Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

FPGA control loop builds defect-free atom arrays in 282 microseconds

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-10 03:01 UTC pith:VMG5PTEY

load-bearing objection Solid low-latency FPGA control for atom rearrangement; the QEC infrastructure claim is prospective and untested the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08687 v1 pith:VMG5PTEY submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph physics.optics

Low-latency FPGA-based electronic control system for fast preparation of defect-free atom arrays

Ya-Dong Hu , Dong-Qi Ma , Tian-Yang Zhang , Liang Chen , Yi-Chen Zhang , Xiao-Kang Zhong , Wen-Yi Zhu , Hong-Jie Fan
show 8 more authors
Qing-Xuan Jie Yan-Lei Zhang Gang Li Xi-Feng Ren Xu-Liang Zhang Guang-Can Guo Zhu-Bo Wang Chang-Ling Zou
This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.optics
keywords atomelectronicsystemcontroldefect-freefeedbackreal-timeachieves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Neutral atom quantum computers need to detect errors and correct them in real time, but today's control systems route every measurement through a conventional PC, adding milliseconds of delay that is incompatible with the microsecond timescales of quantum circuits. This paper presents a custom FPGA-based electronic system that removes the PC entirely from the feedback loop, integrating photon counting, decision-making, and waveform generation on a single PXIe chassis. The system detects which optical tweezers contain atoms, computes rearrangement paths, and drives the tweezers to move atoms into a defect-free array, all within 282 microseconds. By repeating this feedback loop up to five times within a single experimental cycle, the authors boost the probability of assembling a perfect 10-atom array from 65.7% to 95.4%, starting from 24 stochastically loaded traps. The core claim is that a purpose-built, PC-free FPGA architecture can reduce feedback latency by more than an order of magnitude compared to prior systems, and that this latency reduction enables iterative correction protocols that meaningfully improve atom array preparation fidelity.

Core claim

The central technical result is a total feedback latency of 282(19) microseconds for the complete loop from atom detection to tweezer actuation, achieved by eliminating PC communication overhead, transmitting only binarized occupancy data rather than raw photon counts, and using compact movement instructions rather than full waveforms. This latency is low enough to permit multiple rearrangement rounds within a single loading cycle, which is what allows the success probability for a 10-atom defect-free array to rise from 65.7% after one round to 95.4% after five rounds. The system architecture places a counter card with an embedded ARM processor and an arbitrary waveform generator card on a共享

What carries the argument

The system comprises a PXIe chassis hosting a counter card (with embedded ARM processor for path planning) and an AWG card (for driving the acousto-optic deflector). The feedback loop proceeds in five stages: (1) single-photon detectors convert atom fluorescence to TTL signals, (2) the counter card bins photon counts and thresholds them into binary occupancy, (3) the ARM computes rearrangement paths and compiles RF movement commands, (4) commands transfer across the PXIe backplane from counter card to AWG card, (5) the AWG outputs chirped RF waveforms to the AOD to physically move atoms. The total latency budget decomposes as t_read (7.51 microseconds for 24 traps), t_calculate (0.89 micro

Load-bearing premise

The paper claims this system 'establishes the electronic infrastructure necessary for mid-circuit measurement and real-time quantum error correction,' but it only demonstrates atom-presence detection and physical rearrangement, not internal-state readout or syndrome decoding. The authors state that the same setup applies to hyperfine-state discrimination, but this is untested in the present work.

What would settle it

If the 282-microsecond latency were found to increase non-linearly with array size beyond 24 traps, or if the iterative rearrangement protocol's success probability saturated well below the projected values for larger arrays due to cumulative atom loss, the central claim that this architecture scales to the regime needed for quantum error correction would be undermined.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The iterative rearrangement protocol could be extended to actively compensate for atom loss during quantum circuit execution, provided a reservoir of spare atoms is maintained adjacent to the computational zone.
  • The same photon-counting and threshold-comparison hardware could be applied to internal-state (hyperfine) discrimination rather than just atom-presence detection, enabling mid-circuit measurement for quantum error correction.
  • The PXIe chassis already supports scaling from 8 to 18 slots within a single chassis, with multi-chassis synchronization available, so the architecture is not fundamentally limited to 24 traps.
  • The authors project that moving the ARM processor into the AWG-card FPGA would eliminate the dominant counter-card relay step, reducing total latency to below 35 microseconds for 64 atoms and approximately 400 microseconds for 1000 atoms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the projected sub-35-microsecond latency for 64 atoms is realized, it would bring the feedback loop comfortably within the coherence time of neutral-atom qubits, potentially enabling real-time syndrome extraction rather than post-hoc data analysis.
  • The iterative rearrangement scheme implicitly assumes that surplus atoms survive multiple transport rounds without loss; the paper does not report per-round atom survival rates, so the scaling of this protocol to larger arrays or more rounds remains an open empirical question.
  • Extending this architecture to two-dimensional arrays would require a fundamentally different transport scheme (e.g., 2D AODs or SLMs), and the latency budget for path planning in 2D may not scale as favorably as the linear case demonstrated here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an FPGA-based electronic control system (PXIe-QC100) for neutral-atom quantum computing that eliminates the host PC from the real-time feedback loop. The system integrates photon counting (counter card), real-time decision-making (ARM processor), and waveform generation (AWG card) within a unified PXIe chassis. The authors demonstrate a total feedback latency of 282(19) μs for atom rearrangement—measured as the interval between detection completion and AWG-driven AOD actuation—and validate the system by assembling defect-free 1D atom arrays from 24 stochastically loaded optical tweezers. Single-round rearrangement achieves a ~96% filling fraction, and iterative feedback over five rounds improves the success probability for a 10-atom defect-free array from 65.7% to 95.4%. The latency budget is decomposed into four components (Eq. 1), each individually characterized (Eqs. 2–6, Fig. 5), and the dominant bottleneck is identified as the ARM-to-counter-card PL transmission (t_PS→PL ≈ 262 μs, Table I). The authors also project latency scaling under a redesigned architecture (ARM moved into the AWG-card FPGA), estimating <35 μs for 64 atoms and ~400 μs for 1000 atoms.

Significance. The engineering achievement is substantial and timely. Removing the PC from the feedback loop and achieving sub-millisecond latency (282 μs vs. >7 ms for PC-based systems, Ref. 24) is a meaningful step toward real-time QEC on neutral-atom platforms. The latency decomposition (Eqs. 2–6) is falsifiable and machine-checkable: each sub-link is characterized with fitted scaling parameters and sample sizes (8,000 shots for total latency, 70,000 for computation time). The multi-round iterative rearrangement protocol, which consumes only surplus atoms, is a practical demonstration of feedback-controlled atom assembly. The projected redesign latency figures (<35 μs for 64 atoms) provide concrete, testable benchmarks for the community. These strengths make the work a valuable contribution to the neutral-atom control hardware literature.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract, final sentence: The claim that the system 'establishes the electronic infrastructure necessary for mid-circuit measurement and real-time quantum error correction' is not supported by what is demonstrated. The paper shows atom-presence detection (fluorescence thresholding) and 1D path-planning for rearrangement, not internal-state (hyperfine) readout, syndrome decoding, or gate-correction actuation. The authors acknowledge this prospectively in §V ('this would in principle allow real-time extraction of error syndrome measurement'), but the abstract states it as established. This is load-bearing because the QEC framing is a primary motivation. Recommendation: soften the abstract claim to match the demonstrated scope (e.g., 'establishes electronic infrastructure for real-time atom rearrangement and provides a pathway toward mid-circuit measurement and QEC').
  2. Table I and Eq. (5): The dominant latency component is t_PS→PL ≈ 262 μs (for f ≈ 324 frames), which accounts for ~93% of the total 282 μs. This component scales linearly with frame count f = 15N_move + 12N_close. The paper does not discuss how f would scale for larger arrays or for QEC-relevant feedback tasks, nor whether the current architecture's dominance by this single transmission step would persist or worsen. Since the central claim is low-latency feedback, the authors should at minimum discuss the scaling of f with array size for rearrangement and note that QEC feedback tasks would involve different frame-count scaling. The projected redesign in §V addresses this architecturally but does not quantify the frame-count scaling for the current system.
  3. §V, projected latency: The claim that moving the ARM into the AWG-card FPGA would yield 'a total latency below 35 μs for 64 atoms and about 400 μs for 1000 atoms' is based on projected per-channel and per-sub-waveform overheads, but the derivation is not shown. Given that the current system's dominant bottleneck is frame-count-dependent transmission (Eq. 5), the reader needs to understand how the redesign eliminates or reduces this scaling. A brief derivation or at least an explicit statement of the assumed frame counts for 64 and 1000 atoms would make this projection verifiable.
minor comments (6)
  1. Fig. 1(a): The numbered circles ①–⑤ are referenced in the text but are difficult to read in the figure. Consider enlarging or using a different marker style.
  2. Fig. 2(a): The caption states 'channel 6 trap' but does not specify the detection window duration used for this histogram (5 ms is mentioned in the text but not in the caption). Include this for self-containedness.
  3. §III: The text states 'the probability of stochastically obtaining a defect-free array decays exponentially with array size and becomes statistically negligible for N>8.' It would help to state the functional form (e.g., p^N) explicitly for clarity.
  4. Eq. (3): The piecewise form has a discontinuity at N_trap = 7. A brief explanation of why the scaling changes at N_trap = 7 (presumably related to data packing or transmission format) would aid the reader.
  5. Table I: The sum of the listed components (7.51 + 0.89 + 261.58 + 4.80 = 274.78 μs) is listed as t_total ≈ 274.78 μs, but the measured t_total is 282(19) μs. The ~7 μs discrepancy should be noted (likely trigger processing or other fixed overheads).
  6. Ref. [12] (Rozanov et al., 2026) and Ref. [31] (Lu et al., 2026) appear to be future-dated. Verify these citations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found; central claims are experimental measurements, not derivations that reduce to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical measurements: the 282(19) μs latency is directly timed (Fig. 4), the 96% filling fraction and 65.7%→95.4% success probability are experimental statistics over 300 runs (Fig. 3), and the latency decomposition (Eqs. 1–6, Table I) characterizes hardware sub-component times via fitted scaling parameters that are measurements of the system's own performance, not predictions that reduce to fitted constants. The self-citation of the volcano architecture (Ref. 25, overlapping authors) provides the experimental platform (optical channel mapping) but is not load-bearing for any quantitative claim in this paper — the latency and rearrangement results stand independently of any theorem or ansatz from that prior work. The abstract's claim that the system 'establishes the electronic infrastructure necessary for mid-circuit measurement and real-time QEC' is a prospective overstatement (the authors themselves say 'this would in principle allow' in §V), but this is a scope/overclaim concern, not circularity: no derivation chain reduces to its own inputs. The projected latencies for larger arrays (35 μs for 64 atoms, 400 μs for 1000 atoms) are transparent extrapolations from the measured scaling laws, not circular predictions. Score 1 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the experimental architecture.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated particles. The free parameters are empirical operational settings (thresholds, cooling durations, detection windows) and hardware characterization coefficients. The axioms are standard domain assumptions from atomic physics. The PXIe-QC100 system is a commercial product, not an invented entity.

free parameters (4)
  • Photon count threshold
    Threshold for binarizing trap occupancy (1 vs 0) from fluorescence counts; mentioned in §II but specific value not stated.
  • GMC duration = 2 ms
    Grey molasses cooling duration during rearrangement, determined empirically by scanning and finding saturation at 2 ms (Fig. 2b).
  • Detection window = 5 ms
    Fluorescence collection window for photon counting, stated in §III.
  • Latency scaling coefficients = various (Eqs. 2-6)
    Linear scaling coefficients for readout, transmission, and backplane latencies fitted to measured data (Figs. 5b-e).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Light-assisted collisional loading ensures single-atom occupancy per trap
    Standard technique from Ref. 28 (Schlosser et al.); invoked in §II to justify single-atom loading.
  • domain assumption Grey molasses cooling reduces atomic temperature during transport
    Standard technique from Ref. 33; invoked in §III to suppress atom loss during rearrangement.
  • domain assumption Release-and-recapture method accurately measures atomic temperature
    Standard technique from Refs. 34-36; invoked in §III for temperature characterization.
  • domain assumption PXIe backplane transmission protocol provides deterministic, low-latency signal transfer
    Hardware specification of the PXIe chassis; invoked in §II to justify the architecture choice.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15014 in / 2683 out tokens · 201915 ms · 2026-07-10T03:01:34.094907+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The scalability of neutral atom quantum computing demands integrated electronic control systems with low latency, modular architecture, and real-time feedback capability. Here, we present an FPGA-based electronic control system that eliminates the PC from the feedback loop, integrating photon counting, real-time decision-making, and waveform generation within a unified PXIe architecture. The system achieves a total feedback latency of $282\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ and is validated in practical experiments by assembling defect-free atom arrays from 24 stochastically loaded optical tweezers. A single-round rearrangement achieves a filling fraction of $\sim96\%$, while feedback-controlled iterative rearrangement over five rounds boosts the success probability for generating a 10-atom defect-free array from $65.7\%$ to $95.4\%$. This system establishes the electronic infrastructure necessary for mid-circuit measurement and real-time quantum error correction on neutral-atom platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08687 by Chang-Ling Zou, Dong-Qi Ma, Gang Li, Guang-Can Guo, Hong-Jie Fan, Liang Chen, Qing-Xuan Jie, Tian-Yang Zhang, Wen-Yi Zhu, Xiao-Kang Zhong, Xi-Feng Ren, Xu-Liang Zhang, Ya-Dong Hu, Yan-Lei Zhang, Yi-Chen Zhang, Zhu-Bo Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) illustrates the experimental system, a proto￾type quantum processing unit built around a single-atom ar￾ray. The system separates into four modules: (i) the atomic array held in vacuum; (ii) a classical link that delivers the trapping and control light to the target atoms; (iii) a quantum link that collects the single-photon fluorescence emitted by in￾dividual atoms; and (iv) a classical control module… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (b) presents the results of rearranging atoms from a randomly loaded array of 24 optical tweezers into a target zone of N = 10 atoms. Following the 150ms MOT load￾ing step, single atoms are stochastically loaded into the 24 tweezers, giving an initial single-atom filling fraction of ap￾proximately 0.6 in the target region (blue bars). After rear￾rangement, the single-site filling fraction increases to appr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The multi-round rearrangement protocol critically depends on the electronic latency per round; we now characterize each stage of this latency budget

    Because each rearrangement round consumes only sur- plus atoms, this iterative protocol can, in principle, be ex- tended to actively compensate for atom loss occurring dur- ing quantum-circuit execution, provided a reservoir of spare atoms is maintained adjacent to the computational zone. The multi-round rearrangement protocol critically depends on the el...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer,

    T. M. Graham, Y . Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinkemeyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Lichtman, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Campbell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers, T. Noel, and M. Saffman, “Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Logical quan- tum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays,

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gul- lans, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Logical quan- tum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays,” Nature 6...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A fault- tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum com- putation,

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, “A fault- tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantu...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit system,

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stew- art, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, X. Lyu, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit system,” Nature646, 1075 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,” Nature551, 579 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quan- tum simulator,

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quan- tum simulator,” Nature595, 227 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Probing the Kitaev honeycomb model on a neutral-atom quantum computer,

    S. J. Evered, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, T. Manovitz, D. Blu- vstein, S. H. Li, N. Maskara, H. Zhou, S. Ebadi, M. Xu, J. Campo, M. Cain, S. Ostermann, S. F. Yelin, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Probing the Kitaev honeycomb model on a neutral-atom quantum computer,” Na- ture645, 341 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Quantum coarsening and collective dynamics on a programmable sim- ulator,

    T. Manovitz, S. H. Li, S. Ebadi, R. Samajdar, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, H. Zhou, N. U. Koyluoglu, J. Feldmeier, P. E. Dolgirev, N. Maskara, M. Kalinowski, S. Sachdev, D. A. Huse, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti ´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum coarsening and collective dynamics on a programmable sim- ulator,” Nature638, 86 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits,

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, “A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits,” Nature647, 60 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    High-efficiency loading of 2,400 Ytterbium atoms in optical tweezer arrays,

    J. Zhu, C. Chen, L. Zhou, X. Xie, C. Jiang, Z. Ding, F. Wu, F. Yang, G. Wang, Q. Gong, P. Zhang, S. Zhang, and P. Peng, “High-efficiency loading of 2,400 Ytterbium atoms in optical tweezer arrays,” arXiv: 2512.19795 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2512.19795

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.19795 2025

  12. [12]

    High-Fidelity Single-Qubit Gates on Neutral Atoms in a Two-Dimensional Magic-Intensity Opti- cal Dipole Trap Array,

    C. Sheng, X. He, P. Xu, R. Guo, K. Wang, Z. Xiong, M. Liu, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, “High-Fidelity Single-Qubit Gates on Neutral Atoms in a Two-Dimensional Magic-Intensity Opti- cal Dipole Trap Array,” Physical Review Letters121, 240501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Benchmarking single-qubit gates on a neutral-atom quantum processor,

    A. Rozanov, B. Bantysh, I. Bobrov, G. Struchalin, and S. Straupe, “Benchmarking single-qubit gates on a neutral-atom quantum processor,” (2026). 8

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer,

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer,” Nature622, 268 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    High-fidelity universal gates in the 171Yb ground-state nuclear-spin qubit,

    J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, M. Jaffe, J. M. Kin- dem, L. Wadleigh, E. Zalys-Geller, X. Zhang, C.-A. Chen, M. A. Norcia, J. Epstein, E. Halperin, F. Hummel, T. Wilka- son, M. Li, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. C. Bohdanowicz, G. Booth, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, W. B. Cairncross, K. Cas- sella, R. Coxe, D. Crow, M. Feldkamp, C. Griger, A. Heinz, A. M. W....

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    High- fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit,

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, “High- fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit,” Nature622, 279 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    P. Shor, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation,” inProceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science(1996) pp. 56–65

    work page 1996

  18. [18]

    Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction,

    A. Steane, “Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Se- ries A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences452, 2551 (1996)

    work page 1996

  19. [19]

    Challenges and opportunities for quantum infor- mation hardware,

    D. D. Awschalom, H. Bernien, R. Hanson, W. D. Oliver, and J. Vuˇckovi´c, “Challenges and opportunities for quantum infor- mation hardware,” Science390, 1004 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: Perfor- mance and end-user perspective,

    K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, T. Ehmer, A. Hoursanov, J. Klepsch, W. Mauerer, G. Reuber, T. Strohm, M. Yin, and S. Luber, “Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: Perfor- mance and end-user perspective,” EPJ Quantum Technology10, 32 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Parallel Implementation of High-Fidelity Multi- qubit Gates with Neutral Atoms,

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, “Parallel Implementation of High-Fidelity Multi- qubit Gates with Neutral Atoms,” Physical Review Letters123, 170503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Microsecond- Scale High-Survival and Number-Resolved Detection of Yt- terbium Atom Arrays,

    A. Muzi Falconi, R. Panza, S. Sbernardori, R. Forti, R. Klemt, O. Abdel Karim, M. Marinelli, and F. Scazza, “Microsecond- Scale High-Survival and Number-Resolved Detection of Yt- terbium Atom Arrays,” Physical Review Letters135, 203402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Submillisecond, nondestructive, time-resolved quantum- state readout of a single, trapped neutral atom,

    M. E. Shea, P. M. Baker, J. A. Joseph, J. Kim, and D. J. Gau- thier, “Submillisecond, nondestructive, time-resolved quantum- state readout of a single, trapped neutral atom,” Physical Re- view A102, 053101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    High-fidelity low-loss state detection of alkali-metal atoms in optical tweezer traps,

    M. N. H. Chow, B. J. Little, and Y .-Y . Jau, “High-fidelity low-loss state detection of alkali-metal atoms in optical tweezer traps,” Physical Review A108, 032407 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Low-latency control system for feedback experiments with optical-tweezer arrays,

    A. H. Dadpour, T. Khayrullin, F. Afiouni, R. E. Sabeh, A. E. Mouawad, I. E. Hajj, and A. Cooper, “Low-latency control system for feedback experiments with optical-tweezer arrays,” Phys. Rev. Applied24, 024062 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    V olcano architecture for scalable quantum processor units,

    D.-Q. Ma, Q.-X. Jie, Y .-D. Hu, W.-Y . Zhu, Y .-C. Zhang, H.- J. Fan, X.-K. Zhong, G.-J. Chen, Y .-L. Zhang, T.-Y . Zhang, X.-F. Ren, L. Chen, Z.-B. Wang, G.-C. Guo, and C.-L. Zou, “V olcano architecture for scalable quantum processor units,” Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy69, 220314 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Mid- circuit Measurements on a Single-Species Neutral Alkali Atom Quantum Processor,

    T. M. Graham, L. Phuttitarn, R. Chinnarasu, Y . Song, C. Poole, K. Jooya, J. Scott, A. Scott, P. Eichler, and M. Saffman, “Mid- circuit Measurements on a Single-Species Neutral Alkali Atom Quantum Processor,” Physical Review X13, 041051 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Uni- versal Neutral-Atom Quantum Computer with Individual Opti- cal Addressing and Nondestructive Readout,

    A. Radnaev, W. Chung, D. Cole, D. Mason, T. Ballance, M. Bedalov, D. Belknap, M. Berman, M. Blakely, I. Bloom- field, P. Buttler, C. Campbell, A. Chopinaud, E. Copen- haver, M. Dawes, S. Eubanks, A. Friss, D. Garcia, J. Gilbert, M. Gillette, P. Goiporia, P. Gokhale, J. Goldwin, D. Good- win, T. Graham, C. Guttormsson, G. Hickman, L. Hurtley, M. Iliev, E. ...

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Collisional Blockade in Microscopic Optical Dipole Traps,

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, “Collisional Blockade in Microscopic Optical Dipole Traps,” Physical Re- view Letters89, 023005 (2002)

    work page 2002

  30. [30]

    A Fast Rearrange- ment Method for Defect-Free Atom Arrays,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhang, G. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y . Chen, Y . Li, W. Liu, J. Wu, V . Sovkov, and J. Ma, “A Fast Rearrange- ment Method for Defect-Free Atom Arrays,” Photonics12, 117 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Optical tweezers for a bottom-up assembly of few-atom systems,

    M. F. Andersen, “Optical tweezers for a bottom-up assembly of few-atom systems,” Advances in Physics: X7, 2064231 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Astigmatism-free 3D optical tweezer con- trol for rapid atom rearrangement,

    Y .-H. Lu, N. Song, T. Xiang, J. Ho, T.-C. Lee, Z. Yan, and D. Stamper-Kurn, “Astigmatism-free 3D optical tweezer con- trol for rapid atom rearrangement,” Optica Quantum4, 241 (2026)

    work page 2026

  33. [33]

    Fast neutral-atom transport and transfer between optical tweezers,

    C. Cicali, M. Calzavara, E. Cuestas, T. Calarco, R. Zeier, and F. Motzoi, “Fast neutral-atom transport and transfer between optical tweezers,” Physical Review Applied24, 024070 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Λ-enhanced grey molasses on the d2 transition of rubidium-87 atoms,

    S. Rosi, A. Burchianti, S. Conclave, D. S. Naik, G. Roati, C. Fort, and F. Minardi, “Λ-enhanced grey molasses on the d2 transition of rubidium-87 atoms,” Scientific Reports8, 1301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Observation of atoms laser cooled below the doppler limit,

    P. D. Lett, R. N. Watts, C. I. Westbrook, W. D. Phillips, P. L. Gould, and H. J. Metcalf, “Observation of atoms laser cooled below the doppler limit,” Physical Review Letters61, 169 (1988)

    work page 1988

  36. [36]

    Laser Cooling of Cesium Atoms Below 3µK,

    C. Salomon, J. Dalibard, W. D. Phillips, A. Clairon, and S. Guellati, “Laser Cooling of Cesium Atoms Below 3µK,” Europhysics Letters12, 683 (1990)

    work page 1990

  37. [37]

    Optimized temperature measurement with time-of- flight method,

    H.-c. Zhang, P.-f. Zhang, X.-p. Xu, F. Cheng, and Y .-z. Wang, “Optimized temperature measurement with time-of- flight method,” Optics Communications282, 3278 (2009)

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    Exploiting Dynamic Quan- tum Circuits in a Quantum Algorithm with Superconducting Qubits,

    A. D. C ´orcoles, M. Takita, K. Inoue, S. Lekuch, Z. K. Minev, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Exploiting Dynamic Quan- tum Circuits in a Quantum Algorithm with Superconducting Qubits,” Physical Review Letters127, 100501 (2021)

    work page 2021