Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A High-Power Clock Laser Spectrally Tailored for High-Fidelity Quantum State Engineering

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spectrally tailored 698 nm clock laser—combining a cryogenic silicon cavity, a ULE cavity, and a frequency comb—achieves an average single-qubit Clifford gate fidelity of 0.99964(3) while simultaneously driving about 3000 strontium…

desk verdict A strong demonstration of a spectrally tailored high-power clock laser for optical qubit control; the headline fidelity is model-dependent, but the internal consistency between noise model, atom-based spectroscopy, and RB simulation carries the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09343 v3 pith:Y5KE3EQM submitted 2025-01-16 physics.atom-ph

Lingfeng Yan , Stefan Lannig , William R. Milner , Max N. Frankel , Ben Lewis , Dahyeon Lee , Kyungtae Kim , Jun Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 42.62.Fi06.30.Ft32.80.Qk
keywords clocklaseropticallatticequantumgatefidelityrandomizedbenchmarkingfrequencynoisespectraltailoringstrontium-87qubits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a high-power 698 nm clock laser whose frequency noise is deliberately shaped to the needs of quantum operations: the low-frequency stability of a cryogenic silicon cavity is combined with the high-frequency noise suppression of a room-temperature ULE cavity, with a frequency comb transferring stability between the two and a phase-locked loop boosting power to 4 W. Using this laser to drive the strontium clock transition in about 3000 atoms confined in a 3D optical lattice, the authors measure an average single-qubit Clifford gate fidelity of $F_1^2 = 0.99964(3)$ at a Rabi frequency of 741 Hz. They also develop an atom-based spectral analysis method, a pulse sequence that cancels intensity-noise sensitivity while keeping a tunable single-peak frequency response, which verifies the laser noise model on site. If correct, this is the highest single optical-qubit gate fidelity demonstrated for a large number of atoms, approaching the regime where error correction overheads become practical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spectrally tailored laser itself: a 698 nm external cavity diode laser phase-locked to a narrow-linewidth ULE cavity (1 MHz bandwidth servo) and phase-locked to a cryogenic silicon cavity-stabilized frequency comb with a 500 Hz transfer loop, then phase-locked to a 4 W fiber laser with a 400 kHz loop. Its noise spectrum is a weighted sum of the two references, Eq. (1), so the crossover frequency can be chosen. The supporting mechanism is the atom-based spectrum analyzer: a Ramsey-type sequence of alternating $\pi$ rotations around $\pm x$, which makes the phase-sensitivity function a windowed sine wave, yielding a singly peaked, tunable frequency response $|R(f)|^2$ centered at the Rabi frequency $\Omega/(2\pi)$ while canceling pulse-area errors from intensity noise.

What would settle it

Run interleaved randomized benchmarking or gate-set tomography at the same Rabi frequency of 741 Hz and compare the extracted per-gate error; if the inferred fidelity differs from 0.99964(3) by more than the statistical uncertainty, the depolarizing model underlying Eq. (6) is not capturing the actual error process.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a laser's spectral noise can be engineered specifically for high-fidelity quantum state engineering, rather than optimized for general stability. By locking a 698 nm external cavity diode laser to a ULE cavity with a 1 MHz Pound-Drever-Hall loop, phase-locking that light to a cryogenic silicon cavity-stabilized comb at 500 Hz bandwidth, and transferring the phase to a high-power fiber laser, the noise power spectral density of the delivered light becomes a frequency-dependent blend of the best of both references: silicon-cavity stability below 500 Hz and ULE-cavity low noise above. The authors validate this model with an in-situ atomic spectrum analyzer that uses repeated $(x_\pi, x_{-\pi})$ rotations to suppress intensity noise while localizing frequency-noise sensitivity at the Rabi frequency. They then achieve $F_1^2 = 0.99964(3)$ for about 3000 atoms simultaneously, with the fidelity distribution across the atomic cloud narrowly peaked, confirming uniform high-fidelity control.

Load-bearing premise

The fidelity result assumes the only gate errors are depolarizing; if residual coherent errors like detuning or Rabi inhomogeneity are significant, the reported $F_1^2$ is a model-dependent number rather than the true average gate fidelity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optical single-qubit gates in neutral-atom systems reach a fidelity ($1-F_1^2=3.6\times10^{-4}$) that approaches trapped-ion demonstrations, while addressing about 3000 atoms simultaneously.
  • The demonstrated gate fidelity and multi-second coherence time allow deep Clifford circuits on thousands of qubits, reducing the physical-qubit overhead needed for error correction.
  • The same high-power clock laser retains an instability of $3.5\times10^{-17}$ at 1 to 1000 s, so the hardware serves both quantum-information and optical-clock metrology.
  • Atomic spectral analysis with the repeated-$\pi$ sequence provides a general way to measure laser frequency noise at the qubit location, applicable to other quantum sensors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same spectral-tailoring recipe—two cavities with complementary noise floors spliced by a comb—should transfer to other wavelengths and atomic species, so the fidelity gain is likely not tied to strontium's 698 nm transition.
  • The atom-based noise probe, being in-situ and intensity-noise-immune, could serve as a general diagnostic for any quantum platform whose gate errors are dominated by laser phase noise, including Rydberg and molecular systems.
  • A natural next test is to extend randomized benchmarking with interleaved or gate-set protocols; if coherent error components are exposed, composite pulses or pulse shaping should push the fidelity beyond the reported value.
  • The 500 Hz crossover between the two cavities is an operational robustness tradeoff; lowering it would improve long-term fidelity but reduce stability against environmental perturbations, so the optimal crossover may depend on the target Rabi frequency.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a 698 nm clock laser system producing up to 4 W, whose frequency noise is spectrally tailored by locking an ECDL to a room-temperature ULE cavity and transferring the long-term stability of a cryogenic silicon cavity via a frequency comb and a 500 Hz phase-locked loop. The authors introduce an atom-based spectrum analyzer based on a pulse sequence designed to suppress intensity-noise sensitivity, validate the laser noise model on-site, and demonstrate randomized benchmarking of single-qubit Clifford gates on ~3000 atoms, extracting an average gate fidelity F1^2 = 0.99964(3) at a Rabi frequency of 741.9(5) Hz. A master-equation simulation using the measured phase-noise spectrum reproduces the Rabi-frequency dependence of the infidelity.

Significance. The main technical achievements are a several-watt clock laser with a low noise floor across 10 Hz to 10 kHz, an atom-based noise characterization method with a tunable, singly-peaked spectral response, and a high-fidelity demonstration on a large atomic ensemble. The noise model is carefully constructed from independent cross-correlation and in-loop measurements, and the atom-based validation at the site of the atoms is a valuable addition. The numerical simulation provides a mechanistic link between the measured laser noise spectrum and the gate infidelity. If the reported fidelity is robust to the modeling assumptions discussed below, the result would represent a notable advance in optical qubit control for scalable neutral-atom systems.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (6)] The reported single-qubit fidelity F1^2 = 0.99964(3) is extracted by fitting the RB data to Eq. (6), which fixes the depolarizing baseline at 1/2 and attributes all state-preparation-and-measurement errors to d_SPAM. As the authors note, standard RB for gate-independent Markovian noise has the more general form F_L = A + B p^L; fixing A = 1/2 can bias p when SPAM errors are not purely depolarizing or when the initial state preparation is imperfect. Moreover, if the cloud-averaged signal contains a spread of Rabi frequencies or detunings, the survival probability would be a weighted sum of exponentials, so the fitted p is an effective rate rather than the true average gate fidelity. The histogram in Fig. 4(c) supports homogeneity but gives no quantitative width or a comparison of single- versus multi-exponential fits. I request that the authors (i) report a free-parameter fit F_L = A + B p^L and examine whether A is consistent with 1/2, (ii) test for multi-exponential decay (e.g., by fitting to two depolarizing channels weighted by a measured Rabi-frequency distribution), and (iii) quantify the resulting systematic uncertainty on F1^2. This is the load-bearing step that converts the raw survival data into the headline claim.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. III] The abstract states that the high-power 698 nm clock laser exhibits a long-term instability of 3.5e-17 at 1 to 1000 s, but the text attributes this value to the thermal-noise floor of the Si3 cavity (Ref. [80]) and does not report a direct measurement of the spectrally tailored 698 nm laser or the high-power fiber laser at these time scales. The atom-based measurements in Fig. 3(e) probe Fourier frequencies from roughly 10 Hz to 1 kHz, which do not constrain the sub-Hz regime responsible for 1-1000 s instability. Please clarify whether the 3.5e-17 number was measured on the final laser or transferred from the Si3 cavity, and state the expected contribution of the comb transfer, the 500 Hz phase-locked loop, and the high-power phase lock to the low-frequency instability.
  3. [Appendix C and Fig. 4(d)] The numerical simulation of the RB fidelity includes only laser phase noise and independently measured decay/decoherence rates; it omits intensity noise, detuning, and pulse-area inhomogeneity. Since the agreement between simulation and experiment is used to support the interpretation that the gate infidelity is dominated by laser frequency noise, the simulation should either include these additional error sources or provide a quantitative argument for their negligible contribution at the level of 3.6e-4 infidelity. Without this, the agreement in Fig. 4(d) cannot certify that the fitted F1^2 is unbiased by the omitted effects.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3(d)] The reported chi-squared value for the sensitivity-function fit (chi2 = 1.540) should include the number of degrees of freedom so that the goodness of fit can be assessed.
  2. [Sec. IV] The sentence 'the improved sequence prevents an accumulation of pulse area errors over time' is too strong; the sequence cancels first-order pulse-area errors, but residual higher-order or amplitude-transient effects may remain. Please soften to 'suppresses' or quantify the residual sensitivity.
  3. [Appendix C] The phase traces used in the simulation are re-used across all Clifford gate strings on the grounds of computational cost. This can introduce correlations between gate strings and may affect the estimated statistical uncertainty of the simulated fidelity. Please comment on the magnitude of this effect (e.g., by repeating the simulation with a subset of independent traces).
  4. [Sec. V] Define the notation F_1^2 more explicitly in the text: it is the average fidelity of a single Clifford gate, and the superscript 2 refers to the fidelity measure F^2(rho, sigma), not a square of a gate fidelity in the usual sense. This will avoid confusion with the abstract's notation.
  5. [Table I] The axis and sign conventions for the rotations in Table I should be stated explicitly (e.g., whether R_r(theta) is a right-handed rotation about r for positive theta).
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement could be strengthened by depositing the RB dataset, the noise PSDs, and the simulation code in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline gate fidelity is a direct randomized-benchmarking measurement, and the laser-noise-based simulation is only an independent consistency check.

full rationale

The central claim, F1^2 = 0.99964(3), is extracted by fitting measured randomized-benchmarking survival probabilities to Eq. (6), the standard depolarizing RB model. This is a direct experimental measurement, not a quantity derived from the paper's laser-noise model or from any fitted parameter that already contains the fidelity. The atom-based frequency-noise spectroscopy in Sec. IV independently characterizes the laser PSD using a sensitivity function whose shape is verified by injecting a known phase modulation (Fig. 3(d)); the extracted PSD is then used only in a consistency-check simulation of RB (Fig. 4(d)), not to produce the headline value. The noise models in Sec. III and Appendix A are built from cross-correlation measurements against independent cavities, in-loop error signals, and previously characterized cavity thermal noise floors; the cited prior work from the same group (Refs. [80, 91]) supplies independent physical parameters and calibration methods, not the target fidelity. The main assumption, the purely depolarizing error model in Eq. (6), is a standard RB analysis choice from external literature (Refs. [98-100]); any bias from non-depolarizing or spatially inhomogeneous errors would be a correctness or statistical concern, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. No equation or parameter in the paper is defined in terms of the headline fidelity, and no load-bearing self-citation chain forces the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured and modeled noise spectra, standard RB analysis, and a small number of engineering choices. The free parameters are noise-model coefficients fitted to independent cavity cross-correlation data and chosen loop bandwidths. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Si3 cavity noise model coefficients (h_-1, h_0, h_2, 19 resonant features) = h_-1=1.5e-33, h_0=4.0e-34 Hz^-1, h_2=4.3e-37 Hz^-3; resonances not individually listed
    Equation (A1): fitted to counter-based and tracking-filter cross-correlation measurements of the Si3 cavity-stabilized comb; used as the low-frequency noise input to the spectrally tailored laser model.
  • ULE cavity noise model coefficients (h_thermal, h_white, h_2^ULE, 3 resonant features) = h_thermal=8.2e-33, h_white=7.1e-33 Hz^-1, h_2^ULE=h_white/(1 kHz)^2
    Equation (A3): thermal flicker and resonant features adopted from Ref. [91]; white terms updated to match new in-loop measurements. Used for high-frequency noise in the tailored laser model.
  • Phase modulation amplitude beta_pm = 10 degrees
    Chosen for the sensitivity-function validation in Fig. 3(d) to obtain good signal-to-noise ratio; it is an experimental setting, not a physical constant.
  • Transfer loop bandwidths (500 Hz stability transfer, 400 kHz high-power phase lock) = 500 Hz, 400 kHz
    Chosen by hand as a tradeoff between noise performance and operational robustness (Sec. III). These choices affect where the noise spectrum crosses between the two cavities.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Validity of the sensitivity-function relation Eq. (2) between frequency-noise PSD and excitation-probability variance.
    Standard linear-response result from Ref. [96]; used in Sec. IV to convert measured variance into S_nu.
  • domain assumption Gaussian distribution of polar-angle fluctuations in Appendix B.
    Assumed to model saturation of sigma_pe; not directly verified but reasonable for small phase noise.
  • ad hoc to paper Complete rejection of intensity noise by the (x_pi, x_-pi) pulse sequence.
    Design goal of Sec. IV; experimentally only the frequency sensitivity is validated, intensity-noise rejection is asserted from the symmetry of the sequence.
  • domain assumption Purely depolarizing noise model for randomized benchmarking (Eq. 6).
    Standard RB assumption; if coherent errors are significant, the extracted F1^2 is model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Stationarity of laser noise during measurements.
    The paper notes mechanical resonances can drift (Sec. V); the noise PSD used for simulation is assumed representative.
  • standard math Master equation with Lindblad dissipator and measured decay/decoherence rates.
    Standard open quantum system model in Appendix C; rates measured independently from lattice-depth calibration and Ramsey decay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A High-Power Clock Laser Spectrally Tailored for High-Fidelity Quantum State Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5KE3EQM

@misc{pith2026250109343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A High-Power Clock Laser Spectrally Tailored for High-Fidelity Quantum State Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5KE3EQM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09343}
}
abstract

Highly frequency-stable lasers are a ubiquitous tool for optical frequency metrology, precision interferometry, and quantum information science. While making a universally applicable laser is unrealistic, spectral noise can be tailored for specific applications. Here we report a high-power 698 nm clock laser with a maximum output of \SI{4}{W} and minimized frequency noise up to a few kHz Fourier frequency, together with long-term instability of $3.5 \times 10^{-17}$ at one to thousands of seconds. The laser frequency noise is precisely characterized with atom-based spectral analysis that employs a pulse sequence designed to suppress sensitivity to intensity noise. This method provides universally applicable tunability of the spectral response and analysis of quantum sensors over a wide frequency range. With the optimized laser system characterized by this technique, we achieve an average single-qubit Clifford gate fidelity of up to $F_1^2 = 0.99964(3)$ when simultaneously driving 3000 optical qubits with a homogeneous Rabi frequency ranging from \SI{10}{Hz} to $\sim$$\SI{1}{kHz}$. This result represents the highest single optical-qubit gate fidelity for large number of atoms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b) at Rabi frequencies Ω = 2π × 10.031(6) Hz and Ω = 2π × 741.0(6) Hz. III. LASER FREQUENCY NOISE REDUCTION For this 3D lattice-based quantum platform, the achievable Rabi frequencies are within the range of a few kHz. A feedback loop of ≈1 MHz bandwidth is suffi￾ciently fast to reduce laser noise to the cavity’s noise floor within the spectral region of interest. We thus utilize the Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH) locking… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: to compare against the cross-correlation measure￾100 101 102 103 104 f (Hz) 10−34 10−32 10−30 10−28 Sy (Hz−1 ) FIG. 5. Evaluation of Si3 cavity-stabilized laser noise. The blue and orange traces show the cross-spectral measure￾ments using a counter (with a Nyquist freq…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (b) displays the PDH in-loop error signal when the laser is locked to the ULE cavity (blue) versus the PDH photo detection noise floor (orange). The photon shot noise is measured when the laser frequency is tuned far away from the cavity resonance and the same amount o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Universal gates for a metastable qubit in strontium-88

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A universal gate set with erasure conversion is demonstrated on the metastable fine-structure qubit in strontium-88, along with a state-resolved detection scheme.

  2. A symmetry-protected topological optical lattice clock

    quant-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tilted optical lattice clock driven by two clock-laser tones can realize a tunable Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model, and topological protection can suppress amplitude-noise sensitivity in clock and interferometer protocols.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [80]

    Lintz, D.-H

    M. Lintz, D.-H. Phung, J.-P. Coulon, B. Faure, and T. L´ eveque, Note: Efficient diode laser line narrow- ing using dual, feed-forward+ feed-back laser frequency control, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Si3 cavity noise characterization The noise of the 1542 nm laser frequency stabilized to the Si3 cavity is evaluated with a cross-correlation mea- surement [108] against two other independent frequency- 10 stabilized lasers: a cryogenic 6 cm silicon cavity oper- ating at 17 K and a room temperature 40 cm ULE cav- ity. The cross-correlation measurement is ...

  3. [2]

    6(a) for a schematic)

    High-bandwidth PDH lock to a ULE cavity Instead of directly locking the 698 nm external cavity diode laser (ECDL) to the ULE cavity, our setup features an additional prestabilization stage with an electro-optic modulator (EOM) as a fast actuator (see Fig. 6(a) for a schematic). The ECDL is prestabilized to a medium fi- nesse cavity (finesse of 50,000, lin...

  4. [3]

    Si cavity to ULE cavity stability transfer loop The schematic of the stability transfer loop, which was initially set up for the Sr clock operation, can be found in Ref. [111]. For this work we use a simplified ver- sion shown in Fig. 7(a) to illustrate the concepts. The ULE cavity-stabilized laser passes through an AOM and the first-order diffracted ligh...

  5. [4]

    Fiber noise cancellation loops The stabilized laser is distributed to multiple experi- mental locations via fiber links, with fiber noise cancella- tion (FNC) loops applied to suppress path length noise introduced by the fibers [90]. In Fig. 8, we present a mea- surement of the fractional frequency noise power spectral density Sy of the FNC loop for one o...

  6. [5]

    Ye and P

    J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamen- tal physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024)

    2024

  7. [6]

    J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, High-fidelity univer- sal gate set for 9Be + ion qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060505 (2016)

    2016

  8. [7]

    C. R. Clark, H. N. Tinkey, B. C. Sawyer, A. M. Meier, K. A. Burkhardt, C. M. Seck, C. M. Shappert, N. D. Guise, C. E. Volin, S. D. Fallek, H. T. Hayden, W. G. Rellergert, and K. R. Brown, High-fidelity Bell-state preparation with 40Ca+ optical qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130505 (2021)

    2021

Show all 115 references
  1. [8]

    A. D. Leu, M. F. Gely, M. A. Weber, M. C. Smith, D. P. Nadlinger, and D. M. Lucas, Fast, high-fidelity ad- dressed single-qubit gates using efficient composite pulse sequences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 120601 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Alpine quantum technologies, see for example IBEX Q1, https://www.aqt.eu

  3. [10]

    Da Silva, C

    M. Da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. Bello-Rivas, A. Chernoguzov, J. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. Gaebler, T. Gatterman, L. Grans-Samuelsson, et al., Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates, arXiv preprint arXiv:24...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    L¨ oschnauer, J

    C. L¨ oschnauer, J. M. Toba, A. Hughes, S. King, M. We- ber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nourshargh, D. All- cock, C. Ballance, et al., Scalable, high-fidelity all- electronic control of trapped-ion qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07694 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    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, Na- ture 622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature 622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Logical quantum proces- sor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Radnaev, W

    A. Radnaev, W. Chung, D. Cole, D. Mason, T. Bal- lance, M. Bedalov, D. Belknap, M. Berman, M. Blakely, I. Bloomfield, et al., A universal neutral-atom quantum computer with individual optical addressing and non- destructive readout, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08288 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    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 Quantum 6, 010331 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, M. Jaffe, J. M. Kindem, L. Wadleigh, E. Zalys-Geller, X. Zhang, C.-A. Chen, M. A. Norcia, J. Epstein, E. Halperin, F. Hum- mel, T. Wilkason, M. Li, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. C. Bohdanowicz, G. Booth, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, W. B. Cairncros...

    2025

  11. [18]

    W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Realizing spin squeezing with Rydberg inter- actions in an optical clock, Nature 621, 734 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read- out for tweezer clocks, Nature 634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

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

    2024

  14. [21]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, et al., Continuous opera- tion of a coherent 3,000-qubit system, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20660 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    K. Kim, A. Aeppli, W. Warfield, A. Chu, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Atomic coherence of 2 minutes and instability of 1.5×10−18 at 1 s in a Wannier-Stark lattice clock, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06444 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    S. Ma, J. Dolde, X. Zheng, D. Ganapathy, A. Shtov, J. Chen, A. Stoeltzel, and S. Kolkowitz, Enhancing op- tical lattice clock coherence times with erasure conver- sion, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06437 (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. R¨ onchen, A. Jenkins, and A. M. Kaufman, Midcircuit operations using the omg architecture in neutral atom arrays, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041035 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    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 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    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

  20. [27]

    Oskin, F

    M. Oskin, F. T. Chong, and I. L. Chuang, A practical architecture for reliable quantum computers, Computer 35, 79 (2002)

    2002

  21. [28]

    Knill, Quantum computing, Nature 463, 441 (2010)

    E. Knill, Quantum computing, Nature 463, 441 (2010)

    2010

  22. [29]

    Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proc

    J. Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 454, 385 (1998)

    1998

  23. [30]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    C. J. Kennedy, E. Oelker, J. M. Robinson, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, W. R. Milner, G. E. Marti, A. Derevianko, and J. Ye, Precision metrology meets cosmology: im- proved constraints on ultralight dark matter from atom- 17 cavity frequency comparisons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201302 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    Kolkowitz, I

    S. Kolkowitz, I. Pikovski, N. Langellier, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, and J. Ye, Gravitational wave detec- tion with optical lattice atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. D 94, 124043 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    R. B. Hutson, W. R. Milner, L. Yan, J. Ye, and C. San- ner, Observation of millihertz-level cooperative Lamb shifts in an optical atomic clock, Science 383, 384 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    Pedrozo-Penafiel, S

    E. Pedrozo-Penafiel, S. Colombo, C. Shu, A. F. Adiy- atullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, B. Braverman, A. Kawasaki, D. Akamatsu, Y. Xiao, and V. Vuletic, Entanglement on an optical atomic-clock transition, Nature 588, 414 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Di- rect comparison of two spin-squeezed optical clock en- sembles at the 10 −17 level, Nat. Phys. 20, 208 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Pe’er, B. Neyenhuis, J. J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. S. Juli- enne, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, A high phase-space-density gas of polar molecules, Science 322, 231 (2008)

    2008

  30. [37]

    B. P. Maddox, J. M. Mortlock, T. R. Hepworth, A. P. Raghuram, P. D. Gregory, A. Guttridge, and S. L. Cor- nish, Enhanced quantum state transfer via feedforward cancellation of optical phase noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 253202 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    S. J. Masson, J. P. Covey, S. Will, and A. Asenjo- Garcia, Dicke superradiance in ordered arrays of multi- level atoms, PRX Quantum 5, 010344 (2024)

    2024

  32. [39]

    Mamaev, D

    M. Mamaev, D. Barberena, and A. M. Rey, Spin squeez- ing in mixed-dimensional anisotropic lattice models, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023326 (2024)

    2024

  33. [40]

    W. R. Milner, S. Lannig, M. Mamaev, L. Yan, A. Chu, B. Lewis, M. N. Frankel, R. B. Hutson, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Coherent evolution of superexchange interaction in seconds-long optical clock spectroscopy, Science 388, 503 (2025)

    2025

  34. [41]

    Miller, A

    C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, J. Lin, H. Hirzler, H. Gao, H. Zhou, M. D. Lukin, and J. Ye, Two-axis twisting using Floquet-engineered XYZ spin models with polar molecules, Nature 633, 332 (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    Y. K. Lee, M. Block, H. Lin, V. Fedoseev, P. J. Crowley, N. Y. Yao, and W. Ketterle, Observation of spin squeezing with contact interactions in one- and three-dimensional easy-plane magnets, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17398 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    A. Chu, V. J. Mart ´ ınez-Lahuerta, M. Miklos, K. Kim, P. Zoller, K. Hammerer, J. Ye, and A. M. Rey, Ex- ploring the dynamical interplay between mass-energy equivalence, interactions, and entanglement in an opti- cal lattice clock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 093201 (2025)

    2025

  37. [44]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, New method for gravitational wave detec- tion with atomic sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 171102 (2013)

    2013

  38. [45]

    Chiarotti, J

    M. Chiarotti, J. N. Tinsley, S. Bandarupally, S. Man- zoor, M. Sacco, L. Salvi, and N. Poli, Practical lim- its for large-momentum-transfer clock atom interferom- eters, PRX Quantum 3, 030348 (2022)

    2022

  39. [46]

    Baynham, R

    C. Baynham, R. Hobson, O. Buchmueller, D. Evans, L. Hawkins, L. Iannizzotto-Venezze, A. Josset, D. Lee, E. Pasatembou, B. Sauer, et al., A prototype atom in- terferometer to detect dark matter and gravitational waves, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09158 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  40. [47]

    E. Geva, R. Kosloff, and J. Skinner, On the relaxation of a two-level system driven by a strong electromagnetic field, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 8541 (1995)

    1995

  41. [48]

    Makhlin and A

    Y. Makhlin and A. Shnirman, Dephasing of qubits by transverse low-frequency noise, JEPT Lett. 78, 497 (2003)

    2003

  42. [49]

    Ithier, E

    G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Esteve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y. Makhlin, J. Schriefl, and G. Sch¨ on, Decoherence in a supercon- ducting quantum bit circuit, Phys. Rev. B 72, 134519 (2005)

    2005

  43. [50]

    Z. Chen, J. G. Bohnet, J. M. Weiner, and J. K. Thomp- son, General formalism for evaluating the impact of phase noise on Bloch vector rotations, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032313 (2012)

    2012

  44. [51]

    F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. Bylander, X. Jin, F. Yoshi- hara, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, T. P. Orlando, and W. D. Oliver, Rotating-frame relaxation as a noise spec- trum analyser of a superconducting qubit undergoing driven evolution, Nat. Commun. 4, 2337 (2013)

    2013

  45. [52]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Alt- shuler, 1/f noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 361 (2014)

    2014

  46. [53]

    Yoshihara, Y

    F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. Bylander, W. D. Oliver, and J.-S. Tsai, Flux qubit noise spectroscopy using Rabi oscillations under strong driving conditions, Phys. Rev. B 89, 020503 (2014)

    2014

  47. [54]

    J. Jing, P. Huang, and X. Hu, Decoherence of an electri- cally driven spin qubit, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022118 (2014)

    2014

  48. [55]

    H. Ball, W. D. Oliver, and M. J. Biercuk, The role of master clock stability in quantum information process- ing, npj Quantum Inf 2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  49. [56]

    Green, H

    T. Green, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk, High-order noise filtering in nontrivial quantum logic gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020501 (2012)

    2012

  50. [57]

    T. J. Green, J. Sastrawan, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk, Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise, New J. Phys. 15, 095004 (2013)

    2013

  51. [58]

    de L´ es´ eleuc, D

    S. de L´ es´ eleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Analysis of imperfections in the coher- ent optical excitation of single atoms to Rydberg states, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053803 (2018)

    2018

  52. [59]

    M. L. Day, P. J. Low, B. White, R. Islam, and C. Senko, Limits on atomic qubit control from laser noise, npj Quantum Inf 8, 72 (2022)

    2022

  53. [60]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Scott, M. Friesen, and M. Saffman, Sensitiv- ity of quantum gate fidelity to laser phase and intensity noise, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042611 (2023)

    2023

  54. [61]

    J. Choi, H. Zhou, H. S. Knowles, R. Landig, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Robust dynamic Hamiltonian engineering of many-body spin systems, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031002 (2020)

    2020

  55. [62]

    D. G. Matei, T. Legero, S. H¨ afner, C. Grebing, R. Weyrich, W. Zhang, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robin- son, J. Ye, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr, 1 .5 µm lasers with sub-10 mHz linewidth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 263202 (2017)

    2017

  56. [63]

    J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, W. R. Milner, W. Zhang, T. Legero, D. G. Matei, F. Riehle, U. Sterr, and J. Ye, Crystalline optical cavity at 4 K with thermal-noise- limited instability and ultralow drift, Optica 6, 240 (2019). 18

    2019

  57. [64]

    S. T. Cundiff and J. Ye, Colloquium: Femtosecond op- tical frequency combs, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 325 (2003)

    2003

  58. [65]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  59. [66]

    N. R. Newbury and W. C. Swann, Low-noise fiber-laser frequency combs (invited), J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 24, 1756 (2007)

    2007

  60. [67]

    J. L. Hall and T. W. H¨ ansch, External dye-laser fre- quency stabilizer, Opt. Lett. 9, 502 (1984)

    1984

  61. [68]

    Zhu and J

    M. Zhu and J. L. Hall, Stabilization of optical phase/frequency of a laser system: application to a com- mercial dye laser with an external stabilizer, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 10, 802 (1993)

    1993

  62. [69]

    Schoof, J

    A. Schoof, J. Gr¨ unert, S. Ritter, and A. Hemmerich, Reducing the linewidth of a diode laser below 30 Hz by stabilization to a reference cavity with a finesse above 105, Opt. Lett. 26, 1562 (2001)

    2001

  63. [70]

    Le Gou¨ et, J

    J. Le Gou¨ et, J. Kim, C. Bourassin-Bouchet, M. Lours, A. Landragin, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, Wide bandwidth phase-locked diode laser with an intra- cavity electro-optic modulator, Opt. Commun. 282, 977 (2009)

    2009

  64. [71]

    Appel, A

    J. Appel, A. MacRae, and A. I. Lvovsky, A versatile digital GHz phase lock for external cavity diode lasers, Meas. Sci. Technol. 20, 055302 (2009)

    2009

  65. [72]

    Gatti, R

    D. Gatti, R. Gotti, T. Sala, N. Coluccelli, M. Belmonte, M. Prevedelli, P. Laporta, and M. Marangoni, Wide- bandwidth Pound-Drever-Hall locking through a single- sideband modulator, Opt. Lett. 40, 5176 (2015)

    2015

  66. [73]

    Endo and T

    M. Endo and T. R. Schibli, Residual phase noise sup- pression for Pound-Drever-Hall cavity stabilization with an electro-optic modulator, OSA Continuum 1, 116 (2018)

    2018

  67. [74]

    Preuschoff, P

    T. Preuschoff, P. Baus, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Wideband current modulation of diode lasers for fre- quency stabilization, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93 (2022)

    2022

  68. [75]

    Hald and V

    J. Hald and V. Ruseva, Efficient suppression of diode- laser phase noise by optical filtering, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 22, 2338 (2005)

    2005

  69. [76]

    Nazarova, C

    T. Nazarova, C. Lisdat, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr, Low- frequency-noise diode laser for atom interferometry, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, 1632 (2008)

    2008

  70. [77]

    Bagheri, F

    M. Bagheri, F. Aflatouni, A. Imani, A. Goel, and H. Hashemi, Semiconductor laser phase-noise cancella- tion using an electrical feed-forward scheme, Opt. Lett. 34, 2979 (2009)

    2009

  71. [78]

    Aflatouni, M

    F. Aflatouni, M. Bagheri, and H. Hashemi, Design methodology and architectures to reduce the semicon- ductor laser phase noise using electrical feedforward schemes, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. 58, 3290 (2010)

    2010

  72. [79]

    Aflatouni and H

    F. Aflatouni and H. Hashemi, Wideband tunable laser phase noise reduction using single sideband modulation in an electro-optical feed-forward scheme, Opt. Lett.37, 196 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    L. Li, W. Huie, N. Chen, B. DeMarco, and J. P. Covey, Active cancellation of servo-induced noise on stabilized lasers via feedforward, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 064005 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Chao, Z.-X

    Y.-X. Chao, Z.-X. Hua, X.-H. Liang, Z.-P. Yue, L. You, and M. K. Tey, Pound-Drever-Hall feedforward: laser phase noise suppression beyond feedback, Optica 11, 945 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    Denecker, Y

    T. Denecker, Y. T. Chew, O. Guillemant, G. Watanabe, T. Tomita, K. Ohmori, and S. de L´ es´ eleuc, Measurement and feedforward correction of the fast phase noise of lasers, Phys. Rev. A 111, 042614 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    Oelker, R

    E. Oelker, R. Hutson, C. Kennedy, L. Sonderhouse, T. Bothwell, A. Goban, D. Kedar, C. Sanner, J. Robin- son, G. Marti, et al., Demonstration of 4.8 × 10−17 sta- bility at 1 s for two independent optical clocks, Nature Photonics 13, 714 (2019)

    2019

  77. [85]

    G. E. Marti, R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, S. L. Campbell, N. Poli, and J. Ye, Imaging optical frequencies with 100 µHz precision and 1.1 µm resolution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 103201 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    W. R. Milner, L. Yan, R. B. Hutson, C. Sanner, and J. Ye, High-fidelity imaging of a band insulator in a three-dimensional optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A 107, 063313 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    S. L. Campbell, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, A. Goban, N. D. Oppong, R. L. McNally, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, W. Zhang, B. J. Bloom, and J. Ye, A Fermi- degenerate three-dimensional optical lattice clock, Sci- ence 358, 90 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    Sonderhouse, C

    L. Sonderhouse, C. Sanner, R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, T. Bilitewski, L. Yan, W. R. Milner, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Thermodynamics of a deeply degenerate SU (N)- symmetric Fermi gas, Nat. Phys. 16, 1216 (2020)

    2020

  81. [89]

    J. Ye, H. J. Kimble, and H. Katori, Quantum state engi- neering and precision metrology using state-insensitive light traps, Science 320, 1734 (2008)

    2008

  82. [90]

    R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, G. E. Marti, L. Sonderhouse, C. Sanner, and J. Ye, Engineering quantum states of matter for atomic clocks in shallow optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 123401 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    R. W. Drever, J. L. Hall, F. V. Kowalski, J. Hough, G. Ford, A. Munley, and H. Ward, Laser phase and frequency stabilization using an optical resonator, Appl. Phys. B 31, 97 (1983)

    1983

  84. [92]

    M. D. Swallows, M. J. Martin, M. Bishof, C. Benko, Y. Lin, S. Blatt, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Operating a 87Sr optical lattice clock with high precision and at high den- sity, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 59, 416 (2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    T. L. Nicholson, M. J. Martin, J. R. Williams, B. J. Bloom, M. Bishof, M. D. Swallows, S. L. Campbell, and J. Ye, Comparison of two independent Sr optical clocks with 1×10−17 stability at 10 3 s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 230801 (2012)

    2012

  86. [94]

    L.-S. Ma, P. Jungner, J. Ye, and J. L. Hall, Delivering the same optical frequency at two places: accurate can- cellation of phase noise introduced by an optical fiber or other time-varying path, Opt. Lett. 19, 1777 (1994)

    1994

  87. [95]

    Bishof, X

    M. Bishof, X. Zhang, M. J. Martin, and J. Ye, Opti- cal spectrum analyzer with quantum-limited noise floor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 093604 (2013)

    2013

  88. [96]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory, Nature 458, 996 (2009)

    2009

  89. [97]

    Kotler, N

    S. Kotler, N. Akerman, Y. Glickman, A. Keselman, and R. Ozeri, Single-ion quantum lock-in amplifier, Nature 19 473, 61 (2011)

    2011

  90. [98]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dy- namical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nat. Phys. 7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  91. [99]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, Resonant mode for gravitational wave detec- tors based on atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104022 (2016)

    2016

  92. [100]

    Santarelli, C

    G. Santarelli, C. Audoin, A. Makdissi, P. Laurent, G. Dick, and A. Clairon, Frequency stability degrada- tion of an oscillator slaved to a periodically interrogated atomic resonator, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 45, 887 (1998)

    1998

  93. [101]

    Krinner, K

    L. Krinner, K. Dietze, L. Pelzer, N. Spethmann, and P. O. Schmidt, Low phase noise cavity transmission self- injection locked diode laser system for atomic physics experiments, Opt. Express 32, 15912 (2024)

    2024

  94. [102]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Sei- delin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  95. [103]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scal- able and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011)

    2011

  96. [104]

    T. Xia, M. Lichtman, K. Maller, A. W. Carr, M. J. Piotrowicz, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman, Random- ized benchmarking of single-qubit gates in a 2D array of neutral-atom qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 100503 (2015)

    2015

  97. [105]

    H. L. Gevorgyan and N. V. Vitanov, Ultrahigh-fidelity composite rotational quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012609 (2021)

    2021

  98. [106]

    Steffen and R

    M. Steffen and R. H. Koch, Shaped pulses for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 75, 062326 (2007)

    2007

  99. [107]

    Timoney, V

    N. Timoney, V. Elman, S. Glaser, C. Weiss, M. Johan- ning, W. Neuhauser, and C. Wunderlich, Error-resistant single-qubit gates with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052334 (2008)

    2008

  100. [108]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of cou- pled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Reso- nance 172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  101. [109]

    Chao, Z.-X

    Y.-X. Chao, Z.-X. Hua, X.-H. Liang, Z.-P. Yue, C. Jia, L. You, and M. K. Tey, Robust high-frequency laser phase noise suppression by adaptive Pound-Drever-Hall feedforward, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19642 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  102. [110]

    A. M. Souza, G. A. ´Alvarez, and D. Suter, Robust dy- namical decoupling for quantum computing and quan- tum memory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 240501 (2011)

    2011

  103. [111]

    H. Zhou, L. S. Martin, M. Tyler, O. Makarova, N. Leitao, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Robust higher- order Hamiltonian engineering for quantum sensing with strongly interacting systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 220803 (2023)

    2023

  104. [112]

    Rubiola and V

    E. Rubiola and V. Giordano, Correlation-based phase noise measurements, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 71, 3085 (2000)

    2000

  105. [113]

    Schmid, J

    F. Schmid, J. Weitenberg, T. W. H¨ ansch, T. Udem, and A. Ozawa, Simple phase noise measurement scheme for cavity-stabilized laser systems, Opt. Lett. 44, 2709 (2019)

    2019

  106. [114]

    Nagourney, Quantum electronics for atomic physics and telecommunication(OUP Oxford, 2014)

    W. Nagourney, Quantum electronics for atomic physics and telecommunication(OUP Oxford, 2014)

    2014

  107. [115]

    Sonderhouse, Quantum gas engineering for atomic clocks, Ph.D

    L. Sonderhouse, Quantum gas engineering for atomic clocks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado Boulder (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.