Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Parametrized multiqubit gate design for neutral-atom based quantum platforms

T0 review · 3 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 A two-network optimizer finds piecewise-continuous detuning pulses that implement $\mathrm{U_{C_1P}}(\phi)$ and $\mathrm{U_{C_2P}}(\phi)$ on neutral atoms at simulated mean infidelities of $3.4\times10^{-4}$ and $1.45\times10^{-3}$, with…

desk verdict Solid pulse-family optimization for Rydberg controlled-phase gates, but the printed decay Hamiltonian has a sign error that turns decay into gain; the headline fidelities are unreproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19785 v2 pith:BSAYMT3M submitted 2024-11-29 quant-ph

Madhav Mohan , Julius de Hond , Servaas Kokkelmans This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords parametrizedquantumgatesRydbergblockadeneutralatomcomputingneuralnetworkcontroloptimalC1PgateC2Ppulsefamilies
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 aims to show that a single trained neural network can output, for any requested phase angle $\phi$ in $(0,\pi]$, a laser-detuning pulse that implements a controlled-phase gate on neutral atoms, first with one control qubit ($\mathrm{C_1P}$) and then with two ($\mathrm{C_2P}$). Because the pulse family is produced in one training pass rather than re-optimized per angle, it could remove the per-iteration overhead that gradient-ascent control would impose in variational and compiled circuits. For $\mathrm{C_1P}$ the simulated mean infidelity is $3.4\times10^{-4}$, and for $\mathrm{C_2P}$, after re-optimization from an infinite-blockade starting point, $1.45\times10^{-3}$ including Rydberg decay and finite blockade. The pulses use a fixed Rabi frequency, global addressing, smooth detuning, and durations near or at the time-optimal values, which is what makes them plausible on current hardware.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the blockade-regime decomposition of the $N$-qubit Hilbert space into decoupled two-level systems. For $\mathrm{C_1P}$ the nontrivial transition is $|11\rangle$ to the bright state $|b_2\rangle=(|1r\rangle+|r1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ with Rabi frequency $\sqrt{2}\Omega_{\max}$; $\mathrm{C_2P}$ adds $|111\rangle$ to $|b_3\rangle=(|11r\rangle+|1r1\rangle+|r11\rangle)/\sqrt{3}$ at $\sqrt{3}\Omega_{\max}$. The optimization uses these effective dynamics, and optionally the full finite-blockade Hamiltonian, and treats the Schr\"odinger equation as a neural ODE so gradients can be backpropagated through the solver into the chained networks $N_T(\phi)$ and $N_C(\phi,t)$; the trained networks output $T_\phi$ and $\Delta(\phi,t)$ directly for any $\phi$.

What would settle it

Run the same trained pulses in a simulation or experiment with atoms placed at unequal separations, giving pairwise interaction strengths differing by about 10%, or with a 2% per-site Rabi-frequency spread, and compute the mean gate fidelity over $\phi\in(0,\pi]$. If the mean infidelity rises above roughly $10^{-2}$, the central claim of hardware-applicable pulse families is falsified for real arrays.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that parametrized multiqubit phase gates $\mathrm{U_{C_1P}}(\phi)$ and $\mathrm{U_{C_2P}}(\phi)$ are natively realizable on Rydberg-neutral-atom hardware by piecewise-continuous families of detuning pulses $\Delta(\phi,t)$, with the Rabi frequency held fixed at $\Omega_{\max}$ and the same pulse applied to all atoms. Optimizing two chained neural networks, one that outputs pulse duration $T_\phi$ and one that outputs the detuning waveform, against the gate-infidelity cost $J$ converges to controls whose simulated mean infidelities, including Rydberg-state decay and finite blockade at $B=21.1$, are $3.4\times10^{-4}$ for $\mathrm{C_1P}$ and $1.45\times10^{-3}$ for $\mathrm{C_2P}$. The $\mathrm{C_1P}$ pulse is time-optimal, and the $\mathrm{C_2P}$ pulse at $\phi=\pi$ is within 2.6% of the known time-optimal $\mathrm{C_2Z}$ duration. The paper states that this is the first $\mathrm{C_kP}$ pulse family on the Rydberg platform.

Load-bearing premise

The reported fidelities assume every atom pair has the same interaction strength and every atom sees the same laser intensity and detuning; real arrays have unequal spacings and intensity inhomogeneities that are not included in the simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $\mathrm{C_1P}$ gate can be run with a single global laser, no single-site addressing, and a duration that tracks the time-optimal curve $f(\phi)=a\,\mathrm{arcsinh}(b\phi)$.
  • The $\mathrm{C_2P}$ gate runs at about $16.87/\Omega_{\max}$ for $\phi=\pi$, only roughly 2.6% above the time-optimal $\mathrm{C_2Z}$ gate, while still using only global controls.
  • Including these native gates in compiled circuits replaces decompositions that are about 2.2 times ($\mathrm{C_1P}$) and 4.6 times ($\mathrm{C_2P}$) longer in two-qubit-gate time, reducing error accumulation on near-term devices.
  • The trained network weights serve as initial guesses for further optimization, for instance toward robustness to laser-intensity noise.
  • The method is in principle extendable to more than two control qubits, limited mainly by Hilbert-space dimension and training difficulty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same chained-neural-network ansatz should produce pulse families for other parametrized unitaries whose dynamics decompose into a few bright-state manifolds, such as fan-out gates, as long as the effective Hamiltonian stays low-dimensional.
  • Beyond the paper: because only detuning is modulated, the protocol's robustness to laser-intensity inhomogeneity may be the next bottleneck; a testable extension is to include per-atom Rabi variations in the simulation and quantify how infidelity grows.
  • Beyond the paper: in variational algorithms one could query the trained network on the fly for the current $\phi$, eliminating the repeated classical re-optimization step entirely, which is the practical payoff the authors point toward.
  • Beyond the paper: hardware validation on arrays with non-equidistant spacing is the natural next step, since the symmetric-geometry assumption is the main place the reported infidelities could degrade.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the design of parameterized multi-qubit gates for neutral-atom platforms. The authors train chained neural networks to output detuning pulses for controlled-phase gates C1P and C2P as continuous (piecewise-continuous) functions of the phase angle φ, with fixed Rabi frequency and global addressing. They simulate the dynamics under the full Hamiltonian with finite Rydberg blockade (B = 21.1) and include a non-Hermitian term intended to model Rydberg decay, reporting mean infidelities of 3.4 × 10^-4 for C1P and 1.45 × 10^-3 for C2P. They also compare pulse durations with known time-optimal results and provide the trained network weights as data. The central claim is that these are the first families of CkP pulses for Rydberg platforms, with fidelities suitable for current hardware.

Significance. If the numbers are correct, the contribution is a practical recipe for native parameterized multi-qubit gates, which is relevant for variational algorithms and circuit compilation. The numerical protocol is careful: C1P uses full-Hamiltonian simulation with finite blockade, C2P uses a two-stage refinement from infinite-blockade to finite-blockade optimization, and the reported fidelities are obtained by forward integration of the stated Hamiltonian. The release of trained network weights is a concrete reproducibility asset. However, the quantitative claims are undermined by a sign error in the decay Hamiltonian, and the reported fidelities depend on an idealized symmetric geometry. With the sign corrected and the numbers re-evaluated, the work would be a solid contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (15), Sec. II A] The non-Hermitian term is written as H_decay = +i Γ/2 |r><r|. With the evolution convention of Eq. (16), U = T exp(-i ∫ H dt), the imaginary term produces e^{+Γt/2} growth in the Rydberg amplitude, i.e., gain rather than decay. Consequently, the quoted mean infidelities 'including Rydberg decay' (3.4e-4 for C1P and 1.45e-3 for C2P) cannot be reproduced from the printed equations. If the simulation code uses the conventional -i Γ/2, Eq. (15) is a typo; if it uses the printed sign, the fidelity numbers do not represent decay losses. Either way, the manuscript must be corrected and the reported fidelities recomputed or re-confirmed. The definition in Eq. (B3), (1-F)_r = F - F_decay, also assumes F_decay < F, which is not guaranteed with the '+' sign.
  2. [Sec. II A, after Eq. (14)] The text states 'The C2P gate is described by the matrix U = 13 - 2e^{iφ}|111><111| – equivalent to the definition in Eq. (5).' This is not equivalent: this matrix gives eigenvalue 1 - 2e^{iφ} on |111>, whereas Eq. (5) requires e^{iφ}. The correct expression is 1_3 + (e^{iφ} - 1)|111><111|. While the actual numerical optimization uses Eq. (5), the printed statement is a mathematical error that should be fixed.
  3. [Eqs. (8)-(12) and Sec. III] The high-fidelity numbers are obtained under the assumption that all atom pairs have identical interaction strength V and that a single global detuning pulse is applied. This idealized symmetric geometry is not tested against variations in interatomic distances, laser intensity inhomogeneity, or finite temperature. Since the paper concludes that the gates have 'immediate benefits for current neutral atom hardware,' the authors should either provide robustness analysis under realistic inhomogeneities or explicitly state that the reported fidelities apply only to the ideal equidistant, globally addressed configuration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12), Sec. II A] V as defined via -C6/|Ri-Rj|^6 is negative for positive C6, so B = V/Ωmax would be negative. Please define B = |V|/Ωmax or clarify the sign convention.
  2. [Data availability] The reference for the additional data [56] lacks a URL or DOI; for reproducibility, the data should be accessible via a persistent link.
  3. [Introduction and Fig. 4] The claim that the C1P pulse is 'time-optimal' is not proven. The agreement of Tφ with a known arcsinh fit is suggestive, but a proof or a precise comparison to a time-optimal control solution would be needed.
  4. [Reference [10]] The journal name 'A VS Quantum Sci.' should be 'AVS Quantum Sci.'.
  5. [Eq. (18)] Because the evolution is non-Hermitian when decay is included, the projected operator P U_out P is not unitary; the use of the Hilbert-Schmidt distance as a fidelity measure should be justified or the normalization made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the control pulses are optimized against external Hamiltonian dynamics and target unitaries, and the reported infidelities are forward-evaluated performance metrics rather than fitted inputs. A sign inconsistency in Eq. (15) is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: target unitaries (Eqs. 4-5), Rydberg Hamiltonian with fixed Omega_max and global detuning (Eqs. 7-11), TLS reduction (Eqs. 13-14), NN ansatz trained to minimize J = <1-F> (Eq. 18), and final infidelities obtained by forward integration of the Schrodinger equation (Eq. 16). Nothing in this chain defines an input in terms of the reported output. The NN weights are trained against the same fidelity metric later reported, but the final numbers are evaluated on a fresh Monte Carlo sample and are not parameters renamed as predictions; the optimizer could, and initially did, fail (as in the un-retrained C2P finite-blockade case). Physical inputs B = 21.1, Gamma_{n=61}, and Omega_max are literature values, including one self-citation [41] for the Sr lifetime and detuning bound, but these are not outputs of this optimization and are not the target result. The arcsinh and polynomial fits to T_phi are descriptive consistency checks with prior work [15,34], not load-bearing derivations. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is invoked to force the ansatz. One non-circular correctness concern is flagged: Eq. (15) prints H_decay = +i Gamma/2 |r><r|, while Eq. (16) evolves with U = T exp(-i integral H dt); as written this gives Rydberg amplitude growth rather than decay, so the 'decay-included' fidelities may not be reproducible from the printed equations. This is an internal consistency/typo issue that should be corrected, but it is not an input-output circularity and does not change the score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Schrödinger evolution plus stated modeling choices: blockade-regime projection, equidistant symmetric interactions, decay leaving the computational subspace, and the assumption that random angle sampling during training yields valid controls over the full domain. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Time-penalty multiplier μ (Eq. 19) = not reported
    Chosen heuristically in Jopt=J+μTφ to balance fidelity against pulse duration; it shapes the final Tφ and gate fidelities.
  • Detuning bound |Δ|<2.5Ωmax = 2.5 Ωmax
    Hand-chosen constraint to simplify experimental implementation; restricts the control manifold and affects achievable fidelities.
  • Pulse duration bound Tφ<1.2Topt,φ=π = 1.2 Topt,π
    Heuristic bound to avoid vanishing gradients in the sigmoid output; restricts the solution space.
  • NN architecture hyperparameters = C1P (3,45,10,300); C2P (4,45,20,300); 5 and 14 domain intervals
    Selected heuristically; the final pulse families and their fidelities depend on this variational capacity.
  • C1P duration fit constants (a,b) in Tφ=a arcsinh(bφ) = (1.07, 275.86)
    Nonlinear least-squares fit to the NN time output for visualization only; not used to generate pulses.
  • C2P duration polynomial fit constants (a,b,c) = (-0.70, 5.24, 7.44)
    Descriptive fit to the NN time output; not used in gate design.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Blockade regime B≫1 permits projecting out states with more than one Rydberg excitation
    Used to define the effective Hamiltonian Heff (Eq. B2) and the TLS picture (Eqs. 13-14); finite-B corrections are simulated only in the final fidelity estimates.
  • domain assumption All atom pairs have equal van der Waals interaction strength V
    Eq. (12) restricts to equidistant arrays; the bright states |b2>, |b3> rely on this symmetry, and real nonuniform geometries are not simulated.
  • domain assumption Rydberg decay leaves the computational subspace
    The non-Hermitian term (Eq. 15) assumes all decay is lost; the paper cites prior work for this justification but does not verify it for the specific states.
  • ad hoc to paper Random sampling of angles during training generalizes to the full domain
    The convergence criterion and the guarantee that unseen angles get high fidelity are not proven; the piecewise networks are trained on M=80 random angles per iteration.
  • domain assumption Time-optimal CkZ pulses have constant laser intensity
    Fixing Ω(t)=Ωmax is inherited from prior time-optimal pulse structure [34]; this restricts the control space and may exclude better finite-blockade solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parametrized multiqubit gate design for neutral-atom based quantum platforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BSAYMT3M

@misc{pith2026241119785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parametrized multiqubit gate design for neutral-atom based quantum platforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BSAYMT3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19785}
}
abstract

A clever choice and design of gate sets can reduce the depth of a quantum circuit, and can improve the quality of the solution one obtains from a quantum algorithm. This is especially important for near-term quantum computers that suffer from various sources of error that propagate with the circuit depth. Parametrized gates in particular have found use in both near-term algorithms and circuit compilation. The one- and two-qubit versions of these gates have been demonstrated on various computing architectures. The neutral atom platform has the capability to implement native $N$-qubit gates (for $N \geq 2$). However, one needs to first find the control functions that implement these gates on the hardware. We study the numerical optimization of neural networks towards obtaining families of controls $-$ laser pulses to excite an atom to Rydberg states $-$ that implement phase gates with one and two controls, the $\mathrm{C_1P}$ and $\mathrm{C_2P}$ gates respectively, on neutral atom hardware. The pulses we obtain have a duration significantly shorter than the loss time scale, set by decay from the Rydberg state. Further, they do not require single-site addressability and are smooth. Hence, we expect our gates to have immediate benefits for quantum algorithms implemented on current neutral atom hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Relevant level diagrams for the C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The decomposition of a C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: We visualize two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Laser detuning ∆ that implements, for different angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Laser detuning ∆ to implement the C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Infidelities arising from finite blockade [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Initialize the weights WC of NC randomly

    work page

  2. [2]

    Input vin to the network NC

    Construct a vector vin with M angles drawn ran- domly from dom(C kP), we fixed M = 80. Input vin to the network NC

    work page

  3. [3]

    The network outputs CCkP(vin, t) by carrying out transformations on vin as in Eq. (A1). We get a vector of control pulses as the output, one for each angle in vin

    work page

  4. [4]

    (16) with Tϕ = T , and computing the distance between the output unitary and the target unitaries from Eq

    Compute J by evolving the system as in Eq. (16) with Tϕ = T , and computing the distance between the output unitary and the target unitaries from Eq. (4) and (5)

    work page

  5. [5]

    the gradient of the cost function with respect to each weight

    Compute the gradients ∇WC J i.e. the gradient of the cost function with respect to each weight

    work page

  6. [6]

    Adam [50]) that updates the weights W ′ C = WC + δWC based on ∇WC J

    Use an optimizer (e.g. Adam [50]) that updates the weights W ′ C = WC + δWC based on ∇WC J

    work page

  7. [7]

    In general, however, the total pulse duration is a func- tion of ϕ [34]

    Perform steps 2 to 6 in a loop until convergence is reached (as determined by a pre-selected conver- gence criterion). In general, however, the total pulse duration is a func- tion of ϕ [34]. Further, physical errors – arising from Doppler shifts due to the finite temperature of atoms, or decay from |r⟩ – propagate in time, and it is hence desirable to mi...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    M. A. Perlin, V. N. Premakumar, J. Wang, M. Saffman, and R. Joynt, Fault-tolerant measurement-free quantum error correction with multiqubit gates, Phys. Rev. A108, 062426 (2023)

    2023

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits (2024), arXiv:2403.12021

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, et al., A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451–456 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, and M. Endres, Benchmarking and Fidelity Response Theory of High-Fidelity Rydberg Entangling Gates, PRX Quan- tum 6, 010331 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    A. G. Radnaev, W. C. Chung, D. C. Cole, D. Mason, T. G. Ballance, M. J. Bedalov, D. A. Belknap, M. R. Berman, M. Blakely, I. L. Bloomfield, et al., A uni- versal neutral-atom quantum computer with individual optical addressing and non-destructive readout (2024), arXiv:2408.08288

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, Hangleiter, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58–65 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    S. E. Rasmussen, K. Groenland, R. Gerritsma, K. Schoutens, and N. T. Zinner, Single-step implemen- tation of high-fidelity n-bit Toffoli gates, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022308 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    D. Crow, R. Joynt, and M. Saffman, Improved Er- ror Thresholds for Measurement-Free Error Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 130503 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Isenhower, M

    L. Isenhower, M. Saffman, and K. Mølmer, Multibit CkNOT quantum gates via Rydberg blockade, Quantum Inf. Process. 10, 755 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Mølmer, L

    K. Mølmer, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman, Efficient Grover search with Rydberg blockade, J. Phys. B 44, 184016 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    R. J. P. T. de Keijzer, V. E. Colussi, B. ˇSkori´ c, and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, Optimization of the variational quantum eigensolver for quantum chemistry applications, A VS Quantum Sci.4 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Patel, D

    T. Patel, D. Silver, and D. Tiwari, Geyser: a compilation framework for quantum computing with neutral atoms, in Proc. 49th Annu. Int. Symp. Comput. Arch.(ACM, New York, 2022) p. 383–395

    2022

  12. [20]

    Staudacher, L

    K. Staudacher, L. Schmid, J. Zeiher, R. Wille, and D. Kranzlm¨ uller, Multi-controlled Phase Gate Synthe- sis with ZX-calculus applied to Neutral Atom Hardware, Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 406, 96–116 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Time-Optimal Two- and Three-Qubit Gates for Rydberg Atoms, Quantum 6, 712 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Khazali and K

    M. Khazali and K. Mølmer, Fast Multiqubit Gates by Adiabatic Evolution in Interacting Excited-State Mani- folds of Rydberg Atoms and Superconducting Circuits, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021054 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    , ϕM ), obtain the family of control pulses C(ϕ, t) that implement the transformation for some control hamiltonian HC, on quantum hardware

    – given a target unitary transformation Utgt(ϕ) for parameters ϕ = ( ϕ1, ϕ2, . . . , ϕM ), obtain the family of control pulses C(ϕ, t) that implement the transformation for some control hamiltonian HC, on quantum hardware. By family of pulses, we hence mean control functions t...

  16. [24]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, et al., High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268–272 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    D. Yu, H. Wang, J.-M. Liu, S.-L. Su, J. Qian, and W. Zhang, Multiqubit Toffoli Gates and Optimal Geom- etry with Rydberg Atoms, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 034072 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    J.-L. Wu, Y. Wang, J.-X. Han, Y.-K. Feng, S.-L. Su, Y. Xia, Y. Jiang, and J. Song, One-step implementation of Rydberg-antiblockade SW AP and controlled-SW AP gates with modified robustness, Photonics Res. 9, 814 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Xiao, Y.-H

    Y. Xiao, Y.-H. Kang, R.-H. Zheng, J. Song, Y.-H. Chen, and Y. Xia, Effective nonadiabatic holonomic swap gate with Rydberg atoms using invariant-based reverse engi- neering, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062610 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Song, J.-F

    P.-Y. Song, J.-F. Wei, P. Xu, L.-L. Yan, M. Feng, S.-L. Su, and G. Chen, Fast realization of high-fidelity nona- diabatic holonomic quantum gates with a time-optimal- control technique in rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A 109, 11 022613 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. D. Oppong, and A. M. Kaufman, Multi-qubit gates and Schr¨ odinger cat states in an optical clock, Nature 634, 315 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Levine, A

    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 Multiqubit Gates with Neutral Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Sauvage and F

    F. Sauvage and F. Mintert, Optimal Control of Families of Quantum Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 050507 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum op- timal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Eu...

    2022

  25. [33]

    An, H.-J

    Z. An, H.-J. Song, Q.-K. He, and D. L. Zhou, Quantum optimal control of multilevel dissipative quantum systems with reinforcement learning, Phys. Rev. A 103, 012404 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    F¨ osel, P

    T. F¨ osel, P. Tighineanu, T. Weiss, and F. Marquardt, Re- inforcement learning with neural networks for quantum feedback, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031084 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    M. Y. Niu, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and H. Neven, Universal quantum control through deep reinforcement learning, Npj Quantum Inf. 5, 33 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Dalgaard, F

    M. Dalgaard, F. Motzoi, J. J. Sørensen, and J. Sher- son, Global optimization of quantum dynamics with Al- phaZero deep exploration, Npj Quant. Inf. 6, 6 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Khait, J

    I. Khait, J. Carrasquilla, and D. Segal, Optimal control of quantum thermal machines using machine learning, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L012029 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feed- forward networks, Neural Netw

    K. Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feed- forward networks, Neural Netw. 4, 251 (1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    C. C. Margossian, A review of automatic differentiation and its efficient implementation, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 9, e1305 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Kalinowski, N

    M. Kalinowski, N. Maskara, and M. D. Lukin, Non- Abelian Floquet Spin Liquids in a Digital Rydberg Sim- ulator, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031008 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Dlaska, K

    C. Dlaska, K. Ender, G. B. Mbeng, A. Kruckenhauser, W. Lechner, and R. van Bijnen, Quantum Optimization via Four-Body Rydberg Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 120503 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Fromonteil, R

    C. Fromonteil, R. Tricarico, F. Cesa, and H. Pich- ler, Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations for Rydberg- blockade processes, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033333 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    I. N. Ashkarin, S. Lepoutre, P. Pillet, I. I. Beterov, I. I. Ryabtsev, and P. Cheinet, Long-range CC Φ gates via radio-frequency-induced F¨ orster resonances, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013034 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and computing with Rydberg-interacting qubits, A VS Quan- tum Sci. 3 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    I. S. Madjarov, J. P. Covey, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, A. Kale, A. Cooper, H. Pichler, V. Schkolnik, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, High-fidelity entanglement and detection of alkaline-earth Rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys. 16, 857–861 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Peper, Y

    M. Peper, Y. Li, D. Y. Knapp, M. Bileska, S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. P. Horvath, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Spectroscopy and modeling of 171Yb rydberg states for high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011009 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    A. B. Magann, C. Arenz, M. D. Grace, T.-S. Ho, R. L. Kosut, J. R. McClean, H. A. Rabitz, and M. Sarovar, From Pulses to Circuits and Back Again: A Quantum Optimal Control Perspective on Variational Quantum Algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 010101 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Pagano, S

    A. Pagano, S. Weber, D. Jaschke, T. Pfau, F. Meinert, S. Montangero, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Error budgeting for a controlled-phase gate with strontium-88 Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033019 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Mohan, R

    M. Mohan, R. de Keijzer, and S. Kokkelmans, Robust control and optimal Rydberg states for neutral atom two- qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033052 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Giudici, S

    G. Giudici, S. Veroni, G. Giudice, H. Pichler, and J. Zei- her, Fast entangling gates for Rydberg atoms via reso- nant dipole-dipole interaction (2024), arXiv:2411.05073 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Saffman, I

    M. Saffman, I. I. Beterov, A. Dalal, E. J. P´ aez, and B. C. Sanders, Symmetric Rydberg controlled- Z gates with adiabatic pulses, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062309 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Fast Quantum Gates for Neutral Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    Saffman and T

    M. Saffman and T. G. Walker, Analysis of a quantum logic device based on dipole-dipole interactions of opti- cally trapped Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A 72, 022347 (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    I. S. Madjarov, Entangling, Controlling, and Detecting Individual Strontium Atoms in Optical Tweezer Arrays, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynam- ics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson. 172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1–128 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Fidelity of quantum operations, Phys. Lett. A 367, 47 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. 2018 (San Diego, 2015)

    2018

  51. [59]

    R. T. Q. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, Neural Ordinary Differential Equations, in Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst., Vol. 31 (Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, Learning representations by back-propagating errors, Na- ture 323, 533 (1986)

    1986

  53. [61]

    A. G. Baydin, B. A. Pearlmutter, A. A. Radul, and J. M. Siskind, Automatic Differentiation in Machine Learning: a Survey, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18, 1 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Lacroix, C

    N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, C. K. Andersen, A. Di Paolo, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, G. J. Norris, M. Gabu- reac, J. Heinsoo, et al., Improving the Performance of Deep Quantum Optimization Algorithms with Continu- ous Gate Sets, PRX Quantum 1, 020304 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    De Keijzer, J

    R. De Keijzer, J. Snijders, A. Carvalho, and S. Kokkel- mans, Pulse family optimization for parametrized quan- tum gates using spectral clustering, Acad. Quantum 1 12 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Mohan, J

    M. Mohan, J. de Hond, and S. Kokkelmans, Additional data for publication (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation, Phys. Lett. A 303, 249 (2002)

    2002

  58. [66]

    L. S. Theis, F. Motzoi, F. K. Wilhelm, and M. Saffman, High-fidelity Rydberg-blockade entangling gate using shaped, analytic pulses, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032306 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Fromonteil, D

    C. Fromonteil, D. Bluvstein, and H. Pichler, Protocols for Rydberg Entangling Gates Featuring Robustness against Quasistatic Errors, PRX Quantum 4, 020335 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Bjorck, C

    N. Bjorck, C. P. Gomes, B. Selman, and K. Q. Wein- berger, Understanding Batch Normalization, in Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst., Vol. 31 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    F. N. Iandola, M. W. Moskewicz, K. Ashraf, and K. Keutzer, FireCaffe: Near-Linear Acceleration of Deep Neural Network Training on Compute Clusters, in Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog- nit. (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Doria, T

    P. Doria, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Optimal Control Technique for Many-Body Quantum Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 190501 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Liao, J.-G

    H.-J. Liao, J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Differen- tiable Programming Tensor Networks, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031041 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al., PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library, in Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst., Vol. 32 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    R. T. Q. Chen, PyTorch implementation of differen- tiable ODE solvers, GitHub repository (2018), https: //github.com/rtqichen/torchdiffeq

    2018

  66. [74]

    Hanin, Which Neural Net Architectures Give Rise to Exploding and Vanishing Gradients?, inAdv

    B. Hanin, Which Neural Net Architectures Give Rise to Exploding and Vanishing Gradients?, inAdv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst., Vol. 31 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Sheng, X

    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 Optical Dipole Trap Array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 240501 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    A. D. Hill, M. J. Hodson, N. Didier, and M. J. Reagor, Realization of arbitrary doubly-controlled quan- tum phase gates (2021), arXiv:2108.01652 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    J. D. Arias Espinoza, K. Groenland, M. Mazzanti, K. Schoutens, and R. Gerritsma, High-fidelity method for a single-step N -bit Toffoli gate in trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052437 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Mølmer and A

    K. Mølmer and A. Sørensen, Multiparticle entanglement of hot trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1835 (1999)

    1999

  71. [79]

    N. J. Glaser, F. Roy, and S. Filipp, Controlled-controlled- phase gates for superconducting qubits mediated by a shared tunable coupler, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044001 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Cao, Y.-H

    C. Cao, Y.-H. Han, L. Zhang, L. Fan, Y.-W. Duan, and R. Zhang, High-Fidelity Universal Quantum Controlled Gates on Electron-Spin Qubits in Quantum Dots Inside Single-Sided Optical Microcavities, Adv. Quantum Tech- nol. 2, 1900081 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Y. Wang, Y. Chen, H. T. Bui, C. Wolf, M. Haze, C. Mier, J. Kim, D.-J. Choi, C. P. Lutz, Y. Bae, et al., An atomic- scale multi-qubit platform, Science 382, 87 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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