker and H. Hirzler and H. A. F\"urst and R. Gerritsma , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  32. [40]

    Engel and M

    F. Engel and M. Dieterle and T. Schmid and C. Tomschitz and C. Veit and N. Zuber and R. L\"ow and T. Pfau and F. Meinert , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  33. [41]

    Mudli and B

    S. Mudli and B. Deb , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2026 , archiveprefix =

    2026

  34. [42]

    G. P. Martins and others , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2024 , archiveprefix =

    2024

  35. [43]

    T. F. Gallagher , title =. 1994 , doi =

    1994

  36. [44]

    N. Comput. Phys. Commun. , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  37. [45]

    Wu and others , title =

    Y. Wu and others , title =. Nat. Commun. , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  38. [46]

    Scholl and others , title =

    P. Scholl and others , title =. Nature , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  39. [47]

    Ma and others , title =

    S. Ma and others , title =. Nature , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  40. [48]

    Lee and others , title =

    Y. Lee and others , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2024 , archiveprefix =

    2024

  41. [49]

    O'Reilly and G

    J. O'Reilly and G. Toh and I. Goetting and S. Saha and M. Shalaev and A. Carter and A. Risinger and A. Kalakuntla and T. Li and A. Verma and C. Monroe , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  42. [50]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. W. Cross and J. M. Gambetta and D. Maslov and P. Rall and T. J. Yoder , title =. Nature , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  43. [51]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt , title =. PRX Quantum , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  44. [52]

    Gu and others , title =

    A. Gu and others , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2025 , archiveprefix =

    2025

  45. [53]

    Cain and others , title =

    M. Cain and others , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2026 , archiveprefix =

    2026

  46. [54]

    Liyanage and Y

    N. Liyanage and Y. Wu and A. Deters and L. Zhong , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =. 2023 , archiveprefix =

    2023

  47. [55]

    Gidney , title =

    C. Gidney , title =. Quantum , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  48. [56]

    Roffe and D

    J. Roffe and D. R. White and S. Burton and E. Campbell , title =. Phys. Rev. Research , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  49. [57]

    J. R. Johansson and P. D. Nation and F. Nori , title =. Comput. Phys. Commun. , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  50. [58]

    W. K. Wootters , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 1998 , doi =

    1998

  51. [59]

    Raimond, J. M. and Brune, M. and Haroche, S. , title =. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume =. 2001 , doi =

    2001

  52. [60]

    Nguyen, T. L. and Raimond, J. M. and Sayrin, C. and Cortinas, R. and Cantat-Moltrecht, T. and Assemat, F. and Dotsenko, I. and Gleyzes, S. and Haroche, S. and Roux, G. and Jolicoeur, Th. and Brune, M. , title =. Phys. Rev. X , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  53. [61]

    and others , title =

    Sillitoe, B. and others , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  54. [62]

    Pultinevicius, E. and G. Long-lived giant circular Rydberg atoms at room temperature , journal =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  55. [63]

    Cortiñas, R. G. and Favier, M. and Ravon, B. and Méhaignerie, P. and Machu, Y. and Raimond, J. M. and Sayrin, C. and Brune, M. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  56. [64]

    Beterov, I. I. and Ryabtsev, I. I. and Tretyakov, D. B. and Entin, V. M. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  57. [65]

    and Lis, J

    Jenkins, A. and Lis, J. W. and Senoo, A. and McGrew, W. F. and Kaufman, A. M. , title =. Phys. Rev. X , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  58. [66]

    oller, S. and Daniilidis, N. and H\

    Brandl, M. F. and van Mourik, M. W. and Postler, L. and Nolf, A. and Lakhmanskiy, K. and Paiva, R. R. and M\"oller, S. and Daniilidis, N. and H\"affner, H. and Kaushal, V. and Ruster, T. and Warschburger, C. and Kaufmann, H. and Poschinger, U. G. and Schmidt-Kaler, F. and Schi...

    2016

  59. [67]

    and Eschner, J

    Morigi, G. and Eschner, J. and Keitel, C. H. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2000 , doi =

    2000

  60. [68]

    and Meekhof, D

    Monroe, C. and Meekhof, D. M. and King, B. E. and Jefferts, S. R. and Itano, W. M. and Wineland, D. J. and Gould, P. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 1995 , doi =

    1995

  61. [69]

    arXiv preprint , eprint =

    Zhao, Chen and Duckering, Casey and Gu, Andi and Maskara, Nishad and Zhou, Hengyun , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =

  62. [70]

    and Carroll, Aaron W

    Beverland, Michael E. and Carroll, Aaron W. and Cross, Andrew W. and Yoder, Theodore J. , title =. arXiv preprint , eprint =

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.