Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Cooperative engineering the multiple radio-frequency fields to reduce the X-junction barrier for ion trap chips

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multiple RF fields with different amplitudes, the same frequency and phase, can reduce the X-junction pseudo-potential barrier and ion-height variation without changing electrode shape; combined with geometric optimization, the barrier…

desk verdict Useful method for junction barrier shaping, but the headline barrier numbers are measured on a slice and need re-evaluation along the actual curved path. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15676 v1 pith:76PL2AD2 submitted 2024-11-24 quant-ph

Yarui Liu , Zhao Wang , Zixuan Xiang , Qikun Wang , Tianyang Hu , Xu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords IontrapJunctionshuttlingElectrodeoptimizationPseudo-potentialbarrierRadio-frequencyfieldsX-junctionSurface-electrode
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 argues that the pseudo-potential barrier that blocks ions from turning a corner in an X-junction ion trap can be suppressed by electronic means: splitting the radio-frequency electrode into segments and giving each segment a different voltage amplitude, at the same frequency and phase, reshapes the trapping potential without touching the electrode geometry. In simulations of a surface-electrode trap, this multi-RF method brings the corner-turning barrier from 5.265 meV to 1.164 meV and the linear-shuttling barrier to 1.117 meV. Combining the multi-RF tuning with a modest geometric change (finger-shaped corner electrodes, plus wedge electrodes for the straight path) drives the barrier down to 0.136 meV for corner turning and 0.128 meV for linear shuttling, while also flattening the ion-height variation near the junction. The payoff is a potential all-electrical control knob that can be updated after the chip is fabricated, and that needs only four independent RF channels per junction. If it holds up in experiment, junction shuttling would no longer demand exquisitely precise electrode fabrication to reach low barriers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-RF field optimization method: take the normally single radio-frequency electrode and slice it into several segments (labeled RF_{ix}), then assign each segment an independent AC voltage amplitude while keeping frequency and phase identical. The objective is to minimize the pseudo-potential barrier along a chosen shuttling path—computed in the pseudopotential approximation at 30 MHz drive—and to flatten the height of the RF saddle points. Because the voltage distribution can be re-optimized after the electrode shape is fixed, the method turns electrode geometry, the usual optimization target, into a fixed background and replaces it with a handful of voltage amplitudes as the free parameters. In the paper's implementation only four independent RF channels per junction are needed, and the optimization is quasi-static: it solves the basis function once, whereas geometric optimization must re-solve for every new electrode shape.

What would settle it

Build or simulate a segmented X-junction trap with the paper's optimized voltage sets (e.g., the 0.136 meV corner-turning configuration) and measure the actual shuttling potential by tracking ion position or motional excitation; if the barrier does not fall below about 0.2 meV or the saddle-point height variation exceeds roughly 15 μm in a full 3D model that includes DC electrodes, the multi-RF optimization does not reproduce its predicted effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that multiple RF fields with different amplitudes, the same frequency, and the same phase can control and reduce the pseudo-potential barrier and the height variation of the ion near the junction without changing the shape of the electrodes. The authors demonstrate this in a numerical model of a five-wire surface-electrode X-junction, where the single RF electrode is divided into sub-electrodes; optimizing their voltage amplitudes yields barriers of 1.164 meV for corner-turning shuttling and 1.117 meV for linear shuttling, compared with 5.265 meV when all segments are driven at 100 V. When this voltage optimization is combined with geometric optimization—lengthening the inner corner electrode into a finger shape and adding wedge electrodes on the straight path—the barrier drops to 0.136 meV (corner) and 0.128 meV (linear). Because the voltage distribution can be changed after the electrode pattern is fixed, the method provides a real-time, all-electric degree of freedom for shaping the confinement field, and it separates the RF trapping-potential control from the DC shuttling control.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated trap omits DC electrodes and assumes a symmetric, ideal surface-electrode geometry with a 30 MHz pseudo-potential approximation; if stray fields, fabrication asymmetries, or DC potentials disturb the saddle-point landscape in a real chip, the computed barrier reduction may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ion shuttling through an X-junction can be made much lower-barrier by purely electronic means, without redesigning the electrode pattern or demanding ultra-sharp features.
  • Because corner-turning and linear shuttling need different optimized RF voltage sets, a quasi-static switching protocol between the two modes is required; the paper proposes such a protocol and notes it separates RF confinement shaping from DC shuttling.
  • Only four independent RF channels per junction are required, which the paper argues is experimentally feasible and can be further reduced with latched switching.
  • The method's equivalence to geometric optimization suggests a designer can trade fabrication complexity for control complexity, relaxing precision requirements and lowering breakdown risk from sharp electrodes.
  • The curved pseudo-potential tube created for corner-turning shuttling could allow ions to turn along a smooth arc rather than stop-and-turn, potentially increasing shuttling speed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same segmentation-and-amplitude-tuning recipe should apply to Y-junctions and more complex nodes, since it only requires decomposing the RF electrode and optimizing amplitudes along the intended path.
  • If the method transfers to experiment, it offers a post-fabrication 'trimming' knob for stray-field compensation and trap reconfiguration, which could extend the working lifetime of a chip by correcting slow drifts.
  • The apparent equivalence between electrode shape and voltage amplitude may reflect a deeper parameter-space duality; formalizing it could let designers solve for voltage sets analytically instead of iteratively.
  • A testable extension is closed-loop optimization of the RF voltages on a real trap, minimizing shuttling excitation directly rather than the simulated pseudo-potential, which would test the method's practical viability.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to reduce the pseudo-potential barrier at an X-junction ion trap by segmenting the RF electrodes and optimizing the amplitudes of the RF voltages applied to each segment, keeping frequency and phase fixed and without changing the electrode geometry. Using a pseudo-potential approximation for 171Yb+ at 30 MHz, the authors report barrier reductions from 5.265 meV to 1.164 meV (corner turning) and 1.117 meV (linear shuttling) with multi-RF optimization alone, and further reductions to 0.136 meV (corner) and 0.128 meV (linear) when combining multi-RF with geometric modifications (finger and wedge electrodes). The paper claims this method has the same effect as geometric optimization, requires fewer parameters and less optimization time, and offers post-fabrication tunability.

Significance. If the reported barrier reductions are robust, the method would be practically valuable for scalable ion-trap designs: it would allow shaping of the trapping potential after fabrication, potentially relaxing fabrication precision and enabling real-time all-electric control. The conceptual demonstration is plausible and the visualizations of the pseudo-potential tube are instructive. However, the current evidence is entirely numerical within a pseudo-potential approximation, and the central quantitative claims depend on how the barrier is defined. The claimed equivalence with geometric optimization and the parameter/time advantage are not established by the data presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 and §4 (Figs. 2, 5, 7)] The quoted barrier for corner turning, including the headline 0.136 meV, is the maximum of the pseudo-potential along the fixed x-axis (y=0) slice in zone A. However, the text and figure captions state that the optimized pseudo-potential tube for corner turning leaves the x-axis for x in [0,20] μm, with the saddle point near (x,y)=(20,20) μm. The maximum along a fixed coordinate slice is not the barrier an ion experiences when following the actual curved tube center. The paper should compute and report the maximum pseudo-potential along the tube center (or along the physically relevant shuttling path from A to B) for both corner turning and linear shuttling; without this, the reduction from 5.265 meV to 0.136 meV may be an artifact of the chosen slice.
  2. [§2, §4] The text states that 'the minimum RF barriers obtained by the multi-RF fields method and the geometrical optimization method are similar,' but the paper's own numbers do not support this. Multi-RF on the original geometry gives 1.164 meV (corner) and 1.117 meV (linear), whereas the geometry-only optimizations give 0.757 meV (corner) and 0.165 meV (linear). These values are not similar; the geometric method is substantially better in both cases. The authors should either remove the equivalence claim or provide a matched comparison (same starting geometry, same optimization budget, same objective) that justifies it.
  3. [Abstract and §2] The abstract claims the method 'requires fewer parameters and optimization time,' but no quantitative comparison is provided. The only supporting statement in §2 is 'In our experience, rapid convergence ... can only be achieved by artificially searching voltage parameters within a few hours.' This is anecdotal and not a comparison. Moreover, the multi-RF method introduces one voltage amplitude per RF segment (many free parameters), whereas the geometric optimizations in §4 use a handful of parameters (α, d1, w2, l2, d2). The claim of fewer parameters is not self-evident and may be incorrect relative to the geometric optimizations shown. The authors should give a systematic count of free parameters and a computational-cost comparison (e.g., number of field solves) against geometric optimization.
  4. [§4, Fig. 5] In the corner-turning hybrid case, the multi-RF step reduces the barrier from 0.757 meV to 0.136 meV but simultaneously increases the ion height variation from 7.37 μm to 14.65 μm. This contradicts the abstract's blanket statement that the multi-RF method reduces 'ion height variation.' The paper should acknowledge this trade-off explicitly and state under which conditions both the barrier and height variation improve, rather than implying simultaneous improvement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] There is a typo: 'The maximum pseudo-potential value for the original unoptimized case is is 5.265 meV' contains a duplicated 'is.'
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'for li near shuttling' should read 'for linear shuttling.'
  3. [Introduction] The word 'importantance' appears; it should be 'importance.'
  4. [§4, Linear shuttling] The sentence describing the intuitive method, 'simply apply the optimized RF voltages in zone B to zone C and apply the 100 V RF voltage to the electrode segments in zone B,' is unclear; please clarify which zones receive which voltages, as the intended correspondence between shuttling path A→C and the voltage distribution is not obvious.
  5. [§2] The optimization algorithm for the RF voltage amplitudes is not described: is it gradient-based, a heuristic search, or coordinate descent? Please provide enough detail (e.g., objective function form, constraints, convergence criterion) to make the simulations reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a numerical optimization/design study whose reported barrier reductions are the output of an explicitly stated objective, not a parameter fit disguised as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is constructive: it divides RF electrodes into segments, optimizes the segment voltages against a pseudo-potential-barrier objective, and reports the resulting barrier values. Reporting a minimized objective after optimizing the variables that enter that objective is the normal output of an optimization study, not a circular inference; the voltage sets are actual free parameters varied in the simulation, and the barrier values are evaluated from the resulting pseudo-potential, so the result is not equivalent to the input by definition. The key enabling premise, that multiple RF voltages of the same frequency and phase but different amplitudes can shift pseudo-potential saddle points, is supported by independent prior work (refs. 44, 45, and 47) as well as by the coauthor preprint (ref. 46), so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The hybrid geometric-plus-RF optimizations are separate simulations using the same metric, and the comparison against the unoptimized 100 V case is an internal benchmark rather than a fitted prediction. The concern that the corner-turning barrier is extracted from the x-axis (ZOX) slice while the optimized pseudo-potential tube curves into the x=y plane is a modeling/path-definition validity issue, not a circularity issue, because the paper explicitly discloses that the tube leaves the x-axis for x in [0,20] μm and does not claim to sample the curved path on that slice. No equation is constructed from the conclusion it is meant to establish, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness argument is imported from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on the pseudo-potential approximation, linear superposition of RF fields, symmetry reduction, and the omission of DC electrodes. The optimized voltages and geometry parameters are free parameters fitted to the simulation objective, not derived from first principles.

free parameters (10)
  • RF segment voltages for corner turning (A to B) = see Fig. 3a
    Optimized to minimize maximum pseudo-potential along the A-to-B path.
  • RF segment voltages for linear shuttling (A to C) = see Fig. 3b
    Optimized to minimize maximum pseudo-potential along the A-to-C path.
  • Finger electrode top angle alpha = 12.6 deg
    Geometric parameter optimized to minimize pseudo-potential barrier with all RF at 100 V.
  • Distance between diagonal fingertips d1 = 34 um
    Geometric parameter optimized along with alpha.
  • RF segment voltages for hybrid corner case = see Fig. 4
    Optimized RF distribution on finger electrode geometry.
  • Wedge electrode width w2 = 29 um
    Geometry parameter optimized for linear shuttling with wedge electrodes.
  • Wedge electrode length l2 = 40 um
    Geometry parameter optimized for linear shuttling.
  • Distance between wedge diagonal apexes d2 = 152 um
    Geometry parameter optimized for linear shuttling.
  • RF segment voltages for hybrid linear case = see Fig. 6
    Optimized RF distribution on finger+wedge geometry.
  • Wedge apex angle beta = 53 deg (fixed, not optimized)
    Fixed by hand before optimization, so it is a chosen parameter though not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pseudo-potential approximation is valid for the 30 MHz RF drive and the ion mass
    Used throughout to compute time-averaged trapping potential; standard for Paul traps.
  • domain assumption RF potentials from different segments superpose linearly and same-frequency, same-phase voltages allow amplitude-only optimization
    Basis for the multi-RF method; appears in Section 'The multiple radio frequency fields optimization'.
  • domain assumption Electrode structure is symmetric about x=0 and y=0, so simulation in one quadrant with ZOX plane is representative
    Justifies the 2D simulation domain; stated in Section 'The multiple radio frequency fields optimization'.
  • domain assumption DC electrodes can be omitted when optimizing the RF pseudo-potential barrier
    DC electrodes are removed in Fig. 1 and simulations; this presumes DC fields do not alter the barrier optimization.
  • domain assumption The surface-electrode geometry with given dimensions is a faithful model of a fabricated chip
    No experimental validation; all results are simulation-only.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooperative engineering the multiple radio-frequency fields to reduce the X-junction barrier for ion trap chips." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76PL2AD2

@misc{pith2026241115676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooperative engineering the multiple radio-frequency fields to reduce the X-junction barrier for ion trap chips},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76PL2AD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15676}
}
read the original abstract

With the increasing number of ion qubits and improving performance of sophisticated quantum algorithms, more and more scalable complex ion trap electrodes have been developed and integrated. Nonlinear ion shuttling operations at the junction are more frequently used, such as in the areas of separation, merging, and exchanging. Several studies have been conducted to optimize the geometries of the radio-frequency (RF) electrodes to generate ideal trapping electric fields with a lower junction barrier and an even ion height of the RF saddle points. However, this iteration is time-consuming and commonly accompanied by complicated and sharp electrode geometry. Therefore, high-accuracy fabrication process and high electric breakdown voltage are essential. In the current work, an effective method was proposed to reduce the junction's pseudo-potential barrier and ion height variation by setting several individual RF electrodes and adjusting each RF voltage amplitude without changing the geometry of the electrode structure. The simulation results show that this method shows the same effect on engineering the trapping potential and reducing the potential barrier, but requires fewer parameters and optimization time. By combining this method with the geometrical shape-optimizing, the pseudo-potential barrier and the ion height variation near the junction can be further reduced. In addition, the geometry of the electrodes can be simplified to relax the fabrication precision and keep the ability to engineer the trapping electric field in real-time even after the fabrication of the electrodes, which provides a potential all-electric degree of freedom for the design and control of the two-dimensional ion crystals and investigation of their phase transition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wineland, D. J. et al. Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259e328 (1998). https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.103.019

    doi:10.6028/jres.103.019 1998

  2. [2]

    Kaushal, V. et al. Shuttling-based trapped-ion quantum information processing. AVS Quantum Sci. 2, 014101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1116/1. 5126186

    doi:10.1116/1 2020

  3. [3]

    & Wineland, D

    Leibfried, D., Blatt, R., Monroe, C. & Wineland, D. Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281e324 (2003). https://doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.75.281

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Quantum computations with cold trapped ions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 e4094 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74. 4091

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74 1995

  5. [5]

    Barends, R. et al. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature 508, 500 e503 (2014). https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature13171

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Wang, P. et al. Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceeding one hour. Nat. Commun. 12, 233 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020- 20330-w

    doi:10.1038/s41467-020- 2021

  7. [7]

    Linke, N. M. et al. Experimental comparison of two quantum computing ar- chitectures. PNAS 114, 3305 e3310 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1618020114

    doi:10.1073/pnas 2017

  8. [8]

    Harty, T. P. et al. High- fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220501 (2014). https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.220501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.220501 2014

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Crain, S. et al. High-speed low-crosstalk detection of a 171Ybþ qubit using superconducting nanowire single photon detectors. Commun. Phys. 2,9 7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-019-0195-8

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Clark, C. R. et al. High- fidelity bell-state preparation with 40Caþ optical qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130505 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127. 130505

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Harty, T

    Ballance, C. J., Harty, T. P., Linke, N. M., Sepiol, M. A. & Lucas, D. M. High- fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyper fine qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060504

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Gaebler, J. P. et al. High- fidelity universal gate set for 9Beþ ion qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060505 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117. 060505

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Ryan-Anderson, C. et al. Realization of real-time fault-tolerant quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. X 11, 041058 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/Phys- RevX.11.041058

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Negnevitsky, V. et al. Repeated multi-qubit readout and feedback with a mixed-species trapped-ion register. Nature 563, 527e531 (2018). https://doi. org/10.1038/s41586-018-0668-z

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. A scalable quantum computer with ions in an array of microtraps. Nature 404, 579 e581 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35007021

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    & Kim, J

    Monroe, C. & Kim, J. Scaling the ion trap quantum processor. Science 339, 1164e1169 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231298

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    & Chen, P.-X

    Wu, W., Zhang, T. & Chen, P.-X. Quantum computing and simulation with trapped ions: on the path to the future. Fundam. Res. 1, 213 e216 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2020.12.004

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Kim, J

    Brown, K. R., Kim, J. & Monroe, C. Co-designing a scalable quantum com- puter with trapped atomic ions. npj Quantum Inf. 2, 16034 (2016). https://doi. org/10.1038/npjqi.2016.34

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    James, D.F. V. Quantum dynamics of cold trapped ions with application to quantum computation. Appl. Phys. B 66, 181 e190 (1998). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s003400050373

    1998

  12. [20]

    & Schaetz, T

    Landa, H., Reznik, B., Brox, J., Mielenz, M. & Schaetz, T. Structure, dynamics and bifurcations of discrete solitons in trapped ion crystals. New J. Phys. 15, 093003 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/15/9/ 093003. 2 1 .M u r a l i ,P . ,D e b r o y ,D .M . ,B r o w n ,...

    2013

  13. [22]

    & Duan, L.-M

    Wu, Y., Wang, S.-T. & Duan, L.-M. Noise analysis for high- fidelity quantum entangling gates in an anharmonic linear Paul trap. Phys. Rev. A 97, 062325 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.062325

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    & Wineland, D

    Kielpinski, D., Monroe, C. & Wineland, D. J. Architecture for a large-scale ion- trap quantum computer. Nature 417, 709 e711 (2002). https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature00784

    2002

  15. [24]

    Decaroli, C. et al. Design, fabrication and characterization of a micro-fabri- cated stacked-wafer segmented ion trap with two X-junctions. Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 044001 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac07ee

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    Zhang, C., Mehta, K. K. & Home, J. P. Optimization and implementation of a surface-electrode ion trap junction. New J. Phys. 24, 073030 (2022). https:// doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ac7db6

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    Amini, J. M. et al. Toward scalable ion traps for quantum information processing. New J. Phys. 12, 033031 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/12/3/ 033031

    2010 doi

  18. [27]

    D., Chiaverini, J., McConnell, R

    Bruzewicz, C. D., Chiaverini, J., McConnell, R. & Sage, J. M. Trapped-ion quantum computing: progress and challenges. Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5088164

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    & Blatt, R

    Brownnutt, M., Kumph, M., Rabl, P. & Blatt, R. Ion-trap measurements of electric-field noise near surfaces. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1419 e1482 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1419

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    Monz, T. et al. 14-Qubit entanglement: creation and coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.130506

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    Scalable Quantum Information Processing (SQIP) with Trapped Ions

    Blatt, R. Scalable Quantum Information Processing (SQIP) with Trapped Ions. Defense Technical Information Center AD1058544 (2016). https://apps. dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1058544

    2016

  22. [31]

    Turchette, Q. A. et al. Decoherence and decay of motional quantum states of a trapped atom coupled to engineered reservoirs. Phys. Rev. A 62, 053807 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.053807

    2000 doi

  23. [32]

    Ospelkaus, C. et al. Trapped-ion quantum logic gates based on oscillating magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 090502 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.101.090502

    2008

  24. [33]

    Wesenberg, J. H. Electrostatics of surface-electrode ion traps. Phys. Rev. A 78, 063410 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.78.063410

    2008 doi

  25. [35]

    Sterk, J. D. et al. Closed-loop optimization of fast trapped-ion shuttling with sub-quanta excitation. npj Quantum Inf. 8, 68 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41534-022-00579-3

    2022

  26. [36]

    Lee, M. et al. Ion shuttling method for long-range shuttling of trapped ions in MEMS-fabricated ion traps. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 60, 027004 (2021). https:// doi.org/10.35848/1347-4065/abdabb

    2021 doi

  27. [37]

    Wright, K. et al. Reliable transport through a microfabricated X-junction surface-electrode ion trap. New J. Phys. 15, 033004 (2013). https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033004

    2013 doi

  28. [38]

    Zhang, X. et al. Versatile surface ion trap with fork junction for effective cooling. Phys. Scr. 95, 045103 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1402- 4896/ab635b

    2020 doi

  29. [39]

    & Willitsch, S

    Mokhberi, A., Schmied, R. & Willitsch, S. Optimised surface-electrode ion- trap junctions for experiments with cold molecular ions. New J. Phys. 19, 043023 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa6918

    2017 doi

  30. [40]

    Shu, G. et al. Heating rates and ion-motion control in a Y-junction surface- electrode trap. Phys. Rev. A 89, 062308 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.89.062308

    2014

  31. [41]

    Liu, W., Chen, S. & Wu, W. A flexible optimization method for scaling surface- electrode ion traps. Appl. Phys. B 117, 1149e1159 (2014). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00340-014-5939-2

    2014

  32. [42]

    Charles Doret, S. et al. Controlling trapping potentials and stray electric fields in a microfabricated ion trap through design and compensa- tion. New J. Phys. 14, 073012 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/ 7/073012

    2012 doi

  33. [43]

    Blakestad, R. B. et al. Near-ground-state transport of trapped-ion qubits through a multidimensional array. Phys. Rev. A 84, 032314 (2011). https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.032314

    2011 doi

  34. [44]

    Karin, T. et al. Transport of charged particles by adjusting rf voltage amplitudes. Appl. Phys. B 106, 117 e125 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00340-011-4738-2

    2012

  35. [45]

    Kumph, M. et al. Operation of a planar-electrode ion-trap array with adjust- able RF electrodes. New J. Phys. 18, 023047 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/18/2/023047

    2016

  36. [46]

    Wang, Z. et al. Design of a novel monolithic parabolic-mirror ion-trap to precisely align the RF null point with the optical focus. Preprint at https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.08845 (2020)

    2020 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    V., Maunz, P

    Rynbach, A. V., Maunz, P. & Kim, J. An integrated mirror and surface ion trap with a tunable trap location. Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 221108 (2016). https://doi. org/10.1063/1.4970542

    2016 doi

  38. [48]

    Hucul, D. et al. On the transport of atomic ions in linear and multidimensional ion trap arrays. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0702175 (2007)

    2007 doi arXiv

  39. [49]

    Yan, L. L. et al. Exploring structural phase transitions of ion crystals. Sci. Rep. 6, 21547 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21547

    2016 doi

  40. [50]

    Read, F. H. & Bowring, N. J. The CPO programs and the BEM for charged particle optics. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A: Accel. Spectrom. Detect. Assoc. Equip. 645, 273 e277 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima. 2010.12.163. MISCELLANEA Acknowledgements The authors want t...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.