Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Hybrid quantum computation gate with trapped ion system

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single trapped 171Yb+ ion implements a spin-controlled beam splitter between two motional modes, enabling swap tests, single-shot parity measurement, and NOON-state generation.

desk verdict First trapped-ion conditional beam splitter, carefully demonstrated with multiple cross-checks; minor gaps in data sharing and spin-echo calibration, but the central claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10117 v1 pith:336PHK6M submitted 2019-08-27 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

H. C. J. Gan , Gleb Maslennikov , Ko-Wei Tseng , Chihuan Nguyen , Dzmitry Matsukevich This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords hybridquantumcomputationcontinuousvariablestrappedionconditionalbeamsplitterFredkingateswaptestWignerfunctionNOONstates
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

The paper reports the experimental realization of a conditional beam splitter (CBS) gate in a single trapped 171Yb+ ion: the ion's internal spin controls whether two motional modes are swapped. This gate is the non-Gaussian ingredient needed for hybrid discrete-variable/continuous-variable quantum computation, where the spin supplies the discrete variable and the motional modes provide an infinite-dimensional continuous-variable space. The authors show that the gate works as a Fredkin (controlled-swap) gate with uncorrected success probability 0.82±0.01, and demonstrate three applications: measuring the overlap of motional states, single-shot parity measurement that reconstructs Wigner functions up to Fock state n=6, and deterministic generation of NOON states up to n=4. The point of the paper is that a single ion plus two motional modes can host a universal non-Gaussian building block, making hybrid continuous-variable quantum computation experimentally accessible.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional beam splitter unitary $\hat{U}_{\mathrm{CBS}} = \exp(-i \frac{\pi}{2} |e\rangle\langle e|(\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{b} + \hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger))$, a beam-splitter transformation on two motional modes that acts only when the ion's internal state is $|e\rangle$. It is generated by a state-dependent optical dipole force from a running optical lattice whose beat note matches the difference of the radial trap frequencies, $\omega_L = |\omega_x - \omega_y|$. To keep the spin coherent during the interaction, the gate is split into two halves with a $\pi$ pulse between them; the Supplemental Material proves the algorithms still work using the beam-splitter identities $\hat{U}_{\mathrm{BS}}(t,\pi) = \hat{U}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\dagger(t,0)$ and $\hat{U}_{\mathrm{BS}}(t,0)\hat{U}_{\mathrm{BS}}(t,0) = \hat{U}_{\mathrm{BS}}(2t,0)$.

What would settle it

Prepare the two modes in $|1,0\rangle$ with the spin in $|e\rangle$, apply a single CBS pulse of duration $\pi/(2\xi)$, and measure the full two-mode phonon distribution: the swap to $|0,1\rangle$ must occur with the same success probability as the Fredkin table, and any significant population in other Fock states—especially states with axial-mode phonons—would show the interaction is not the ideal CBS. The same pulse applied with the spin in $|g\rangle$ must leave $|1,0\rangle$ unchanged; any swap there would falsify the spin conditioning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the conditional beam splitter Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{CBS}} = \hbar \xi |e\rangle\langle e|(\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{b} + \hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger)$ is physically realized when a state-dependent optical lattice is driven at the difference frequency of the two radial modes, and that for $\tau \approx 400\,\mu\mathrm{s}$ it produces $\hat{U}_{\mathrm{CBS}} = \exp(-i\xi\tau |e\rangle\langle e|(\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{b} + \hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger))$ with $\xi\tau = \pi/2$, which swaps Fock states of the two modes only when the spin is in $|e\rangle$: $\hat{U}_{\mathrm{CBS}}|e,n,m\rangle = (-i)^{n+m}|e,m,n\rangle$ while $|g,n,m\rangle$ is unchanged. This is established by the Fredkin truth table with average success $0.82 \pm 0.01$ without SPAM correction, swap-test oscillations whose contrast equals Fock-state overlaps up to $n,m=5$, single-shot parity measurements yielding Wigner functions for Fock states $n=0$ through $6$, and NOON-state fidelities above the separability bound for $n=1$ through $4$. The authors note that the spin-echo pulse sequence used to protect spin coherence does not preserve Eq. (2) exactly, but the measurement outcomes of all three algorithms remain unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that during each half of the gate the interaction is exactly the intended mode-swapping operation, with no stray coupling to the axial mode, no motional heating, and no phase error in the reversal pulse; the argument that the spin-echo modification leaves the algorithms intact relies entirely on this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CBS gate provides the non-Gaussian operation needed, together with Gaussian gates, for universal continuous-variable quantum computation on trapped ions.
  • The swap test built from the CBS gate gives a direct readout of state overlap and phonon-number statistics, demonstrated by reconstructing a coherent state with $|\alpha|^2 = 1.9(2)$.
  • Single-shot parity measurement enables direct Wigner-function reconstruction of motional states, demonstrated for Fock states $n=0$ through $6$.
  • The constant-depth NOON-state circuit produces entangled states with quantum Fisher information above the classical bound for $n=2$ through $4$, with fidelity limited by motional dephasing.
  • Combined with a parity operation, the CBS gate realizes a CSWAP gate, opening the way to exponential-swap algorithms such as quantum principal component analysis and matrix inversion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radial-mode coherence time can be extended, the same constant-depth circuit should produce NOON states with $n>4$, where the current fidelity is limited by dephasing that scales as $|n_a-n_b|^2$.
  • A natural next experiment would implement the full CSWAP using the paper's Eq. (4) with an ancilla mode in vacuum; a truth-table measurement would separate the CBS phase factor from the parity-corrected swap and test the construction directly.
  • The swap-test capability could be applied to quantum fingerprinting or digital signatures using motional states, applications the paper lists for CSWAP but does not demonstrate.
  • Because the gate acts on two modes of a single ion, scaling to multi-ion registers would require either shuttling or coupling modes across ions; the CBS gate would be the natural primitive for such an extension.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental realization of a conditional beam splitter (CBS) gate acting on the two radial motional modes of a single trapped 171Yb+ ion, where the gate operation is conditioned on the internal spin state. The authors characterize the gate through a complete eight-state Fredkin-type truth table with an uncorrected success probability of 0.82 ± 0.01, and then demonstrate three applications: swap-test measurements of the overlap between motional states, single-shot parity measurement enabling Wigner function reconstruction of Fock states n = 0 to 6, and deterministic generation of NOON states with n = 1 to 4. To mitigate spin decoherence, the authors split each CBS gate into two halves and insert a microwave pi pulse, a spin-echo technique that modifies the exact evolution; the Supplemental Material provides algebraic proofs that the algorithm outcomes are unchanged.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a significant experimental advance for hybrid discrete-variable/continuous-variable quantum computation with trapped ions: it demonstrates a non-Gaussian gate with a complete truth table and uses it in several nontrivial applications. The paper benefits from a thorough characterization: the eight-state truth table uses 10,000 experiments per input, the overlap measurement yields |α|^2 = 1.9(2) consistent with the independent Fourier-analysis value 1.8(1), and the Wigner functions for Fock states up to n = 6 clearly display negative values. The supplement contains parameter-free derivations of all algorithmic identities starting from the beam-splitter Hamiltonian, which is a strength. The main weakness is the experimental validation of the spin-echo-modified sequence, which is load-bearing for the application claims.

major comments (1)
  1. [Main text, spin-echo paragraph; Supplemental Material, Eqs. (S4)–(S6)] The equivalence between the ideal CBS algorithms and the spin-echo-modified sequences is proven in the supplement only under the identities U_BS(t,π) = U_BS†(t,0) and U_BS(t,0)U_BS(t,0) = U_BS(2t,0). These identities are algebraically exact for an ideal beam-splitter Hamiltonian, but they require that the two halves of every split gate have exactly equal coupling strength and exactly opposite phase, with no residual coupling to the axial mode and no motional heating during the ~400 µs gate. The manuscript explicitly concedes that 'applying the spin echo does not preserve the transformation Eq. (2) exactly' and refers to the supplement for proof; however, no experimental characterization of the phase reversal or amplitude matching between the two halves is provided, and no comparison is shown of swap-test contrast, Fredkin truth-table success, or NOON fidelity with and without echo. Because all reported applications (swap test, parity/Wigner measurement, and NOON generation) are executed with the echo-modified sequence, any imperfection in the cancellation propagates as first-order corrections to the extracted overlap amplitudes, Wigner-function fit populations, and NOON fidelities. I recommend that the authors provide a direct calibration of the echo phase reversal (for example, by measuring the output state for a known input with and without the echo sequence) or demonstrate that the extracted quantities are insensitive to plausible phase errors and amplitude mismatches.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S5)] The argument of the second U_BS is written as 'π/4π' instead of 'π/4ξ'; this typo should be corrected.
  2. [Main text, Introduction] 'scability' should be 'scalability'.
  3. [Main text, spin-echo paragraph] The statement that spin echo is 'integrated into the gate sequence' is ambiguous; the paper should specify explicitly which data sets (Fredkin truth table versus swap-test/Wigner/NOON) were taken with the echo-modified sequence, since the truth table may have been taken without echo.
  4. [Supplemental Material, NOON state analysis] For n = 3, the correction for the degenerate |1,1> component uses an upper-bound estimate; the manuscript should state explicitly that the resulting fidelity is a lower bound and include the associated systematic uncertainty in the reported error bars.
  5. [Figure 2b] The gate success probability 0.82 ± 0.01 is quoted without SPAM correction; the text already states this, but it would be helpful to note the expected SPAM error contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CBS gate and all algorithms are derived from the stated Hamiltonian and independently benchmarked; self-citations are apparatus methods only.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and not circular. The CBS transformation Eq. (2) follows algebraically from the stated Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with tau = pi/(2*xi), and the swap-test, parity, and NOON circuits are evaluated directly from that unitary in the main text and the Supplemental Material (Eqs. S1-S10 and the NOON analysis). The experimental validation is by direct benchmark: the Fredkin truth-table success probability is measured as 0.82 +/- 0.01, the coherent-state overlap extracted from the swap test is cross-checked against an independent blue-sideband Fourier analysis (|alpha|^2 = 1.9(2) versus 1.8(1)), and the parity oscillations and NOON fidelities are measured quantities rather than derived predictions. The Wigner-function and NOON analyses do fit data to extract populations and coherences, but those fits are not presented as independent predictions and do not feed back into the derivation of the gate. Self-citations [21,22,28,31] supply the Raman-laser and state-dependent dipole-force apparatus; they are independent, externally established experimental techniques and are not invoked to prove the target gate or any uniqueness claim. The acknowledged spin-echo caveat, that the echo does not preserve Eq. (2) exactly, is an approximation whose Supplemental proof uses exact ideal-beam-splitter identities; it is a conditional algebraic argument, not a reduction of the result to its own input. Whether the echo phase reversal is perfectly calibrated is an experimental robustness question, not a circularity of the derivation. No load-bearing step reduces by definition to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The central claim depends on standard trapped-ion tools, including Fock state preparation, sideband readout, and the optical dipole force, and on the spin-echo variant of the CBS unitary.

free parameters (2)
  • Wigner-state populations d_n for n=0 to 6 = not tabulated; shown in Fig. 4 insets
    Fitted to measured W_n(alpha) data to account for imperfect state preparation and heating; used for state characterization, not in the derivation of the gate.
  • NOON density-matrix elements P_{n,0}, P_{0,n}, and rho_{n0,0n} = not tabulated; used in Fig. 5
    Extracted from joint-sideband Fourier analysis and parity-oscillation contrast to compute fidelity and quantum Fisher information; not used to derive the gate.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The running-lattice state-dependent dipole force with beat note omega_L = |omega_x - omega_y| exactly realizes H_CBS of Eq. (1) on the two radial modes.
    Main text after Eq. (1) and Fig. 1d; relies on prior derivations [21,22,31] and assumes resolved-sideband, Lamb-Dicke regime, and no coupling to the axial mode.
  • standard math Spin-echo modified unitary still preserves algorithm outputs because U_BS(t,pi) = U_BS-dagger(t,0) and U_BS(t,0)U_BS(t,0) = U_BS(2t,0).
    Used in the Supplemental Material to derive Eqs. S6, S9, and S10; requires the two gate halves to be ideal beam splitters with exactly opposite phase.
  • domain assumption Projective readout of the internal spin via fluorescence faithfully projects the motional mode after blue or red sideband pulses without disturbing it.
    Standard trapped-ion assumption used in all measurement sequences in Figs. 2 through 4; imperfect SPAM is acknowledged and not corrected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid quantum computation gate with trapped ion system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/336PHK6M

@misc{pith2026190810117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid quantum computation gate with trapped ion system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/336PHK6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10117}
}
abstract

The hybrid approach to quantum computation simultaneously utilizes both discrete and continuous variables which offers the advantage of higher density encoding and processing powers for the same physical resources. Trapped ions, with discrete internal states and motional modes which can be described by continuous variables in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, offer a natural platform for this approach. A nonlinear gate for universal quantum computing can be implemented with the conditional beam splitter Hamiltonian $|e\rangle \langle e| ( a^{\dagger} b + a b^{\dagger})$ that swaps the quantum states of two motional modes, depending on the ion's internal state. We realize such a gate and demonstrate its applications for quantum state overlap measurements, single-shot parity measurement, and generation of NOON states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Experimental setup. A linear rf-Paul trap con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum circuit for the swap test with (a) CSWAP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Generation of NOON states. (a) Quantum circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Wigner function measurement. (a) Quantum circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. R. Brown, J. Kim, and C. Monroe, npj Quantum Information 2, 16034 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    and measure the probability of finding the system in one of the states after applying the CBS transformation (Eq. 2). We measure the projection onto basis states by 3 con- secutive projective measurements onto the spin state |g⟩. We first perform state detection on the spin. If fluores- cence is not detected, the internal state is projected into |g⟩ and the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    82 ± 0. 01. Generalization of the Fredkin gate to states |ψ ⟩, |φ⟩ in the Hilbert space of a larger dimension is the controlled- swap (CSW AP) gate, which applies the transformation CS |e,ψ,φ ⟩ = |e,φ,ψ ⟩ if the control qubit is in state |e⟩, and does not change the state if the control qubit is in state |g⟩. The CSW AP gate has a number of known ap- plic...

    work page

  4. [4]

    However, for input states which are eigenstates of the parity operator ˆP both gates produce similar results

    that the CBS and CSW AP gates are different due to the extra state dependent phase factor. However, for input states which are eigenstates of the parity operator ˆP both gates produce similar results. 3 An example is the measurement of overlap between two states, ⟨φ|ψ ⟩, also known as a swap test [38, 40]. With an initial state |g,ψ,φ ⟩, applying the circu...

    work page

  5. [5]

    To alleviate the effects of spin decoherence (mainly due to magnetic field fluctuations), we integrate spin echo into the gate se- quence

    In our experiment, the coherence time of the spin is ≈ 1.7 ms, which is comparable to the duration of a single CBS gate ( τ ≈ 400µ s). To alleviate the effects of spin decoherence (mainly due to magnetic field fluctuations), we integrate spin echo into the gate se- quence. A single CBS gate is split into two, each with a durationτ/ 2, and a microwave |g⟩ → |...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We begin by measuring the overlap between Fock states |ψ,φ ⟩ = |n,m ⟩, for n,m ∈ [0, 5]

    exactly, but the outcomes of the algorithms remain unchanged [44]. We begin by measuring the overlap between Fock states |ψ,φ ⟩ = |n,m ⟩, for n,m ∈ [0, 5]. By varying the phase ϕ of the last microwave π/ 2-pulse with respect to the first from 0 to 2 π , we obtain the oscillating proba- bility (Eq. 3) to observe |e⟩ with amplitude equal to the overlap. We p...

    work page

  7. [7]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021314 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    T. Monz, D. Nigg, E. A. Martinez, M. F. Brandl, P. Schindler, R. Rines, S. X. Wang, I. L. Chuang, and R. Blatt, Science 351, 1068 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Debnath, N

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, Nature 536, 63 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Mon- roe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 3305 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    N. M. Linke, S. Johri, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, A. Y. Matsuura, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052334 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Reiher, N

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 114, 7555 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition 10 (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Lau and M

    H.-K. Lau and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100501 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Y. Shen, Y. Lu, K. Zhang, J. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Huh, and K. Kim, Chem. Sci. 9, 836 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Ortiz-Gutirrez, B

    L. Ortiz-Gutirrez, B. Gabrielly, L. F. Muoz, K. T. Pereira, J. G. Filgueiras, and A. S. Villar, Optics Com- munications 397, 166 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    D. M. Meekhof, C. Monroe, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1796 (1996)

    1996

  14. [22]

    Leibfried, D

    D. Leibfried, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4281 (1996)

    1996

  15. [23]

    Olmschenk, K

    S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. L. Moehring, D. N. Mat- sukevich, P. Maunz, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052314 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Fl¨ uhmann, T

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Nature 556, 513 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    C. F. Roos, T. Monz, K. Kim, M. Riebe, H. H¨ affner, D. F. V. James, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. A 77, 040302(R) (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    S. Ding, G. Maslennikov, R. Habl¨ utzel, H. Loh, and D. Matsukevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150404 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    S. Ding, G. Maslennikov, R. Habl¨ utzel, and D. Matsuke- vich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 193602 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    S. Ding, G. Maslennikov, R. Habl¨ utzel, and D. Matsuke- vich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130502 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Hybrid quantum computing,

    S. Lloyd, “Hybrid quantum computing,” in Quantum In- formation with Continuous Variables , edited by S. L. Braunstein and A. K. Pati (Springer Netherlands, Dor- drecht, 2003) pp. 37–45

    2003

  22. [30]

    U. L. Andersen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Nature Physics 11, 713 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  24. [32]

    Ejtemaee and P

    S. Ejtemaee and P. C. Haljan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 043001 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Hayes, D

    D. Hayes, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. Hucul, Q. Quraishi, S. Olmschenk, W. Campbell, J. Mizrahi, C. Senko, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 140501 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 103, 259 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    S. Ding, H. Loh, R. Hablutzel, M. Gao, G. Maslen- nikov, and D. Matsukevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 073002 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Fredkin and T

    E. Fredkin and T. Toffoli, Int J Theor Phys 21, 219 (1982)

    1982

  30. [38]

    R. B. Patel, J. Ho, F. Ferreyrol, T. C. Ralph, and G. J. Pryde, Science Advances 2, e1501531 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    T. Ono, R. Okamoto, M. Tanida, H. F. Hofmann, and S. Takeuchi, Scientific Reports 7, 45353 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Y. Y. Gao, B. J. Lester, K. S. Chou, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 566, 509 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Zhang, J

    K. Zhang, J. Thompson, X. Zhang, Y. Shen, Y. Lu, S. Zhang, J. Ma, V. Vedral, M. Gu, and K. Kim, arXiv:1907.12171

    1907 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Filip, Phys

    R. Filip, Phys. Rev. A 65, 062320 (2002)

    2002

  35. [43]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  36. [44]

    van Dam and Q

    W. van Dam and Q. Yuan, arXiv:1002.2970

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. Chuang, arXiv:quant-ph/0105032

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kobayashi, arXiv:0705.1129

    H. Kobayashi, arXiv:0705.1129

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Jones, S

    T. Jones, S. Endo, S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062304 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL] for details on incor- porating spin echo into the algorithms, and the experi- mental methods and data for NOON state analysis

  42. [50]

    Royer, Phys

    A. Royer, Phys. Rev. A 15, 449 (1977)

    1977

  43. [51]

    Bertet, A

    P. Bertet, A. Auffeves, P. Maioli, S. Osnaghi, T. Meunier, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 200402 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore, Methods in Theoret- ical Quantum Optics (Oxford University Press, 2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    H.-K. Lau, R. Pooser, G. Siopsis, and C. Weedbrook, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 080501 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Buˇ zek and M

    V. Buˇ zek and M. Hillery,Phys. Rev. A 62, 022303 (2000)

    2000

  47. [55]

    B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A 40, 2417 (1989)

    1989

  48. [56]

    P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052104 (2002)

    2002

  49. [57]

    M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Nature 429, 161 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    Nagata, R

    T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science 316, 726 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, Science 328, 879 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Zhang, M

    J. Zhang, M. Um, D. Lv, J.-N. Zhang, L.-M. Duan, and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 160502 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    C. J. Myatt, B. E. King, Q. A. Turchette, C. A. Sack- ett, D. Kielpinski, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Nature 403, 269 (2000)

    2000

  54. [62]

    X. Wang, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 9577 (2001)

    2001

  55. [63]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  57. [65]

    Lloyd, M

    S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, Nature Physics 10, 631 (2014)

    2014

  58. [66]

    Introduction to quantum ther- modynamics: History and prospects,

    R. Alicki and R. Kosloff, “Introduction to quantum ther- modynamics: History and prospects,” in Thermodynam- ics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions , edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer Inter- national Pub...

    2018

  59. [67]

    C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C. J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q. A. Turchette, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and C. Monroe, Nature 404, 256 (2000)

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.