Spontaneous Raman scattering out of a metastable atomic qubit

A. Quinn; D. J. Wineland; D. T. C. Allcock; G. J. Gregory; I. D. Moore; J. Metzner; J. O'Reilly; S. Brudney

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Spontaneous Raman scattering out of a metastable atomic qubit

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spontaneous Raman scattering out of a metastable calcium qubit matches theory, keeping two-qubit gate errors below $10^{-4}$.

desk verdict Careful measurement of Raman scattering from metastable Ca+ qubits confirms parameter-free theory; the π-point has a small unquantified bias but the central result holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04854 v1 pith:E6VMSIS6 submitted 2025-05-07 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

I. D. Moore , A. Quinn , J. O'Reilly , J. Metzner , S. Brudney , G. J. Gregory , D. J. Wineland , D. T. C. Allcock This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph

keywords spontaneousRamanscatteringmetastablequbitstrappedionscalcium-40gateerrorsD5/2manifolderasureconversion

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 measures how often 976 nm Raman laser light knocks a qubit stored in the metastable $D_{5/2}$ manifold of a single trapped $^{40}$Ca$^+$ ion out of that manifold through spontaneous Raman scattering. The measured per-intensity rates agree with the parameter-free predictions of a recent scattering model to within the error bars, across three combinations of initial state and beam polarization. If the agreement holds, spontaneous Raman scattering is not a serious barrier for this qubit platform: the predicted error per two-qubit entangling gate is about $5\times 10^{-5}$, below the $10^{-4}$ level often quoted as a practical floor. That matters because metastable-qubit architectures promise erasure conversion and mid-circuit operations, and the scattering rate is the fundamental error limit of their laser-based gates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the spontaneous Raman scattering rate $\Gamma_{SD}$ per unit intensity out of a chosen $D_{5/2}$ sublevel, extracted from a single-exponential fit to shelved-population decay and the subtraction $\Gamma_{SD} = 1/\tau_{\mathrm{meas}} - 1/\tau_{\mathrm{nat}}$. The measurement uses a fluorescence check: an ion outside $D_{5/2}$ scatters 397 nm cooling light, so decay of the dark fraction directly reports scattering out of the manifold. The comparison target is the model of Ref. [12], which computes scattering amplitudes with Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and a frequency-dependent density of states for the final photon, and the error conversion uses the gate-time formulas $P_{1q} = (\pi\Gamma_{\mathrm{Ram}})/(2|\Omega_R|)$ and $P_{2q} = (2/\eta)\cdot(\pi\Gamma_{\mathrm{Ram}})/(2|\Omega_R|)$.

What would settle it

Shine $\sigma^+$-polarized 976 nm light on the $|\uparrow\rangle$ state: the model says no dipole-allowed transition to $P_{3/2}$, so any measured scattering rate above noise would falsify the claim. A second check is to measure the $D_{5/2}$ decay curve at several intensities well beyond 1 s or with sublevel-resolved readout; a visible deviation from single-exponential decay or a rate that changes with intensity would indicate optical pumping or multiple-scattering effects the analysis neglects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that spontaneous Raman scattering rates out of the $D_{5/2}$ qubit manifold of $^{40}$Ca$^+$ under far-detuned 976 nm light agree with the density-of-states-corrected model of Ref. [12], at least for the $\sigma^-$- and $\pi$-polarized beams tested. The extracted per-intensity scattering rates to $S_{1/2}$ and $D_{3/2}$ are $3.65(11)$, $2.13(5)$, and $1.43(4)$ Hz/(nW/m$^2$) for the $(|\uparrow\rangle, \sigma^-)$, $(|\downarrow\rangle, \sigma^-)$, and $(|\downarrow\rangle, \pi)$ configurations, against theoretical values $3.60(6)$, $2.16(4)$, and $1.44(3)$. From these rates and known branching ratios, the paper derives a single-qubit scattering error of $1.25(2)\times 10^{-6}$ per gate and a two-qubit $\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z$ scattering error of $5\times 10^{-5}$ at a 2 MHz secular frequency, with Rayleigh-induced errors below $10^{-7}$ or $10^{-8}$. The claim is that the error floor from spontaneous scattering in this platform is below $10^{-4}$ per entangling gate, contradicting the older model that predicted a larger floor at these detunings.

Load-bearing premise

The data analysis assumes the $D_{5/2}$ population decays as a single exponential with a constant rate, that the 976 nm beam does not pump population among $D_{5/2}$ sublevels, and that double-scattering corrections of 0.6% to 1.4% are negligible; if any of these fail, the extracted $\Gamma_{SD}$ is not the single-state scattering rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At 976 nm, spontaneous Raman scattering contributes roughly $5\times 10^{-5}$ error per two-qubit gate on metastable-calcium qubits, leaving room below the $10^{-4}$ fault-tolerance-relevant floor.
Single-qubit scattering errors are about $1.25(2)\times 10^{-6}$ per gate, so the scattering floor is not the dominant limit for one-qubit operations at this wavelength.
Rayleigh scattering contributes below $10^{-7}$ per single-qubit gate and below $10^{-8}$ per two-qubit gate, effectively negligible against Raman scattering.
The validated theory says that increasing the Raman detuning further reduces the scattering error without a fundamental floor, in contrast to the older scattering model.
Because measured rates match theory without free parameters, the same fluorescence-check method can be used to characterize scattering for other metastable ion species and wavelengths.

Reading between the lines

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

If the detuning trend continues, shifting the Raman wavelength beyond 976 nm should push the scattering floor below $10^{-5}$, a prediction that can be tested with the same apparatus.
The single-exponential decay assumption could be stress-tested by preparing specific $D_{5/2}$ sublevels and monitoring their population fractions during illumination; a sublevel-dependent rate would show up as a non-exponential total decay.
Measuring the same rates in a second metastable species, as the paper notes is underway, would test the generality of the theory across alkali-earth-like ions.
With scattering errors reduced, the next hurdles for these gates will be motional decoherence and laser-intensity noise, so combining this result with improved motional control is the natural route to the predicted fidelity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's the short version: this paper reports the first direct measurement of spontaneous Raman scattering rates out of the D5/2 metastable qubit manifold of 40Ca+ at 976 nm, and the three measured rates agree with the parameter-free prediction of Ref. [12] within uncertainties. It's a clean validation. The sub-1e-4 two-qubit gate error is an extrapolation using the same theory, not a direct gate measurement, but the underlying data are solid.

The experimental work is careful. The shelving + fluorescence check is standard, they subtract the natural lifetime measured in the same setup, calibrate beam intensities via AC Stark shifts, and the error bars include both statistical and theoretical (P3/2 lifetime) contributions. The three rates in Table I are 3.65(11), 2.13(5), 1.43(4) vs theoretical 3.60(6), 2.16(4), 1.44(3). That's a strong confirmation, and it extends the existing model [12] to the metastable case.

Soft spots are minor but worth noting. First, no raw data are deposited; "available upon reasonable request" is a reproducibility red flag in 2025. Second, the π-polarization data point is obtained by discarding trials where the ion scattered into |↑>, the m=+5/2 state. As the stress-test worry notes, that changes the fitted quantity from the true D5/2 survival probability to a conditional probability, which biases the extracted rate upward. However, the paper's own branching numbers say only ~0.4% of scattering events from |↓> under π light go to |↑>, so the bias is likely around 0.4%, below the 2.8% statistical error on that point. The paper should have quantified the correction, but it doesn't threaten the result. The central gate-error estimate uses the σ− configuration, which doesn't have this issue.

The citation pattern is heavy on the authors' own papers, but the prediction being tested is parameter-free and made before this experiment, so the self-citation is not a flaw. The parallel barium work [28] is listed as in preparation, which is fine but not checkable.

Who should read this: trapped-ion experimentalists working with metastable qubits, and anyone estimating Raman-scattering error floors. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review, with a request for raw data or at least a more detailed description of the π-point analysis. If the data appear, the conditional status should lift to accept.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements of spontaneous Raman scattering rates out of the metastable D5/2 qubit manifold of a single trapped 40Ca+ ion illuminated by 976 nm light, for three combinations of initial Zeeman sublevel and beam polarization. The measured rates per unit intensity are compared to a parameter-free prediction from the authors' prior theory [12] and agree within uncertainties. The authors then combine these rates with known branching ratios to estimate spontaneous Raman and Rayleigh scattering errors for single- and two-qubit gates, concluding that infidelities below 1e-4 are achievable. The experimental work includes state preparation via optical pumping, fluorescence-based state detection, AC Stark shift intensity calibration, and subtraction of the natural D5/2 lifetime.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide the first experimental validation of the extended photon-scattering model of Ref. [12] for metastable qubits at large detuning, and they support the practical claim that sub-1e-4 error rates are possible for two-qubit gates on this platform. The measurements are careful: the natural lifetime is measured independently, the intensity calibration is tied to the AC Stark shift, and the statistical uncertainties are small (2.3-3%). The agreement of the two σ− data points with theory is very good. The main weakness is the treatment of the π-polarized dataset, where a dark-state censoring effect may bias the extracted rate, and the calibration procedure for the absolute intensity is not fully specified.

major comments (2)

[Section II, π-polarized measurement and Table I] The procedure of disregarding trials where the ion is detected in |↑⟩ changes the fitted quantity from the total D5/2 survival probability to a censored fraction that is not a single exponential. The log-derivative of this fraction starts at Γ_SD and increases toward Γ_SD+Γ_up, where Γ_up is the transfer rate to |↑⟩. With the branching ratio to |↑⟩ of about 3.9% of P3/2 decays (Fig. 4(c)), the bias in the extracted Γ_SD is on the order of a few percent, comparable to the 2.8% statistical uncertainty of the (+3/2, π) point. The manuscript neither quantifies nor corrects for this effect. Please reanalyze the π dataset using the censored survival likelihood, or restrict the fit to times where the bias is negligible, and update Table I accordingly.
[Section II A, Eqs. (3) and (4)] The quoted gate-error estimates 1.25(2)×1e-6 and 5×1e-5 are calculations, not measurements, and the manuscript does not provide the explicit scaling from the measured Γ_SD to Γ_Ram, nor the assumed Rabi frequency, beam geometry, and Lamb-Dicke parameter. Without this information, the reader cannot reproduce the claimed error rates. Please include the full derivation and parameter values used.

minor comments (5)

[Section I C, intensity calibration] Please specify how the AC Stark shift measurement is converted to an absolute intensity, and whether the polarizability used is derived from the same theory under test; this would clarify the independence of the calibration from the theory being validated.
[References, Ref. [25]] The arXiv number for Ref. [25] appears to contain a typo ('241.12727'); it should likely be '2411.12727'.
[Section II, double-scattering corrections] The double-scattering corrections of ≈0.6% and ≈1.4% are introduced without derivation; please provide the basis for these estimates or a reference.
[Fig. 4 caption and Section II] The branching percentages in Fig. 4(a-c) are not explicitly connected to the measured Γ_SD values in the text; a sentence explaining how these percentages relate to the fitted rates would improve clarity.
[Abstract and Section II A] The abstract states that the measurements support calculations of error rates from 'both types of scattering', but the Rayleigh scattering bounds are taken from prior work (Refs. [36] and [12]); please clarify the provenance of those bounds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured scattering rates provide an independent test of a parameter-free theory, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central measurement (Table I) is an independent experimental test of the parameter-free prediction of Ref. [12]. The D5/2 population decay is fit to Eq. (1) without using the theory values; the spontaneous scattering rate is extracted by subtracting the independently measured natural lifetime (Eq. 2). The theoretical rates 3.60(6), 2.16(4), and 1.44(3) Hz/(nW/m^2) are derived in prior work from stated assumptions (dipole matrix elements, detuning, density of states) and are not fitted to any data from the present experiment, so the agreement in Table I is a genuine falsifiable confirmation rather than a construction. The gate-error estimates in Section II A use the measured Gamma_SD together with the standard scattering-error formulas of Refs. [13] and [12]; applying a theory that has just been experimentally validated to compute practical error budgets is not circular. The frequent self-citations do not carry the derivation: Ref. [12] is externally testable and is here tested, and the paper cites independent supporting measurements (Ref. [14], and parallel work Ref. [28] by a different group). Possible systematic issues, such as the pi-polarization data censoring of |up> trials, would be correctness or systematic-error concerns, not circularity, because they do not make the measured quantity equal to the theory input by definition.

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

No new entities or ad hoc theory parameters are introduced. The three fitted rates in Table I are experimental outputs, not model free parameters. The central claim rests on standard single-exponential decay analysis, external atomic data, and the scattering theory of the same group.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Single-exponential decay model Pop_D5/2(t) = exp(-t/tau_meas)
Used in Eq. (1) to extract the decay constant; assumes constant scattering and no intra-manifold optical pumping.
domain assumption Atomic data from prior literature: branching ratios of P3/2 decay and P3/2 lifetime
The theory comparison and the scaling from SD rates to Raman rates rely on branching fractions from Refs. [34,37] and lifetime from Ref. [35].
domain assumption The Ref. [12] scattering model, including frequency-dependent density of states
The experiment tests this model. The gate-error extrapolation in Section II A also uses its Eqs. (3) and (4), so the sub-1e-4 claim inherits the model's validity.
domain assumption Fluorescence check correctly classifies S1/2/D3/2, D5/2, and lost-ion populations
Section I A relies on this classification to measure leakage from D5/2; misclassification would bias the measured lifetime.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spontaneous Raman scattering out of a metastable atomic qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6VMSIS6

@misc{pith2026250504854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spontaneous Raman scattering out of a metastable atomic qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6VMSIS6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04854}
}

abstract

Metastable qubits in atomic systems can enable large-scale quantum computing by simplifying hardware requirements and adding efficient erasure conversion to the pre-existing toolbox of high-fidelity laser-based control. For trapped atomic ions, the fundamental error floor of this control is given by spontaneous Raman and Rayleigh scattering from short-lived excited states. We measure spontaneous Raman scattering rates out of a metastable $D_{5/2}$ qubit manifold of a single trapped $^{40}$Ca$^+$ ion illuminated by 976 nm light that is -44 THz detuned from the dipole-allowed transition to the $P_{3/2}$ manifold. This supports the calculation of error rates from both types of scattering during one- and two-qubit gates on this platform, thus demonstrating that infidelities $<10^{-4}$ are possible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04854 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. 976 nm hybrid external cavity laser (HECL) sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Branching ratios and scattering rates for different initial states and beam polarizations. (a-c) Level diagrams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

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

Spontaneous Raman scattering from metastable states of Ba$^+$
quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Measurements of spontaneous Raman scattering from metastable 137Ba+ states agree with the Moore et al. model, supporting predictions of low gate errors at large detunings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[12]

I. D. Moore, W. C. Campbell, E. R. Hudson, M. J. Boguslawski, D. J. Wineland, and D. T. C. Allcock, Photon scattering errors during stimulated Raman transitions in trapped-ion qubits, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032413 (2023)

work page 2023
[28]

Burke, X

T. Burke, X. Shi, J. Sinanan-Singh, K. DeBry, S. L. Todaro, I. L. Chuang, and J. Chiaverini, (2025), in preparation

work page 2025
[1]

D. D. Yavuz, P. B. Kulatunga, E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, N. Proite, T. Henage, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Fast ground state manipulation of neu- tral atoms in microscopic optical traps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 063001 (2006)

work page 2006
[2]

M. P. A. Jones, J. Beugnon, A. Ga¨ etan, J. Zhang, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Fast quantum state control of a single trapped neutral atom, Phys. Rev. A 75, 040301 (2007)

2007
[3]

C. G. Yale, B. B. Buckley, D. J. Christle, G. Burkard, F. J. Heremans, L. C. Bassett, and D. D. Awschalom, All-optical control of a solid-state spin using coherent dark states, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 7595 (2013)

work page 2013
[4]

M. L. Goldman, T. L. Patti, D. Levonian, S. F. Yelin, and M. D. Lukin, Optical control of a single nuclear spin in the solid state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 153203 (2020)

2020
[5]

C. W. Chou, A. L. Collopy, C. Kurz, Y. Lin, M. E. Harding, P. N. Plessow, T. Fortier, S. Diddams, D. Leibfried, and D. R. Leibrandt, Frequency-comb spectroscopy on pure quantum states of a single molecular ion, Science 367, 1458 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 38 references

[7]

J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, High-fidelity uni- versal gate set for 9Be + ion qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060505 (2016)

2016
[8]

V. M. Sch¨ afer, C. J. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, L. J. Stephenson, T. G. Ballance, A. M. Steane, and D. M. Lucas, Fast quantum logic gates with trapped-ion qubits, Nature 555, 75 (2018)

2018
[9]

I. V. Inlek, G. Vittorini, D. Hucul, C. Crocker, and C. Monroe, Quantum gates with phase stability over space and time, Phys. Rev. A 90, 042316 (2014)

2014
[10]

Debnath, N

S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Lands- man, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits, Nature 536, 63 (2016)

2016
[11]

O. Katz, L. Feng, A. Risinger, C. Monroe, and M. Cetina, Demonstration of three- and four- body interactions between trapped-ion spins, Na- ture Physics 19, 1452 (2023)

2023
[13]

Ozeri, W

R. Ozeri, W. M. Itano, R. B. Blakestad, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, S. Seidelin, J. H. Wesenberg, and D. J. Wineland, Errors in trapped-ion quantum gates due to spontaneous photon scattering, Phys. Rev. A 75, 042329 (2007)

2007
[14]

M. J. Boguslawski, Z. J. Wall, S. R. Vizvary, I. D. Moore, M. Bareian, D. T. C. Allcock, D. J. Wineland, E. R. Hudson, and W. C. Campbell, Ra- man scattering errors in stimulated-Raman-induced logic gates in 133Ba+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 063001 (2023)

2023
[15]

D. T. C. Allcock, W. C. Campbell, J. Chiaverini, I. L. Chuang, E. R. Hudson, I. D. Moore, A. Rans- ford, C. Roman, J. M. Sage, and D. J. Wineland, omg blueprint for trapped ion quantum comput- ing with metastable states, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 214002 (2021)

2021
[16]

Yang, J.-Y

H.-X. Yang, J.-Y. Ma, Y.-K. Wu, Y. Wang, M.- M. Cao, W.-X. Guo, Y.-Y. Huang, L. Feng, Z. C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Realizing coherently con- vertible dual-type qubits with the same ion species, Nat. Phys. 18, 1058 (2022)

2022
[17]

X. Shi, J. Sinanan-Singh, K. DeBry, S. L. To- daro, I. L. Chuang, and J. Chiaverini, Long-lived metastable-qubit memory (2024), arXiv:2408.00975

2024 arXiv
[18]

Feng, Y.-Y

L. Feng, Y.-Y. Huang, Y.-K. Wu, W.-X. Guo, J.-Y. Ma, H.-X. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. Wang, C.-X. Huang, C. Zhang, L. Yao, B.-X. Qi, Y.-F. Pu, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Realization of a crosstalk-avoided quantum network node using dual-type qubits of the same ion species, Nature Com...

2024
[19]

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

2023
[20]

Drmota, D

P. Drmota, D. Main, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, M. A. Weber, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, R. Srini- vas, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, Robust quantum memory in a trapped-ion quantum network node, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 090803 (2023)

2023
[21]

O’Reilly, G

J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, I. Goetting, S. Saha, M. Sha- laev, A. L. Carter, A. Risinger, A. Kalakuntla, T. Li, 6 A. Verma, and C. Monroe, Fast photon-mediated entanglement of continuously cooled trapped ions for quantum networking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 090802 (2024)

2024
[22]

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

2024 arXiv
[23]

Y. Wu, S. Kolkowitz, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Erasure conversion for fault-tolerant quantum com- puting in alkaline earth Rydberg atom arrays, Nat. Commun. 13, 4657 (2022)

2022
[24]

M. Kang, W. C. Campbell, and K. R. Brown, Quantum error correction with metastable states of trapped ions using erasure conversion, PRX Quan- tum 4, 020358 (2023)

2023
[25]

Quinn, G

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

2024
[26]

C. Wang, C. Huang, H. Zhang, H. Hu, Z. Mao, P. Hou, Y. Wu, Z. Zhou, and L. Duan, Experimental realization of direct entangling gates between dual- type qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 010601 (2025)

2025
[27]

Trapped Ion Quantum Information Processing Us- ing Multiple Qubit Encodings

A. S. Sotirova, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, “Trapped Ion Quantum Information Processing Us- ing Multiple Qubit Encodings” (2024)

2024
[29]

Metzner, A

J. Metzner, A. Quinn, S. Brudney, I. D. Moore, S. C. Burd, D. J. Wineland, and D. T. C. Allcock, Two- mode squeezing and SU(1,1) interferometry with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022613 (2024)

2024
[30]

trapped state

I. Siemers, M. Schubert, R. Blatt, W. Neuhauser, and P. E. Toschek, The “trapped state” of a trapped ion - light spectra and photon correlation, in XVIII International Quantum Electronics Con- ference (Optica Publishing Group, 1992) p. MoM3

1992
[31]

Keselman, Y

A. Keselman, Y. Glickman, N. Akerman, S. Kotler, and R. Ozeri, High-fidelity state detection and to- mography of a single-ion zeeman qubit, New Jour- nal of Physics 13, 10.1088/1367-2630/13/7/073027 (2011)

2011 doi
[32]

J. A. Sherman, M. J. Curtis, D. J. Szwer, D. T. C. Allcock, G. Imreh, D. M. Lucas, and A. M. Steane, Experimental recovery of a qubit from partial col- lapse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 180501 (2013)

2013
[33]

Kreuter, C

A. Kreuter, C. Becher, G. P. T. Lancaster, A. B. Mundt, C. Russo, H. H¨ affner, C. Roos, W. H¨ ansel, F. Schmidt-Kaler, R. Blatt, and M. S. Safronova, Experimental and theoretical study of the 3 d 2D– level lifetimes of 40Ca+, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032504 (2005)

2005
[34]

M. Ramm, T. Pruttivarasin, M. Kokish, I. Talukdar, and H. H¨ affner, Precision measurement method for branching fractions of excitedP1/2 states applied to 40Ca+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 023004 (2013)

2013
[35]

Z. Meir, M. Sinhal, M. S. Safronova, and S. Willitsch, Combining experiments and relativistic theory for establishing accurate radiative quantities in atoms: The lifetime of the 2P 3/2 state in 40Ca+, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012509 (2020)

2020
[36]

Easy on the ions: Photon scattering errors from far-detuned Raman beams in trapped-ion qubits

I. D. Moore, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oregon, “Easy on the ions: Photon scattering errors from far-detuned Raman beams in trapped-ion qubits” (2023)

2023
[37]

Song, Y.-B

H.-F. Song, Y.-B. Tang, S.-L. Chen, L.-J. Du, Y. Huang, H. Guan, and K.-L. Gao, Combined ex- perimental and theoretical probe of the branching fractions of the 4P3/2 state in 40Ca+, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052505 (2019)

2019
[38]

Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, Nature 434, 39 (2005)

E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, Nature 434, 39 (2005)

2005

Pith tools

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

[1] [12]

I. D. Moore, W. C. Campbell, E. R. Hudson, M. J. Boguslawski, D. J. Wineland, and D. T. C. Allcock, Photon scattering errors during stimulated Raman transitions in trapped-ion qubits, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032413 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [28]

Burke, X

T. Burke, X. Shi, J. Sinanan-Singh, K. DeBry, S. L. Todaro, I. L. Chuang, and J. Chiaverini, (2025), in preparation

work page 2025

[3] [1]

D. D. Yavuz, P. B. Kulatunga, E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, N. Proite, T. Henage, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Fast ground state manipulation of neu- tral atoms in microscopic optical traps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 063001 (2006)

work page 2006

[4] [2]

M. P. A. Jones, J. Beugnon, A. Ga¨ etan, J. Zhang, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Fast quantum state control of a single trapped neutral atom, Phys. Rev. A 75, 040301 (2007)

2007

[5] [3]

C. G. Yale, B. B. Buckley, D. J. Christle, G. Burkard, F. J. Heremans, L. C. Bassett, and D. D. Awschalom, All-optical control of a solid-state spin using coherent dark states, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 7595 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [4]

M. L. Goldman, T. L. Patti, D. Levonian, S. F. Yelin, and M. D. Lukin, Optical control of a single nuclear spin in the solid state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 153203 (2020)

2020

[7] [5]

C. W. Chou, A. L. Collopy, C. Kurz, Y. Lin, M. E. Harding, P. N. Plessow, T. Fortier, S. Diddams, D. Leibfried, and D. R. Leibrandt, Frequency-comb spectroscopy on pure quantum states of a single molecular ion, Science 367, 1458 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [6]

C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016)

work page 2016