Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Single-qubit quantum gate at an arbitrary speed

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two pulse parameters, Rabi frequency and central frequency, produce unit-fidelity single-qubit gates at any gate duration, from subcycle to multicycle.

desk verdict The two-parameter pulse family for fast Rx gates is a real contribution, but the universal-set claim overreaches: the Ry construction needs a fixed T0/4 delay, so only x-rotations are actually arbitrary-speed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19561 v1 pith:BO3W27BY submitted 2024-12-27 quant-ph

Seongjin Ahn , Kichan Park , Daehee Cho , Mikyoung Lim , Taeyoung Choi , Andrey S. Moskalenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords single-qubitquantumgatespeedlimitrotatingwaveapproximationsubcyclepulseRabifrequencycentralMagnusexpansionfidelity
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 claims that a universal set of single-qubit gates can be run at any speed --- including gate times shorter than the qubit's natural period --- by tuning just two constant parameters of the driving pulse: the Rabi frequency $\Omega$ and the central frequency $\omega$. This matters because standard Rabi gates rely on the rotating-wave approximation, which fails exactly in the fast, strong-driving regime that the quantum speed limit demands for short gate times. The authors show analytically and by numerical optimization that a pulse of the form $f_0(t)\cos(\omega t)$ with a fixed envelope $f_0(t)$ achieves unit fidelity for all durations when $\Omega$ and $\omega$ are chosen optimally, and they identify a sharp crossover: $\omega$ scales as $\pi/T$ for ultrafast pulses and approaches the qubit frequency $\omega_0$ for slow ones. The result offers a simple, few-parameter control protocol for qubits whose transition frequency is low, where the subcycle regime is experimentally accessible.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the pulse shape $f(t) = f_0(t)\cos(\omega t + \phi)$ with constant maximum amplitude $\Omega$, central frequency $\omega$, and phase $\phi$, and the rotating-frame Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{rot}}(t) = \hbar\Omega f(t)[\cos(\omega_0 t)\,\sigma_x - \sin(\omega_0 t)\,\sigma_y]$. The argument is carried by two complementary expansions. In the subcycle limit ($\tau_d \ll T_0$), the paper uses a second interaction picture that factors out the leading rotation $R_x[\theta(t)]$ and then a Magnus expansion in the relative pulse duration $\alpha = \tau_d/T_0$; this reduces the unit-fidelity conditions to three integral equations, of which the nontrivial one --- Eq. (9), requiring the pulse shape to change sign --- determines the minimal $\omega\tau_d = \phi$. In the intermediate and multicycle regimes, a direct Magnus expansion of the propagator exponent in the effective pulse area $\Omega\tau_d$ gives analytic conditions $A_x = \theta_g$ and $A_z = 0$ for the target gate, which numerical optimization over $(\Omega, \omega)$ refines to unit fidelity.

What would settle it

Apply the predicted optimal pulse to a low-frequency qubit at a subcycle duration such as $\tau_d = 0.1\,T_0$ and measure the average gate fidelity; a value below unit beyond decoherence, or an optimal central frequency that deviates from $\omega = \phi/\tau_d$ beyond the optimization tolerance, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the two time-independent parameters $\Omega$ and $\omega$ are sufficient to reach unit fidelity (up to numerical precision) for the rotation gate $R_x(\theta_g)$ at every gate duration studied, from $\tau_d = 0.01\,T_0$ to $\tau_d = 10\,T_0$, with the same pulse ansatz $f(t) = f_0(t)\cos(\omega t)$. In the subcycle regime $\tau_d \ll T_0$, the optimal central frequency follows $\omega = \phi/\tau_d$, inversely proportional to the pulse duration, while in the multicycle regime it relaxes to the qubit frequency $\omega_0$; the transition occurs at $\tau_0 = \phi/\omega_0$, where $\phi$ is a number characteristic of the envelope (e.g., $\phi/2\pi = 0.572$ for a Gaussian and $\theta_g = \pi$). The paper further shows that the Fourier component of the optimal pulse at the qubit frequency is very nearly $\theta_g/2$ for all speeds, with the small intermediate-regime excess dominated by the third-order Magnus term $A_x^3$. The same two-parameter construction yields $R_y(\theta_g)$ by translating the pulse by $T_0/4$ and hence a universal single-qubit gate set.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim rests on numerical optimization rather than an analytic existence proof: unit-fidelity solutions are found by a continuation search from deep subcycle to multicycle durations, and the minimal $\phi$ in Eq. (9) is verified numerically for four envelopes but not proven; the two-level model also neglects leakage to higher qubit levels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A universal single-qubit gate set can be built from single pulses of arbitrary duration, with $R_y$ obtained from $R_x$ by a $T_0/4$ time shift and $Z$ gates implemented virtually.
  • In the subcycle regime the optimal pulse shape is self-similar: $\omega\tau_d$ is fixed, so the pulse is just time-scaled as the gate gets faster.
  • The crossover between ultrafast and resonant driving is set by $\tau_0 = \phi/\omega_0$, a duration on the order of the qubit period, and is independent of how the envelope's duration is defined.
  • The resonant Fourier component of the optimal pulse approximates $\theta_g/2$ over the whole speed range, with deviations of a few percent near $\tau_d \approx \tau_0$ that stem from the third-order Magnus term.
  • The optimal two-parameter control works for Gaussian, hyperbolic-secant, triangular, and constant envelopes, so experimental pulse-shaping constraints do not block the result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-parameter ansatz holds, the practical speed limit for single-qubit gates is set by the available Rabi amplitude and envelope bandwidth, not by the qubit frequency; this could be tested on low-frequency fluxonium or trapped-ion hyperfine qubits.
  • The near-constant resonant Fourier component suggests a deeper 'area conservation' that might be provable to all orders in the Magnus expansion, not just the third order checked here.
  • A natural extension is to ask whether the same constant-parameter ansatz can implement two-qubit entangling gates at subcycle durations, where leakage to higher levels is a known concern; the paper does not address this.
  • The transition criterion $\tau_d \approx \tau_0$ gives experimentalists a rule of thumb: for pulses shorter than about half a qubit period, the carrier-envelope phase must be controlled, because the pulse contains only a few optical cycles.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-parameter control scheme (Rabi frequency Ω and carrier frequency ω) for implementing single-qubit gates at arbitrary speed, including the subcycle regime where the rotating-wave approximation fails. For fixed pulse envelopes, the authors derive analytic conditions for the subcycle (τd ≪ T0) and multicycle (τd ≫ T0) limits, obtain a scaling transition in the optimal central frequency, and show numerically that unit-fidelity solutions exist across a broad range of pulse durations. They also show that the Fourier component of the optimal pulse at the qubit frequency is approximately θg/2, and they use a time-translation argument to construct Ry gates from Rx pulses, thereby claiming a universal set with only two pulse parameters.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a practically important simplification: a single two-parameter pulse family that achieves theoretically unit-fidelity single-qubit gates at arbitrary speed, with the same parameters covering both the RWA-valid multicycle regime and the strong-driving subcycle regime. The analytic perturbative expressions for the subcycle and multicycle limits are clean and the constant resonant Fourier component θg/2 is a nice derived result. The numerical evidence in Fig. 2 covers a wide range of pulse durations and several envelope functions, giving the claims a solid numerical basis, though the lack of a rigorous existence proof for unit fidelity at intermediate times is a limitation. The construction of a universal set via time translation is mathematically correct, provided the rotating-frame convention is properly stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (7)–(11) and Fig. 2] The central claim of unit fidelity at every gate duration rests on numerical optimization, but the manuscript provides no details of the optimization algorithm, tolerances, or residual infidelity values. In particular, the existence of φ defined in Eq. (11) is verified only numerically for a few envelope functions and gate angles (Table I), yet the subcycle construction in Eqs. (8)–(11) depends on this minimum existing. The paper should either give an analytic argument that Eq. (9) has a solution for the considered envelopes (for example, by showing the integral changes sign as ωτd is varied) or state explicitly that this existence is a numerical observation and report the actual minimized infidelities so that the phrase 'unit fidelity up to numerical precision' is quantitatively substantiated.
  2. [Section V] The universal-set construction translates the optimized Rx pulse in time by t0 = (2k+1)T0/4 and derives Urot(t0+T/2, t0-T/2;0) = Rz†(ω0t0)Rx(θ)Rz(ω0t0), which is correct. However, the paper does not clarify the relationship between this rotating-frame propagator and the lab-frame unitary over the interval [t0-T/2, t0+T/2], which additionally contains the free-evolution factors U0(t0+T/2,0) and U0†(t0-T/2,0). As written, the lab-frame operation is not a bare Ry gate, so the paper should state explicitly that the universal set is defined in the interaction picture and explain how the extra Rz phases are compensated (e.g., by virtual Z gates or by fixed timing in a sequence). This clarification is needed to substantiate the claim of a universal set at arbitrary speed in a practical setting.
  3. [Section IV] The third-order Magnus expansion is used to explain the deviation of the resonant Fourier component from θg/2, but the expansion parameter Ωτd is not small in the subcycle regime (Fig. 2(b) shows Ωτd ≈ 3.6 for θg = π). The paper should justify why the expansion truncated at third order is valid in this regime, or explicitly label it as a heuristic or asymptotic interpretation rather than a quantitatively controlled expansion. Without such a statement, the agreement in Fig. 4(d) appears fortuitous rather than explained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The decomposition Ulab(t,-T/2) ≡ U0(t,0)Urot(t,-T/2;0)U0(0,-T/2) is correct but could be stated with the relation U0(t,0)U0(0,-T/2)=U0(t,-T/2) made explicit, as the notation is slightly opaque on first reading.
  2. [Section II, Fig. 2] The ratio T/τd = 5 is used in the figures and text, but the definition of the effective duration τd for different envelope functions is not uniform (e.g., a square envelope has τd=T, while Gaussian has τd defined via the exponent). The paper notes this in Sec. II and states that the transition criterion τd/τ0 is scale-invariant, but it would help to explicitly list the chosen τd convention for each envelope in Table I.
  3. [Section VI] The conclusion states that optimal parameters with unit fidelity exist for 'different pulse envelope functions' including Gaussian, hyperbolic secant, triangular, and constant, but the numerical evidence shown in Fig. 3 and Table I covers θg = π for these envelopes, and only the Gaussian envelope for other angles. The claim should be limited to the actual tested cases or supported by additional data.
  4. [Throughout] The numerical optimization method is not described; giving the algorithm (e.g., Nelder-Mead, gradient-based) and convergence tolerances would improve reproducibility, especially since the claim of 'unit fidelity up to numerical precision' is a central result.
  5. [Section V] The sentence 'For a faster gate where T is comparable or shorter than the qubit period T0, the carrier-envelope phase φ should be fixed and a precise time delay is needed' is a useful note; however, the relation between the time delay t0 and the carrier-envelope phase in the subcycle regime could be stated more explicitly, since in the multicycle regime the two are equivalent only under the RWA.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gate construction is self-contained; the only self-citation (Ref. [31]) is a non-load-bearing standard decomposition, and the harmonic-area identities are derived consequences, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The pulse parameters Omega and omega are obtained by solving the gate conditions (7a)-(7c) for the chosen ansatz (4), and the claimed unit fidelity is verified by direct numerical solution of the Schrodinger equation against the target Rx(theta_g); there is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction. The subcycle perturbation theory is a standard interaction-picture/Magnus expansion, with the decomposition written explicitly in Eq. (6); the citation to Ref. [31] (one of the authors' own works) is not load-bearing because the formula is reproduced and can be verified directly. The Fourier-component result in Sec. III is derived in Eqs. (14) and (15) from the pulse-area normalizations (7a) and (5); although this makes the limiting value theta_g/2 a mathematical consequence of the gate-angle normalization rather than an independent empirical finding, it is presented as an analytic consequence and is not used to justify the existence or optimality of the gate parameters. The universal-set construction in Sec. V is a unitary rotation of the Rx solution, not a circular argument; the question of whether a fixed T0/4 delay limits the effective speed of Ry gates is a physical correctness issue, not a circularity. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation. Overall: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction uses a fixed pulse ansatz and relies on perturbation theory plus numerical optimization. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters of the construction are the two control amplitudes Omega and omega, which are adjusted to satisfy the gate conditions; their values are not predicted from first principles in the intermediate regime.

free parameters (2)
  • Rabi frequency Omega = not tabulated; optimized per gate duration
    Omega is adjusted in the numerical optimization to make gate fidelity reach unity. Its values in the subcycle and multicycle limits are predicted by Eqs. (8) and (5), but intermediate values are only known from the optimization.
  • Carrier frequency omega = not tabulated; optimized per gate duration
    omega is set to phi/tau_d in the subcycle limit and to omega_0 in the multicycle limit; in between it is obtained by numerical optimization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-level model with H0 = hbar omega_0 sigma_z/2 and coupling V = hbar Omega f(t) sigma_x
    The derivation and fidelity computations model the qubit as a closed two-level system; higher levels and decoherence are outside the model.
  • domain assumption Pulse ansatz f(t) = f0(t) cos(omega t + phi)
    All pulses are restricted to a fixed envelope times a cosine; the optimized parameters are Omega and omega with phi=0 for Rx gates, and phi or time shifts for Ry gates.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of phi = min{omega tau_d : s1s(T/2)=0} for the chosen envelopes
    Table I lists phi for Gaussian, sech, triangular, and constant envelopes; existence and uniqueness for general envelopes are not proven.
  • standard math Truncation of Magnus expansions at first order in alpha and third order in Omega tau_d
    The paper uses the standard Magnus expansion and assumes neglected higher-order terms are small in the respective regimes; no rigorous convergence bound is given.
  • domain assumption Global convergence of the numerical fidelity optimization
    The claim of unit fidelity at every gate time depends on the optimizer reaching a unit-fidelity solution at each duration, which is not proven and may be sensitive to the continuation path.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-qubit quantum gate at an arbitrary speed." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BO3W27BY

@misc{pith2026241219561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-qubit quantum gate at an arbitrary speed},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BO3W27BY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19561}
}
abstract

Quantum information processing comprises physical processes, which obey the quantum speed limit (QSL): high speed requires strong driving. Single-qubit gates using Rabi oscillation, which is based on the rotating wave approximation (RWA), satisfy this bound in the form that the gate time $T$ is inversely proportional to the Rabi frequency $\Omega$, characterizing the driving strength. However, if the gate time is comparable or shorter than the qubit period $T_{0} \equiv 2\pi / \omega_{0}$, the RWA actually breaks down since the Rabi frequency has to be large compared to the qubit frequency $\omega_{0}$ due to the QSL, which is given as $T \gtrsim \pi/\Omega$. We show that it is possible to construct a universal set of single-qubit gates at this strong-coupling and ultrafast regime, by adjusting the central frequency $\omega$ and the Rabi frequency $\Omega$ of the driving pulse. We observe a transition in the scaling behavior of the central frequency from the long-gate time regime ($T \gg T_{0}$) to the short-gate time ($T \ll T_{0}$) regime. In the former, the central frequency is nearly resonant to the qubit, i.e., $\omega \simeq \omega_{0}$, whereas in the latter, the central frequency is inversely proportional to the gate time, i.e., $\omega \sim \pi/T$. We identify the transition gate time at which the scaling exponent $n$ of the optimal central frequency $\omega \sim T^{n}$ changes from $n=0$ to $n=-1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Driving pulse shapes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Average gate fidelity and the corresponding pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Speed-dependent spectra of optimal pulses. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between optimal Ω and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. Zurek, Threshold ac- curacy for quantum computation (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9610011 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Acharya et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    R. Acharya et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Acharya et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold (2024), arXiv:2408.13687 [quant- ph]

    R. Acharya et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold (2024), arXiv:2408.13687 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Mandelstam and I

    L. Mandelstam and I. G. Tamm, The uncertainty rela- tion between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249 (1945)

    work page 1945

  5. [5]

    Aifer and S

    M. Aifer and S. Deffner, From quantum speed limits to energy-efficient quantum gates, New J. Phys. 24, 055002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    I. I. Rabi, Space quantization in a gyrating magnetic field, Phys. Rev. 51, 652 (1937)

    1937

  7. [7]

    Bloch and A

    F. Bloch and A. Siegert, Magnetic resonance for nonro- tating fields, Phys. Rev. 57, 522 (1940)

    work page 1940

  8. [8]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applica- tions (Wiley, 1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Zeuch, F

    D. Zeuch, F. Hassler, J. J. Slim, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Exact rotating wave approximation, Ann. Phys. 423, 168327 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence flux- onium qubit, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    D. L. Campbell, Y.-P. Shim, B. Kannan, R. Winik, D. K. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yo- der, C. Tahan, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Uni- versal nonadiabatic control of small-gap superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041051 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Both works have implemented two pulses with opposite polarity and individual pulse durations shorter than the qubit period T0

    based on the finite-time Landau-Zener model [16]. Both works have implemented two pulses with opposite polarity and individual pulse durations shorter than the qubit period T0. Selecting t = 0 at the center of the se- quence, the temporal pulse shape f (t), is anti-symmetric, ...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chakram, T. Roy, N. Earnest, Y. Lu, Z. Huang, D. K. Weiss, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Universal fast-flux control of a coherent, low-frequency qubit, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011010 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Zhang, C

    H. Zhang, C. Ding, D. Weiss, Z. Huang, Y. Ma, C. Guinn, S. Sussman, S. P. Chitta, D. Chen, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Tunable inductive coupler for high- fidelity gates between fluxonium qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020326 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    W. C. Campbell, J. Mizrahi, Q. Quraishi, C. Senko, D. Hayes, D. Hucul, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, and C. Monroe, Ultrafast gates for single atomic qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 090502 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Rosen and C

    N. Rosen and C. Zener, Double Stern-Gerlach experi- ment and related collision phenomena, Phys. Rev. 40, 502 (1932)

    1932

  9. [17]

    N. V. Vitanov and B. M. Garraway, Landau-Zener model: Effects of finite coupling duration, Phys. Rev. A 53, 4288 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    G. C. Hegerfeldt, Driving at the quantum speed limit: Optimal control of a two-level system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 260501 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Doria, T

    P. Doria, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Optimal control technique for many-body quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 190501 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Scheuer, X

    J. Scheuer, X. Kong, R. S. Said, J. Chen, A. Kurz, L. Marseglia, J. Du, P. R. Hemmer, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, B. Naydenov, and F. Jelezko, Precise qubit control beyond the rotating wave approximation, New J. Phys. 16, 093022 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Yudilevich, A

    D. Yudilevich, A. Salhov, I. Schaefer, K. Herb, A. Ret- 11 zker, and A. Finkler, Coherent manipulation of nuclear spins in the strong driving regime, New J. Phys. 25, 113042 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    D’Alessandro and M

    D. D’Alessandro and M. Dahleh, Optimal control of two- level quantum systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 46, 866 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Bauer, R

    C. Bauer, R. Freeman, T. Frenkiel, J. Keeler, and A. J. Shaka, Gaussian pulses, J. Magn. Reson. (1969) 58, 442 (1984)

    1969

  18. [26]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Z. Chen, J. Kelly, C. Quintana, R. Barends, B. Camp- bell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Lucero, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, M. Nee- ley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Korotkov, and J....

    2016

  20. [28]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Short- cuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applica- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, Adiabatic population transfer with control fields, J. Phys. Chem. A 107, 9937 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1021/jp030708a

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    M. V. Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, J. Phys. A 42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. H. Shim, I. Niemeyer, T. Taniguchi, T. Ter- aji, H. Abe, S. Onoda, T. Yamamoto, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, and D. Suter, Experimental implementation of assisted quantum adiabatic passage in a single spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 240501 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    A. S. Moskalenko, Z.-G. Zhu, and J. Berakdar, Charge and spin dynamics driven by ultrashort extreme broad- band pulses: A theory perspective, Phys. Rep. 672, 1 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Commun

    W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954)

    1954

  26. [34]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, The Magnus expansion and some of its applications, Phys. Rep. 470, 151 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistilla- tion, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1888 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

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

    2002

  29. [37]

    Begzjav, J

    T. Begzjav, J. S. Ben-Benjamin, H. Eleuch, R. Nessler, Y. Rostovtsev, and G. Shchedrin, Magnus expansion method for two-level atom interacting with few-cycle pulse, J. Mod. Opt. 65, 1378 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    S. L. McCall and E. L. Hahn, Self-induced transparency by pulsed coherent light, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 908 (1967); Self-induced transparency, Phys. Rev. 183, 457 (1969)

    1967

  31. [39]

    B. P. Ruzic, M. N. Chow, A. D. Burch, D. S. Lobser, M. C. Revelle, J. M. Wilson, C. G. Yale, and S. M. Clark, Leveraging motional-mode balancing and simply parametrized waveforms to perform frequency-robust en- tangling gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 014007 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Y. Chew, T. Tomita, T. P. Mahesh, S. Sugawa, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, and K. Ohmori, Ultrafast energy ex- change between two single Rydberg atoms on a nanosec- ond timescale, Nat. Photonics 16, 724 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity control and entanglement of Rydberg-atom qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 123603 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    T. P. Mahesh, T. Matsubara, Y. T. Chew, T. Tomita, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, and K. Ohmori, Generation of 480 nm pi- cosecond pulses for ultrafast excitation of Rydberg atoms (2024), arXiv:2408.02324 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Denecker, Y

    T. Denecker, Y. T. Chew, O. Guillemant, G. Watanabe, T. Tomita, K. Ohmori, and S. de L´ es´ eleuc, Measurement and feed-forward correction of the fast phase noise of lasers (2024), arXiv:2411.10021 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Daems, A

    D. Daems, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Sugny, and S. Gu´ erin, Robust quantum control by a single-shot shaped pulse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 050404 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.