Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

PulserDiff: a pulse differentiable extension for Pulser

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PulserDiff is an open-source differentiable pulse optimizer that produces hardware-constrained neutral-atom pulses with fidelities above 99%.

desk verdict A genuine, useful differentiable pulse-optimization tool for Pulser, but the 'hardware-compatible' claim outruns the noiseless MockDevice simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16744 v1 pith:F5MN5IK5 submitted 2025-05-22 quant-ph

Vytautas Abramavicius , Melvin Mathé , Gergana V. Velikova , João P. Moutinho , Mario Dagrada , Vincent E. Elfving , Alexandre Dauphin , Joseph Vovrosh
show 1 more author
Roland Guichard
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords differentiablepulseoptimizationneutral-atomquantumcomputingRydbergHamiltoniansequencePulserDiffanalogstatepreparationautomaticdifferentiation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents PulserDiff, an open-source extension that makes pulse-sequence parameters in the Pulser programming library differentiable and optimizable. The authors show that gradient-based optimization under hardware constraints finds smooth custom waveforms that emulate a global Hadamard gate with fidelities above 99% on up to seven qubits, and that a single optimized pulse prepares a targeted six-qubit state with 99.85% fidelity. The work matters because most pulse libraries for neutral-atom QPUs do not offer optimization of built-in pulse control parameters, leaving pulse design to manual tuning or external tooling. If the simulation model is faithful to real hardware, this gives analog quantum programmers a general route to high-fidelity pulses and optimal register layouts.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the QuantumModel class, a wrapper that registers Pulser sequence variables as trainable parameters and uses an automatic-differentiation engine in place of Pulser's default numerical backend to compute gradients of a fidelity loss through the Schrödinger-equation time evolution. Custom waveforms are parameterized by a sparse set of control points, reconstructed on the 1-nanosecond sampling grid by a sine interpolation matrix so that each output is a linear combination of two neighboring control points; the control points are then passed through sigmoid or tanh functions, which guarantees the waveforms respect the device's amplitude and detuning bounds. This linear-interpolation-plus-bounded-transform construction is what makes the optimized pulses both smooth and hardware-compatible within the model.

What would settle it

Execute one of the optimized seven-qubit custom waveforms from Table 2 on a real neutral-atom device or through a validated noise model that includes decoherence, then measure the process fidelity via randomized benchmarking; if the measured fidelity falls well below the simulated 99.51% (for example below 90%), the hardware-fidelity claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding automatic differentiation to the Pulser framework turns pulse optimization into a standard machine-learning loop that reliably finds hardware-constrained waveforms. Concretely, the paper reports that sine-interpolated custom waveforms, bounded via sigmoid and tanh maps to enforce device amplitude and detuning limits, achieve process fidelities of 99.51–99.99% for global Hadamard rotations on linear registers of two to seven qubits, improving by 5–6 percentage points over piecewise-constant pulses for five or more qubits. For state preparation, a single custom pulse drives an interacting six-qubit chain from the all-zero state toward the all-one state with 99.85% fidelity, and the framework also supports optimizing total pulse duration and interatomic distances.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the noiseless Rydberg Hamiltonian together with MockDevice's hardware specifications faithfully represent real neutral-atom devices, so that pulses optimized in simulation can be called hardware-compatible—yet no experiment, noise model, or real-device run is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Differentiable pulse shaping can recover digital-gate-emulation results comparable to the earlier variational protocol while using a standard gradient optimizer and smooth, bounded waveforms.
  • Custom continuous waveforms outperform piecewise-constant sequences by 5–6 percentage points in fidelity at five or more qubits, indicating that waveform-shape flexibility is the main lever for counteracting long-range Rydberg interactions.
  • Optimizing total pulse duration and register coordinates alongside pulse parameters opens a route to joint circuit-and-layout design for neutral-atom algorithms such as maximum independent set and quantum evolution kernels.
  • Because the optimization loop is fully differentiable, the same machinery can later incorporate noise models through the Lindblad master equation to generate noise-resilient pulses.
  • The fidelity degradation with system size is gradual, so the scheme is a plausible building block for larger registers once scalable emulators are integrated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'hardware-compatible' claim rests entirely on the MockDevice constraint model; a natural next test is to execute the optimized waveforms on a real neutral-atom device or a validated noise simulator and compare measured fidelities, since decoherence effects are absent from the current results.
  • The sine-interpolation parameterization is a generic constrained-waveform template that could transfer to other quantum-control platforms by swapping in the appropriate Hamiltonian and device limits.
  • The state-preparation fidelities show a non-monotonic pattern across qubit number (93.55% at five qubits, above 99% at six and seven), suggesting the reported numbers are optimizer- and initialization-dependent; testing with restarts or alternative optimizers could yield different fidelity values.
  • The demonstrations are limited to roughly seven qubits by dense state-vector simulation and 1-nanosecond sampling, an explicit boundary the authors flag; scaling to larger registers will require switching to approximate emulators, which the paper lists as future work.
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. PulserDiff is a PyTorch-based extension of the Pulser library that makes pulse-sequence parameters differentiable for gradient-based optimization on neutral-atom hardware models. The paper introduces the QuantumModel wrapper, a custom-waveform parameterization based on sine interpolation with sigmoid/tanh amplitude/detuning bounds, and an optimization loop that uses standard PyTorch autograd and optimizers. The authors demonstrate the tool on two tasks: (i) optimizing global rotations to emulate a Hadamard gate with piecewise-constant and smooth waveforms for 2–7 qubits, and (ii) preparing the |1...1> state for various register sizes and layouts. All demonstrations use the ideal Rydberg Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and MockDevice constraints; the reported fidelities exceed 99% for smooth waveforms up to 7 qubits in the gate task and for several state-preparation settings, with lower values in other configurations. The paper claims that PulserDiff 'produces hardware-compatible pulses with remarkably high fidelities.'

Significance. If the results are reproducible and the claims appropriately scoped, PulserDiff is a useful open-source contribution: it fills a concrete gap in the Pulser ecosystem by enabling autodiff-based pulse optimization, leverages the widely used PyTorch ML stack, and provides a simple QuantumModel interface. The sine-interpolation construction (Eqs. 4–6) is mathematically sound, and the code is publicly available. However, the paper's significance is currently limited by the absence of any noise model, pulse-distortion analysis, or real-device validation; all quantitative claims are backed only by noiseless simulations of a MockDevice. The central 'hardware-compatible' claim therefore goes beyond the evidence presented, and the reported fidelities are single-run numbers without statistical characterization. With suitable revisions—either adding realistic device modeling or softening the hardware claim—the contribution would be a solid software/tool paper for the quantum control community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1.2] The central claim that PulserDiff produces 'hardware-compatible pulses with remarkably high fidelities' is not supported by the evidence. The only hardware constraints enforced are amplitude and detuning bounds taken from MockDevice (Appendix A.4, Code Samples 10 and 12). The paper explicitly acknowledges that 'ideal constant pulses are not faithfully implementable on a real quantum device mainly due to sharp rises and falls' (Section 4.1.2), but the replacement smooth pulses are never validated against a pulse-distortion model, bandwidth/rise-time limits, a Lindblad noise model, or an actual device run. As it stands, 'hardware-compatible' is an extrapolation from a mock specification to physical hardware. The authors should either add such validation or revise the wording to 'pulses compatible with Pulser's MockDevice constraints.'
  2. [Tables 1–5 and Appendix A.5] All fidelity numbers are the results of single optimization runs. The initialization in Appendix A.4 uses random control parameters (e.g., `amp_values = 5 * torch.rand(n_param) - 2.5` in Code Sample 12), yet no seeds, repeated trials, or statistical measures are reported. Because the optimization landscape is non-convex, a single run cannot establish the typical performance of PulserDiff. The authors should report results over multiple random seeds (mean ± standard deviation) or explicitly state that the reported fidelity is a best-of-single-run value and that no claim of reproducibility across initializations is made.
  3. [Abstract and Tables 1, 3, 4] The phrase 'remarkably high fidelities' overstates the results. Table 1 reports fidelities of 93–95% for constant pulses with N≥5, Table 3 reports 93.55% for state preparation with N=5, and Table 4 reports 85.36% for N=7 at τ=1000 ns. These values are respectable in some contexts but not 'remarkably high' across all cases. The abstract and conclusions should qualify the claim to the settings where >99% is achieved, e.g., custom smooth waveforms with the specific pulse durations and register layouts tested.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1.1] The gate fidelity is defined as F = (1/2^N)|Tr(U†_sim U_target)|, which is a linear inner-product measure, whereas the state fidelity in Section 4.2 uses the squared overlap |⟨ψ|φ⟩|². This inconsistency should be noted explicitly; otherwise the reader may assume the standard squared fidelity is being reported for both.
  2. [Code Sample 2] The variable `area_param` is declared but never used in the pulse definition (`Pulse.ConstantPulse(1000, omega_param, 0.0, 0.0)`). This may confuse readers; either use it in a meaningful way or remove the declaration.
  3. [Section 3.4.3] The explanation of the duration-optimization sampling mechanism is somewhat long and interrupts the flow; consider moving the detailed 1 ns-sampling discussion to an appendix, as is done for other implementation details.
  4. [Table 4 caption] The caption 'Fidelities of the state |ψ_final⟩ after the pulse optimization with different pulse durations' does not specify which durations; add '(τ = 1000 ns and τ = 1200 ns)' to the caption.
  5. [Reference [MA25]] The reference for the PulserDiff repository is a GitHub URL; if the repository is archived on Zenodo or has a release DOI, that would improve reproducibility and citation stability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PulserDiff's fidelity targets are external (global Hadamard unitary, |1...1> state), and the optimized fidelities are measured against those fixed targets.

full rationale

The paper reports optimized pulse-sequence fidelities for two externally specified tasks: emulating a global Hadamard unitary (Section 4.1) and preparing the target state |1...1> (Section 4.2). The fidelity definitions F = (1/2^N)|Tr(U_sim^dagger U_target)| and F = |<psi_final|psi_target>|^2 compare simulation output against fixed targets, so the reported numbers are not equivalent to any fitted parameter or input. The optimizer does minimize 1-F, but reporting the resulting training objective is the standard evaluation of a control-optimization tool, not a hidden prediction. The bounds enforced during optimization (MockDevice amplitude/detuning limits, sigmoid/tanh waveform transforms, sine interpolation in Eqs. 4-8) constrain the search space but do not define the target, so there is no self-definitional reduction. Self-citations to [CVdH+24] and [MA25] are contextual: [CVdH+24] provides the digital-emulation scheme being reproduced and [MA25] is the software repository; neither imports a load-bearing uniqueness theorem nor forbids alternatives. The main weakness, that 'hardware-compatible pulses' are supported only by noiseless MockDevice simulation without a real-device run or noise model (Section 4.1.2 and Section 5), is a domain-model validation gap rather than circular reasoning. No circular step meeting the required quote-and-reduction standard was found.

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

The paper's central contribution is a software layer, not a new physical derivation. The assumptions above are the modeling choices that must hold for the numerical fidelities to certify 'hardware-compatible' pulses. The hand-chosen hyperparameters that materially affect demonstrations are the sigmoid slope, the number of control points, and optimizer settings; these are not fitted to external data, so this is not a parameter-fitting circularity, but it limits the strength of the fidelity claims.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma_slope = 0.05
    The slope of the sigmoid/tanh transforms in Eqs. (7)-(8) is chosen by hand; it controls gradient flow and is not derived from hardware or theory.
  • control_point_count_M = 20 for gate optimization, 30 for state preparation
    The number of waveform control points is chosen for each use case; it affects expressivity and the optimization landscape, and no convergence study is reported.
  • optimizer_hyperparameters = Adam lr=5.0, cosine annealing T_max=50, 1000 epochs
    These are selected heuristically in Appendix A.5; changing them changes optimized fidelities, and no sensitivity analysis is shown.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Rydberg Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) with van der Waals interactions exactly describes the analog QPU dynamics for the chosen atomic states.
    All fidelity evaluations are obtained from simulation of this Hamiltonian; the paper does not validate against hardware. Invoked throughout Section 2 and Section 4.
  • standard math Numerical time propagation of the Schrödinger equation with 1 ns sampled piecewise-constant Hamiltonians (using the DP5_SE solver) is accurate enough for the reported fidelities.
    The implementation relies on Pulser's sampling and solver backends; no convergence or numerical error analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The constraints and parameters in MockDevice correspond to a real Pasqal device's allowable amplitude, detuning, and timing ranges.
    The 'hardware-compatible' claim depends on this. Code Samples 9-12 use MockDevice; no real hardware specifications or runs are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PulserDiff: a pulse differentiable extension for Pulser." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5MN5IK5

@misc{pith2026250516744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PulserDiff: a pulse differentiable extension for Pulser},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5MN5IK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16744}
}
read the original abstract

Programming analog quantum processing units (QPUs), such as those produced by Pasqal, can be achieved using specialized low-level pulse libraries like Pulser. However, few currently offer the possibility to optimize pulse sequence parameters. In this paper, we introduce PulserDiff, a user-friendly and open-source Pulser extension designed to optimize pulse sequences over a well-defined set of control parameters that drive the quantum computation. We demonstrate its usefulness through several case studies involving analog configurations that emulate digital gates and state preparation. PulserDiff produces hardware-compatible pulses with remarkably high fidelities, showcasing its potential for advancing analog quantum computing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16744 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2-qubit register. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Initial sequence containing one constant and one time-dependent pulse. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The optimized sequence for 8 constant pulses and a 2-qubit linear register layout. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of custom-waveform pulse for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the constant-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the constant-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the constant-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the constant-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the constant-waveform pulse for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Visualization of the optimized sequence consisting of the custom-waveform pulse for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Pulse-based optimization of quantum many-body states with Rydberg atoms in optical tweezer arrays

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adaptively segmented pulse-based VQE prepares ground states of small Heisenberg and mixed-field Ising chains in simulated Rydberg arrays, and a hybrid gate scheme is proposed for measuring the energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Boris Albrecht, Constantin Dalyac, Lucas Leclerc, Luis Ortiz-Guti\'errez, Slimane Thabet, Mauro D'Arcangelo, Julia R. K. Cline, Vincent E. Elfving, Lucas Lassabli\`ere, Henrique Silv\'erio, Bruno Ximenez, Louis-Paul Henry, Adrien Signoles, and Lo\" c Henriet. Quantum feature maps for graph machine learning on a neutral atom quantum processor. Phys. Rev. A...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Pasqal Emulators

    Kemal Bidzhiev, Stefano Grava, Pablo le Henaff, Mauro Mendizabel Pico, Elie Merhej, and Anton Quelle. Pasqal Emulators . https://github.com/pasqal-io/emulators, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms

    Antoine Browaeys and Thierry Lahaye. Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms. Nature Physics , 16(2):132--142, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Khadijeh Najafi, Xun Gao, and Susanne F. Yelin. Quantum reservoir computing using arrays of rydberg atoms. PRX Quantum , 3:030325, Aug 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Claire Chevallier, Joseph Vovrosh, Julius de Hond, Mario Dagrada, Alexandre Dauphin, and Vincent E. Elfving. Variational protocols for emulating digital gates using analog control with always-on interactions. Phys. Rev. A , 109:062604, Jun 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    c Henriet, Daniele Loco, Nicola\

    Mauro D'Arcangelo, Louis-Paul Henry, Lo\" c Henriet, Daniele Loco, Nicola\" Gouraud, Stanislas Angebault, Jules Sueiro, J\'er\^ome For\^et, Pierre Monmarch\'e, and Jean-Philip Piquemal. Leveraging analog quantum computing with neutral atoms for solvent configuration prediction in drug discovery. Phys. Rev. Res. , 6:043020, Oct 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Elfving, Adrien Signoles, Louis-Paul Henry, and Lo \" c Henriet

    Constantin Dalyac, Lucas Leclerc, Louis Vignoli, Mehdi Djellabi, Wesley da Silva Coelho, Bruno Ximenez, Alexandre Dareau, Davide Dreon, Vincent E. Elfving, Adrien Signoles, Louis-Paul Henry, and Lo \" c Henriet. Graph algorithms with neutral atom quantum processors. The European Physical Journal A , 60(9):177, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin. Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using rydberg atom arrays. Science , ...

    work page 2022

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum bridge analytics i: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, Rick Hennig, and Yu Du. Quantum bridge analytics i: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models. Annals of Operations Research , 314(1):141--183, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Quantum computing with neutral atoms

    Lo \" i c Henriet, Lucas Beguin, Adrien Signoles, Thierry Lahaye, Antoine Browaeys, Georges-Olivier Reymond, and Christophe Jurczak. Quantum computing with neutral atoms. Quantum , 4:327, September 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Harris, K

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, St \' e fan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, Robert Kern, Matti Picus, Stephan Hoyer, Marten H. van Kerkwijk, Matthew Brett, Allan Haldane, Jai...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Quantum evolution kernel: Machine learning on graphs with programmable arrays of qubits

    Louis-Paul Henry, Slimane Thabet, Constantin Dalyac, and Lo\" c Henriet. Quantum evolution kernel: Machine learning on graphs with programmable arrays of qubits. Phys. Rev. A , 104:032416, Sep 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Johansson, P.D

    J.R. Johansson, P.D. Nation, and Franco Nori. Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications , 183(8):1760--1772, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Lucas Leclerc, Luis Ortiz-Guti\'errez, Sebasti\'an Grijalva, Boris Albrecht, Julia R. K. Cline, Vincent E. Elfving, Adrien Signoles, Lo\" c Henriet, Gianni Del Bimbo, Usman Ayub Sheikh, Maitree Shah, Luc Andrea, Faysal Ishtiaq, Andoni Duarte, Sam Mugel, Irene C\'aceres, Michel...

    2023

  8. [16]

    PulserDiff

    Melvin Mathé and Vytautas Abramavicius. PulserDiff . https://github.com/pasqal-io/pulser-diff, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Blueprint for a digital-analog variational quantum eigensolver using rydberg atom arrays

    Antoine Michel, Sebastian Grijalva, Lo\" c Henriet, Christophe Domain, and Antoine Browaeys. Blueprint for a digital-analog variational quantum eigensolver using rydberg atom arrays. Phys. Rev. A , 107:042602, Apr 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Yang, Zach DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fan...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Black Opal

    Q-CTRL. Black Opal . https://q-ctrl.com/black-opal, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    https://www.qruise.com/, 2025

    Qruise . https://www.qruise.com/, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Bloqade.jl: P ackage for the quantum computation and quantum simulation based on the neutral-atom architecture

    QuEra. Bloqade.jl: P ackage for the quantum computation and quantum simulation based on the neutral-atom architecture. https://github.com/QuEraComputing/Bloqade.jl, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    pasqal-io/pulser: v1.1.1, October 2024

    Henrique Silvério, Seb Grijalva, Antoine Cornillot, Loïc Henriet, Laurent Ajdnik, Peter Karalekas, Lucas Leclerc, Clément de Terrasson, Louis Vignoli, Jbrem, Mauro D'Arcangelo, Constantin Dalyac, Louis-Paul Henry, Aleksander Wennersteen, Davide Gessa, Lembe Emmanuel, Rajatav D...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Williams, Alexander A

    Pascal Scholl, Michael Schuler, Hannah J. Williams, Alexander A. Eberharter, Daniel Barredo, Kai-Niklas Schymik, Vincent Lienhard, Louis-Paul Henry, Thomas C. Lang, Thierry Lahaye, Andreas M. L \"a uchli, and Antoine Browaeys. Quantum simulation of 2d antiferromagnets with hun...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Maximum Independent Set

    David Teller, Roland Guichard, and Manu Lahariya. Maximum Independent Set . https://github.com/pasqal-io/maximum-independent-set, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Quantum Evolution Kernel

    David Teller, Roland Guichard, and Manu Lahariya. Quantum Evolution Kernel . https://github.com/pasqal-io/quantum-evolution-kernel, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman. Observation of rydberg blockade between two atoms. Nature Physics , 5(2):110--114, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Jonathan Wurtz, Pedro L. S. Lopes, Christoph Gorgulla, Nathan Gemelke, Alexander Keesling, and Shengtao Wang. Industry applications of neutral-atom quantum computing solving independent set problems, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.