Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Efficient Implementation of a Quantum Algorithm with a Trapped Ion Qudit

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single 137Ba+ ion, controlled by up to seven phase-coherent radio-frequency tones, implements Grover's search on qudits of dimension five and eight with average success probabilities of 96.8(3)% and 69(6)%, respectively, using only O(d)…

desk verdict First multi-tone control of a trapped-ion qudit and Grover on d=5 and d=8, but the success probabilities are conditional on postselected nulls and the coherence times in the main text contradict the supplement. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09371 v1 pith:FCJRC42I submitted 2025-06-11 quant-ph

Xiaoyang Shi , Jasmine Sinanan-Singh , Timothy J. Burke , John Chiaverini , Isaac L. Chuang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68
keywords quditmulti-tonecontroltrappedionGrover'ssearch137Ba+spin-displacementgatesrandomizedbenchmarkingquantumalgorithms
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 shows that a single trapped-ion qudit—one 137Ba+ ion with up to eight hyperfine levels used as the computational space—can run Grover's search algorithm without any entangling gates, using only O(d) single-qudit control pulses. The authors demonstrate the first multi-tone control of a single atomic qudit, calibrating up to seven simultaneous radio-frequency tones that drive spin-displacement operations. For a five-level qudit the one-iteration algorithm succeeds 96.8(3)% of the time, essentially at the theoretical limit of about 96.7%, and for an eight-level qudit it succeeds 69(6)% against a theoretical 78%. The point is hardware efficiency: a database of size d fits in one physical system, and the gate count scales linearly in d rather than quadratically as in pairwise qubit decompositions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-tone spin-displacement gate: a simultaneous drive of all d-1 transitions with amplitudes matched to $\Omega$ $\sqrt$(k(d-k)) so the rotating-frame Hamiltonian collapses to $\Omega$ J_x, and with phase degrees of freedom that give SNAP-displacement-style universal control in O(d) pulses. A numerical optimizer searches short pulse sequences for the oracle and reflection unitaries, and randomized benchmarking calibrates the Rabi amplitudes against multi-tone effects such as AC Zeeman shifts. For even dimensions, a global phase $e^{{i pi/d}}$ is inserted into the reflection so it belongs to SU(d) and can be realized as a product of these gates.

What would settle it

Reanalyze the Grover data without discarding null-measurement trials, counting them as non-target outcomes, or run the sequences while reading out population outside the qudit subspace; if the null rate among runs that would otherwise miss the target exceeds the average 2(1)% null rate, the reported success probabilities would be measurably lower.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With a single 137Ba+ ion encoded in the metastable 5D5/2 manifold, the authors apply up to seven simultaneously driven, phase-coherent radio-frequency tones whose Rabi amplitudes satisfy Omega_{k-1} = $\Omega$ $\sqrt$(k(d-k)) so that the rotating-frame Hamiltonian becomes $\Omega$ J_x. This gives universal control of a d-level qudit through displacement and SNAP-style phase operations in O(d) pulses. Using gradient-descent-optimized pulse sequences for the Hadamard, oracle, and reflection steps—scaled by $e^{{i pi/d}}$ for even d so the reflection remains in SU(d)—they realize Grover's search on d=5 and d=8 qudits. The measured average success probabilities are 96.8(3)% (theoretical maximum 96.7%) and 69(6)% (theoretical 78%), with squared statistical overlaps of 99.9(1)% and 97.1(3)% against the ideal one-iteration outcomes.

Load-bearing premise

The reported success probabilities assume that trials discarded because the ion never fluoresces (null measurements, averaging 2(1)% of runs) are not biased toward algorithm failures; if leakage out of the qudit is more likely when the algorithm fails, the quoted 96.8% and 69% would be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Grover's search on a database of size d can be run on a single physical system with O(d) pulses and no entangling gates, so the hardware overhead for small searches is far lower than in qubit-based circuits.
  • The d=8 implementation reports 69(6)% success on one iteration, beating qubit-based trapped-ion and superconducting demonstrations that reported roughly 44%, 51%, and 49% on the same task.
  • Per-round fidelity for d=5 is 99.28(2)%, so repeated oracle-reflection iterations remain high-fidelity; decoherence, not gate count, is the dominant error source.
  • If native qudit entangling gates reach comparable fidelity, the same control scheme could be combined with them to scale the approach to multiple qudits.
  • The squared statistical overlap of 97% or better shows that even where the absolute success probability falls below the ideal, the output distribution still matches the theoretical prediction closely.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit how much the 2(1)% null-measurement discards could bias the quoted success probabilities; including null trials as failures would give a lower, more conservative fidelity estimate.
  • The demonstrated O(d) gate construction is not tied to the phase-oracle structure of Grover's search, so the same displacement-plus-phase sequence search could implement other unitaries, such as the quantum Fourier transform, at the same linear depth.
  • If native trapped-ion qudit entangling gates reach the fidelity of single-qudit operations, the natural next step is a multi-qudit Grover search, which would use O(d) local gates plus a small number of qudit Toffoli gates rather than O(n^2) two-qubit gates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports multi-tone radio-frequency control of a single 137Ba+ ion qudit with up to eight levels, and uses this control to implement a single-iteration version of Grover's search over d=5 and d=8 databases. The authors introduce an optimized state selection, calibrate the multi-tone pulse amplitudes with randomized benchmarking, and synthesize the Hadamard, oracle, and reflection operations with O(d) displacement pulses. They report average success probabilities of 96.8(3)% (d=5) and 69(6)% (d=8), with squared statistical overlap of 99.9(1)% and 97.1(3)%, and compare these numbers with qubit-based implementations of the same algorithm.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is a valuable experimental demonstration: multi-tone control of an eight-level trapped-ion qudit and the first Grover implementation on a qudit of dimension five and eight, with no entangling gates. The manuscript's strengths include the explicit pulse parameter tables in the supplementary material, the randomized benchmarking calibration, the master-equation simulation used to model decoherence, and the direct comparison to prior qubit experiments. The main caveat, discussed below, is that the reported success probabilities are conditional on discarding null-readout trials, and the coherence-time data contain inconsistencies; these issues affect the numerical fidelity claims more than the central existence claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section I, null-readout postselection] The reported average success probabilities in Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 4 are computed after discarding trials with null detection, which the text explicitly identifies with 'leakage out of the qudit state space during operations.' Because the null rate is only quoted as an average of 2(1)% and no evidence is presented that it is independent of the applied Grover sequence, the quoted ASP values are conditional on the assumption that nulls are SPAM failures rather than algorithm-induced leakage. This is quantitatively load-bearing: for d=5 the measured 96.8(3)% equals or exceeds the theoretical no-error bound of about 96.7% from Eq. (2), leaving no room for the pulse and decoherence errors the paper itself documents; for d=8 a correlated 2% inflation would move 69(6)% toward 67%, still within the uncertainty but changing the comparison to qubit implementations. I request the unconditional ASP with nulls counted as failures, a measurement of the null rate as a function of algorithm length or with the algorithm pulses disabled, and a leakage budget from the master-equation simulations.
  2. [Section II and Supplementary C, coherence times] The coherence times are reported inconsistently. The main text states 3(1) ms and 9(1) ms for the d=5 and d=8 cases, while the Supplementary Fig. 7 caption reports 12(2) ms and 4.9(5) ms for the same two cases; the values differ and their order is reversed. Because the decoherence estimates and the master-equation simulation in Fig. 3(c) depend on these numbers, the manuscript must reconcile them and state exactly which states, measurement method, and fitting procedure were used.
  3. [Section II, error-per-pulse estimate] The claim that decoherence contributes 'approximately 0.4% and 1% error per pulse' is not derived. Using the quoted coherence times and average pulse lengths, a simple exponential-decay estimate gives values that do not match either quoted number: with T2=3 ms and 33 us the single-pulse decay is about 1.1%, while with the Supplementary values of 12 ms and 4.9 ms the estimates are about 0.3% and 0.6%. Please provide the formula used and clarify whether 'error per pulse' refers to a single displacement pulse, one algorithm repetition, or the full sequence.
  4. [Supplementary A and Section I, RB versus algorithm fidelity] The randomized benchmarking results are not reconciled with the algorithm results. RB gives per-pulse fidelities of 99.94(1)% (d=5) and 99.7(1)% (d=8), but the d=8 Grover ASP of 69(6)% is far below what would be expected from those fidelities even after accounting for the theoretical ASP cap of 78%. The supplementary statement that the measured pulse fidelity is 'approximately three times lower' than expected is vague. The authors should provide an error budget for the oracle and reflection pulses, or explicitly state that the randomized benchmarking of SU(2) gates does not characterize the multi-tone algorithm gates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption and Section II] 'Hardmard' should be 'Hadamard' in both places.
  2. [Supplementary C] The sentences comparing the magnetic-field sensitivities for the d=8 and d=5 qudits are missing the numerical values ('MHz/G' appears with blank numbers); please supply them.
  3. [Abstract and Section I] The term 'operation fidelity' is used for the measured algorithm success probability; this should be clarified, since 'fidelity' normally denotes a state or process fidelity, and the manuscript should state explicitly that the quoted percentages are conditional success probabilities.
  4. [Methods, Eq. (5)] The matrix element labeled Omega_d e^{i phi_{d-1}} appears to have an inconsistent index; it should presumably be Omega_{d-1}. Please check the notation throughout the matrix.
  5. [Reference [40]] The supplementary material is cited as 'See supplementary material at [url]' with no URL or DOI; a permanent link or identifier should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the experimental derivation is self-contained and the quoted fidelities are direct measurements rather than reconstructed from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central claims are experimental. The theoretical success probability in Eq. 2 is the standard Grover formula and is not fitted to the measured data. The pulse parameters in Tables I and II are obtained by gradient-descent minimization of the distance to the target unitary (Methods 3), not by fitting the measured success probabilities, so the measured ASPs (96.8(3)% for d=5 and 69(6)% for d=8) are independent tests of those controls. The master-equation simulation in Fig. 3(c) uses coherence times extracted from separate Ramsey-type measurements (Supp. C), so its agreement with the Grover decay is not a self-fulfilling fit to the ASP. The null-trial discarding described in Section I ('if the ion is never detected to be bright ... the experimental trial is discarded ... average probability of null measurements is 2(1)%') is a documented postselection that could bias the quoted fidelities if nulls correlate with algorithm failure, but this is a statistical-conditioning caveat, not a circular derivation. Self-citations [40], [41], and [18] point to the paper's own supplementary data, the hardware platform, and prior qudit-QEC work; none carries the load of the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The central existence claim and the fidelity numbers stand on independent measurement, standard theory, and external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities and no predictive model with fitted constants. Its central result is a direct measurement. The main assumptions are standard rotating-wave and closed-subspace approximations for atomic qudit control, plus a postselection rule that discards leakage events.

free parameters (2)
  • Quantization magnetic field magnitude B0 = 7.2 G
    Chosen by numerical variation to identify an optimal set of qudit states with strong, well-separated transitions and low magnetic-field sensitivity. This is a hand-picked experimental parameter, not a model parameter.
  • Multi-tone Rabi amplitudes
    Calibrated sequentially, first by Rabi experiments and then by Nelder-Mead optimization against randomized benchmarking sequences. These are experimental calibration parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation is valid for the multi-tone drive.
    Used to derive the time-independent Hamiltonian in Eq. 5; standard in atomic physics but relies on small detunings.
  • domain assumption Hyperfine interaction provides sufficient nonlinearity for universal control.
    Standard assumption for multi-tone qudit control, cited from refs [24,27].
  • domain assumption Magnetic field fluctuations are the dominant dephasing source and can be modeled by a diagonal dephasing operator.
    Used in master equation simulation of Fig. 3(c); stated as 'a good assumption in our system'.
  • domain assumption The selected states form a closed qudit subspace with negligible leakage during operations.
    Leakage is monitored and trials are discarded, implying the assumption is enforced by postselection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Implementation of a Quantum Algorithm with a Trapped Ion Qudit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCJRC42I

@misc{pith2026250609371,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Implementation of a Quantum Algorithm with a Trapped Ion Qudit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCJRC42I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09371}
}
abstract

Demonstration of quantum advantage remains challenging due to the increased overhead of controlling large quantum systems. While significant effort has been devoted to qubit-based devices, qudits ($d$-level systems) offer potential advantages in both hardware efficiency and algorithmic performance. In this paper, we demonstrate multi-tone control of a single trapped ion qudit of up to eight levels, as well as the first implementation of Grover's search algorithm on a qudit with dimension five and eight, achieving operation fidelity of 96.8(3)$\%$ and 69(6)$\%$, respectively, which correspond to 99.9(1)\% and 97.1(3) \% squared statistical overlap (SSO), respectively, with the expected result for a single iteration of the Grover search algorithm. The performance is competitive when compared to qubit-based systems; moreover, the sequence requires only $\mathcal{O}(d)$ single qudit gates and no entangling gates. This work highlights the potential of using qudits for efficient implementations of quantum algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09371 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Grover’s algorithm implemented with a single qudit. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Qudit encoding and experimental setup. (a) The selected hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Results for implementation of Grover’s algorithm in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Grover’s algorithm implemented on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Randomized benchmarking of SU(2) operations on the qudit. We fit the data to exponential decay and extract the pulse fidelity to be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Individual randomized benchmarking (RB) landscapes. (a) Fidelity as the RF amplitude (expressed as normalized Rabi frequencies) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Ramsey-type experiment for the qudit. We extract a coherence time of 12(2) and 4.9(5) ms for the d = 5 and d = 8 qudits by fitting an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.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. Quantum logic operations and algorithms in a single 25-level atomic qudit

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single 137Ba+ ion acts as a 25-level qudit with 99.51% heralded SPAM fidelity, and runs Bernstein-Vazirani and Toffoli circuits on up to four virtual qubits.

  2. Ultracoherent superconducting cavity-based multiqudit platform with error-resilient control

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Demonstrates a two-mode SRF cavity platform with 20.6 ms and 15.6 ms lifetimes, error-resilient sideband control, Fock state preparation up to n=20 with >95% post-selected fidelity, and a virtual Raman beamsplitter wi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Energy Levels of 137Ba+ Metastable states For atoms with a non-zero nuclear spin I, the Hamiltonian is given by (neglecting higher order contributions) H0 =AI·J+B 3(⃗I· ⃗J)2 + 3 2 (⃗I· ⃗J)−I(I+1)(J+1) 2I(2I−1)J(2J−1) +µ BBz(g jmJ +g ImI) (3) whereAandBare the magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole hyperfine constants, respectively,g J andg I are the Land...

    work page

  2. [2]

    within a Tb3+ ion [26]. In this case, however, due to the lack of a pulse sequence capable of generating an equal superposition of four states with equal phases, the algorithm was implemented only on ad=3 subspace and an algorithm success probability of∼80% was achieved, highlighting the challenge of scaling beyondd=3. A promising approach for addressing ...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Multi-tone control When the atom interacts with a multi-tone magnetic field, with thek-th tone having drive frequencyω k, field strength Bk, and phaseϕ k, the interaction HamiltonianH lab in the lab- oratory frame is given by Hlab(t) =µBg jJx ∑ k Bk cos(ω kt+ϕ k)(4) whereJ x is the D 5/2 electronic spin operator. After go- ing into the generalized rotatin...

    work page

  4. [4]

    With a structured universal gate set, an ar- bitrary unitary could be constructed usingO(d 2)pulses [48]

    Algorithm Operation Pulse Sequence The core challenge for mapping Grover’s algorithm onto a single qudit is the efficient realization of thed-dimensional unitary operators. With a structured universal gate set, an ar- bitrary unitary could be constructed usingO(d 2)pulses [48]. In contrast, an unstructured gate set (readily available with the multi-tone c...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gul- lans, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12021 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied physics reviews6(2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Applied physics reviews6(2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    T. Monz, D. Nigg, E. A. Martinez, M. F. Brandl, P. Schindler, R. Rines, S. X. Wang, I. L. Chuang, and R. Blatt, Science351, 1068 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Figgatt, D

    C. Figgatt, D. Maslov, K. A. Landsman, N. M. Linke, S. Deb- nath, and C. Monroe, Nature Communications8, 1918 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Mar- golus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum information(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    AbuGhanem, Scientific Reports15, 1281 (2025)

    M. AbuGhanem, Scientific Reports15, 1281 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Entropy 25, 387 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Saeedi and M

    M. Saeedi and M. Pedram, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics87, 062318 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Lubinski, S

    T. Lubinski, S. Johri, P. Varosy, J. Coleman, L. Zhao, J. Necaise, C. H. Baldwin, K. Mayer, and T. Proctor, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering4, 1 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Muthukrishnan and C

    A. Muthukrishnan and C. R. Stroud, Phys. Rev. A62, 052309 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    S. S. Ivanov, H. S. Tonchev, and N. V . Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A85, 062321 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    A. Saha, R. Majumdar, D. Saha, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Sur- Kolay, Phys. Rev. A105, 062453 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Nikolaeva, P. Xu, G. V . Shlyapnikov, and A. K. Fedorov, Phys. Rev. A101, 022304 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    DeBry, N

    K. DeBry, N. Meister, A. V . Martinez, C. D. Bruzewicz, X. Shi, D. Reens, R. McConnell, I. L. Chuang, and J. Chiaverini, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13908 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Y . Li, Q. Mei, Q.-X. Jie, W. Cai, Y . Li, Z. Liu, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Xie, X. Cheng, X. Zhao,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16746 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chiesa, E

    A. Chiesa, E. Macaluso, F. Petiziol, S. Wimberger, P. Santini, and S. Carretta, The journal of physical chemistry letters11, 8610 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Nature622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Omanakuttan, A

    S. Omanakuttan, A. Mitra, E. J. Meier, M. J. Martin, and I. H. Deutsch, PRX Quantum4, 040333 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Omanakuttan, V

    S. Omanakuttan, V . Buchemmavari, J. A. Gross, I. H. Deutsch, and M. Marvian, PRX Quantum5, 020355 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    X. Yu, B. Wilhelm, D. Holmes, A. Vaartjes, D. Schwienbacher, M. Nurizzo, A. Kringhøj, M. R. v. Blankenstein, A. M. Jakob, P. Gupta, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, R. J. Murray, R. Blume- Kohout, T. D. Ladd, N. Anand, A. S. Dzurak, B. C. Sanders, D. N. Jamieson, and A. Morello, Natu...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Fernández de Fuentes, T

    I. Fernández de Fuentes, T. Botzem, M. A. I. Johnson, A. Vaart- jes, S. Asaad, V . Mourik, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, B. C. John- son, A. M. Jakob, J. C. McCallum, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, Nature Communications15, 1380 (2024), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2024

  22. [30]

    Godfrin, A

    C. Godfrin, A. Ferhat, R. Ballou, S. Klyatskaya, M. Ruben, W. Wernsdorfer, and F. Balestro, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 187702 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Champion, Z

    E. Champion, Z. Wang, R. Parker, and M. Blok, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15857 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    N. Goss, A. Morvan, B. Marinelli, B. K. Mitchell, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, L. Chen, C. Jünger, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago,et al., Nature communications13, 7481 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    L. E. Fischer, A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, D. J. Egger, S. Carretta, and I. Tavernelli, PRX Quantum4, 030327 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Neeley, M

    M. Neeley, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland,et al., Science325, 722 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Y . Chi, J. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Mao, Z. Zhou, X. Chen, C. Zhai, J. Bao, T. Dai, H. Yuan,et al., Nature communications13, 1166 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    M. Kues, C. Reimer, P. Roztocki, L. R. Cortés, S. Sciara, B. Wetzel, Y . Zhang, A. Cino, S. T. Chu, B. E. Little,et al., Nature546, 622 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    M. A. Aksenov, I. V . Zalivako, I. A. Semerikov, A. S. Borisenko, N. V . Semenin, P. L. Sidorov, A. K. Fedorov, K. Y . Khabarova, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Phys. Rev. A107, 052612 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    P. Hrmo, B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Hu- ber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ringbauer, Nature Communications14, 2242 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, Nature Physics18, 1053 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    G. K. Brennen, D. P. O’Leary, and S. S. Bullock, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052318 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Löschnauer, J

    C. Löschnauer, J. M. Toba, A. Hughes, S. King, M. Weber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nourshargh, D. Allcock, C. Ballance, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07694 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 060504 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    P. J. Low, B. White, and C. Senko, npj Quantum Information 11, 1 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    See supplementary material at [url] for randomized benchmark- ing, coherence time measurments, and pulse parameters for the Grover’s search algorithm

  37. [45]

    X. Shi, J. Sinanan-Singh, K. DeBry, S. L. Todaro, I. L. Chuang, and J. Chiaverini, Phys. Rev. A111, L020601 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    F. A. An, A. Ransford, A. Schaffer, L. R. Sletten, J. Gaebler, J. Hostetter, and G. Vittorini, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 130501 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Sotirova, J

    A. Sotirova, J. Leppard, A. Vazquez-Brennan, S. Decoppet, F. Pokorny, M. Malinowski, and C. Ballance, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05805 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hradil, Phys

    Z. Hradil, Phys. Rev. A55, R1561 (1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014072 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    M. N. Leuenberger and D. Loss, Physical Review B68, 165317 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0304674

    2003 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical Review A96, 022330 (2017). 7

    2017

  44. [52]

    S. S. Bullock, D. P. O’Leary, and G. K. Brennen, Physical re- view letters94, 230502 (2005). 8 IV . SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL A. Randomized Benchmarking To perform randomized benchmarking (RB), we randomly pick a sequence of gates from the qubit Clifford group embedded in SU(d)as...

    2005

Pith tools

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