Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Universal gates for a metastable qubit in strontium-88

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 universal gate set is demonstrated for the metastable fine-structure qubit in strontium-88, with single-qubit fidelity 0.993(1) and loss-corrected two-qubit fidelity 0.9945(6).

desk verdict First universal gate set on Sr-88 fine-structure qubit; strong paper, but the loss-corrected two-qubit fidelity is an optimistic estimate until the error-budget gap (0.16% vs 0.55%) is explained. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10714 v2 pith:IKCVLAWT submitted 2025-06-12 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Renhao Tao , Ohad Lib , Flavien Gyger , Hendrik Timme , Maximilian Ammenwerth , Immanuel Bloch , Johannes Zeiher This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords strontium-88fine-structurequbiterasureconversionRydbergblockadeneutralatomarraysquantumgatesstate-resolveddetectionrandomizedbenchmarking
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 reports a complete set of high-fidelity quantum gates for a new kind of atomic qubit: the metastable fine-structure qubit in bosonic strontium-88, encoded between the $^3\text{P}_0$ and $^3\text{P}_2$ states. It shows single-qubit Clifford gates with fidelity 0.993(1) and a Rydberg-blockade controlled-Z gate with fidelity 0.9945(6) after correcting for atom-loss events during the gate. It also demonstrates mid-circuit erasure conversion, using fast imaging of the ground state to detect and discard shots with leakage errors, and a state-resolved detection scheme that tells the two qubit states apart with better than 0.993 fidelity. If these results hold, this qubit could support quantum error correction with erasure conversion while using less optical power and faster gates than the strontium clock qubit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanisms are: (1) the qubit encoding in the metastable states $|0\rangle={}^3\text{P}_2,m_J=0$ and $|1\rangle={}^3\text{P}_0$, separated by 17 THz and held in a triple-magic optical trap; (2) two-photon Raman coupling via the $^3\text{S}_1$ state for single-qubit rotations; (3) Rydberg blockade using the $47s\,{}^3\text{S}_1$ state, where one atom's Rydberg excitation shifts a neighbor's excitation energy and prevents double excitation, providing the two-qubit entangling interaction; (4) erasure conversion via fast imaging of the $^1\text{S}_0$ ground state, which lies outside the qubit subspace; and (5) a state-resolved detection scheme that uses 496 nm repumping from $^3\text{P}_2$ to $^3\text{D}_2$, shelving into $^1\text{S}_0$ for imaging, followed by slow imaging of the remaining $^3\text{P}_0$ population. These mechanisms together turn leakage errors into detectable erasures and provide loss-resolved readout for both qubit states.

What would settle it

Run the two-qubit gate with a Rydberg-coupling scheme that does not ionize $^3\text{P}_2$ and measure the CZ fidelity; if the loss-excision assumption is correct, the remaining infidelity should be close to the modeled 0.16%, not the measured 0.55%. Alternatively, measure the loss-excised fidelity while varying the UV laser intensity: if loss is independent of coherent errors, the fidelity of surviving atom pairs will not change as the ionization rate changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the 17 THz metastable fine-structure qubit in $^{88}\text{Sr}$—with $|0\rangle = {}^3\text{P}_2(m_J=0)$ and $|1\rangle = {}^3\text{P}_0$—supports a universal gate set. Coherent single-qubit control is achieved by a two-photon Raman process through the $^3\text{S}_1$ intermediate state, and a two-qubit controlled-Z gate is realized by Rydberg blockade: a tightly focused 316 nm laser couples $|1\rangle$ to the Rydberg state $|47s\,{}^3\text{S}_1, m_J=-1\rangle$, with an interaction shift of $2\pi\times 114$ MHz. Benchmarking with Clifford randomized benchmarking and symmetric stabilizer benchmarking gives single-qubit gate fidelity 0.993(1) and loss-corrected CZ fidelity 0.9945(6); Bell-state fidelity is 0.983(8) with loss excision. The paper further demonstrates mid-circuit erasure conversion of $^1\text{S}_0$ leakage by fast 461 nm imaging, raising state-preparation fidelity to about 0.996, and a state-resolved detection scheme that reaches detection fidelity above 0.993.

Load-bearing premise

The headline two-qubit fidelity assumes that the atoms lost during the gate—mostly because the 316 nm laser ionizes the $^3\text{P}_2$ state—are lost independently of the actual gate errors, so that throwing away those runs does not hide real errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fine-structure qubit performs single-qubit Clifford gates at 0.993(1) fidelity and CZ gates at 0.9945(6) fidelity (loss-corrected), making it competitive with leading neutral-atom qubit platforms.
  • Mid-circuit erasure conversion removes state-preparation errors and off-resonant scattering errors, raising state-preparation fidelity to about 0.996 without measurably degrading qubit coherence.
  • The state-resolved detection scheme identifies both qubit states and atom loss with fidelity above 0.993, providing a path to monitor atom loss during error-correction cycles.
  • Because the qubit uses a 17 THz splitting and larger intermediate-state detunings, gate times could be pushed into the sub-microsecond regime with higher power, an order of magnitude faster than the clock qubit with lower optical power requirements.
  • The qubit is compatible with coherent transport in reconfigurable tweezer arrays, opening the way to erasure-converted error correction in larger arrays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the loss-excision independence assumption holds, eliminating $^3\text{P}_2$ ionization (for example, by coupling to the Rydberg state through a different UV scheme) should bring the two-qubit infidelity from the measured 0.55% closer to the modeled 0.16%, making the fine-structure qubit competitive with the best Rydberg gates.
  • The same erasure-conversion machinery should extend to fermionic strontium-87 nuclear-spin qubits or to other metastable encodings, since the $^1\text{S}_0$ ground state remains outside the qubit subspace and is directly imageable.
  • The state-resolved detection scheme could serve as a loss-resolved readout for Rydberg quantum simulators, distinguishing decay into $^3\text{P}_2$ versus $^3\text{P}_0$ and reducing post-selection bias in entangled-state characterizations.
  • A direct test of the independence assumption is to measure the loss-excised CZ fidelity as a function of UV laser intensity: if loss is independent of coherent errors, the conditional fidelity of surviving atom pairs should remain flat as the ionization rate changes.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports universal single- and two-qubit gates for a metastable fine-structure qubit encoded in the 3P0 and 3P2,mJ=0 states of 88Sr. Single-qubit Clifford randomized benchmarking gives F=0.993(1) after erasure-excision; two-qubit CZ gates benchmarked with symmetric stabilizer benchmarking give F=0.9945(6) after excising trials with atom loss, with a raw fidelity of 0.9759(5). The paper also demonstrates mid-circuit erasure conversion of leakage to 1S0, a state-resolved detection scheme with detection fidelity above 0.993, and a Bell-state fidelity of 0.983(8) conditioned on survival. The SI presents an error budget predicting raw and loss-corrected CZ infidelities of 1.84% and 0.16%, respectively.

Significance. If the headline two-qubit fidelity is taken at face value, this is a valuable experimental contribution to the neutral-atom quantum computing toolkit: it combines a long-lived metastable qubit with a universal gate set, mid-circuit erasure conversion, and high-fidelity state-resolved detection. The measurements are direct, use standard CRB and SSB protocols with statistical error bars, and the authors are transparent about raw versus loss-corrected numbers. The central quantitative significance of the two-qubit result, however, rests on an unvalidated postselection correction, as detailed below; the same caveat applies to the Bell-state fidelity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Fig. 3d; SI Error budget, Fig. S12] The headline two-qubit fidelity F2q=0.9945(6) is obtained by excising trials in which atom loss is detected, with the dominant loss being 3P2 ionization by the 316 nm gate laser. The validity of this postselection requires that loss events are independent of the computational error processes acting on the surviving qubits. This independence is not established. In this system the same 316 nm light drives off-resonant scattering into non-qubit 3P2 sublevels, and Rydberg decay can concurrently produce both a computational error and a dark-state loss, so excising a lost trial can also remove a simultaneous computational error and bias the survival-conditioned fidelity upward. The error budget in Fig. S12 predicts a loss-corrected infidelity of 0.16%, whereas the measured loss-corrected infidelity is 0.55% (1-0.9945), a factor-of-3.4 discrepancy attributed to unspecified drifts. This unexplained gap means the loss-correction model is not quantitatively validated, so the quoted loss-corrected fidelity is not a demonstrated property of a hypothetical loss-free implementation. I recommend either reporting the raw fidelity as the primary two-qubit result and presenting the loss-corrected value as a model-dependent projection, or adding a direct test of loss-error independence, for example by varying the ionization rate (Rydberg principal quantum number or UV power) and verifying that the loss-corrected fidelity remains constant, or by correlating loss events with simultaneous computational errors in the same trials.
  2. [SI Error budget, Fig. S12] The error budget predicts a raw CZ infidelity of 1.84%, in reasonable agreement with the measured raw infidelity of 2.41%, but the loss-corrected prediction of 0.16% disagrees with the measured 0.55% by a factor of 3.4. The manuscript attributes this residual to experimental drifts in Rabi frequency, UV pulse area, phase, and shape, but these drifts are not included in the model or quantified. Without a decomposition of this residual, the claim that the loss-corrected fidelity represents the true conditional gate quality is not quantitatively supported. Please either include a drift model with estimated parameters or explicitly state that the loss-corrected number is an upper-bound estimate.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 3b] The Bell-state fidelity of 0.983(8) is obtained with the same loss-excision procedure used for the CZ gate; the raw value is 0.9355(9). The manuscript should state clearly in the main text that this is a postselected fidelity, and should explain why the loss-independence assumption is more plausible here than in the gate-benchmarking sequence, or present the raw value as the headline Bell fidelity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. S1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'baesed' should be 'based'.
  2. [Fig. 4d] The table lists identical infidelity contributions of 0.076% for both 3P0 and 3P2 repumping; please clarify whether these are independent error sources and how they are combined in the total detection infidelity.
  3. [Main text, Introduction] The phrase 'we propose and experimentally demonstrate an erasure-convertible qubit' is stronger than needed, since erasure conversion in metastable alkaline-earth qubits has been proposed and demonstrated in related species; please rephrase to credit prior work explicitly.
  4. [Fig. S11] The fitted proportionality constant A=610/µs would benefit from an uncertainty and a definition of the functional form; currently the reader cannot tell whether the quoted value includes systematic uncertainties in the UV intensity calibration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: fidelities are measured directly with external CRB/SSB benchmarks; error-budget numbers are a separate check, not inputs to the headline claims.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims are direct measurements, not derived quantities. The single-qubit fidelity is obtained by Clifford randomized benchmarking (CRB) and the two-qubit fidelity by symmetric stabilizer benchmarking (SSB), with the protocols cited to external groups [53,54,13,14]. The reported two-qubit fidelity of 0.9945(6) is explicitly a survival-conditioned quantity obtained by excising atom-loss events ('with (without) correction for atom loss events'); it is a post-selected measurement, not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. The SI error budget is a separate first-principles/master-equation estimate compared with, not used to generate, the measured infidelity. The paper itself acknowledges the model under-predicts the loss-corrected infidelity: 'The modeled noise sources give rise to a total raw infidelity of 1.84% and loss-corrected infidelity of 0.16%. We attribute the higher infidelities measured in the experiment to experimental drifts' (SI 'Error budget', Fig. S12). That unexplained gap is a validation concern about the model and about how representative the loss-excised fidelity is, but it is not a circular derivation. Self-citations to prior work on the apparatus and triple-magic trapping [18,19,47] supply experimental preconditions, yet the gate fidelities, detection fidelities, and erasure-conversion performance are all independently benchmarked in the present measurement sequences and do not reduce to those citations. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result is renamed as a new prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its headline claims.

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

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'bucket state' in the error-budget simulation (SI) is a numerical device to represent loss, not a physical entity. The two free parameters are data-processing or calibration choices that affect the reported fidelities. The axioms are standard atomic-physics assumptions plus one ad hoc assumption about loss being independent of computational errors.

free parameters (2)
  • Erasure classification threshold = The numerical value is not stated explicitly; it is described as tunable in Fig. 2b and SI Fig. S7.
    The photon-count threshold used to flag erasure events is chosen after the data; the reported state-preparation fidelity and the single-qubit Clifford fidelity (0.993(1)) depend on this choice, which trades off false positives against false negatives.
  • CZ gate phase-modulation parameters = The values are not listed numerically in the text.
    The temporal phase modulation of the 316 nm drive is scanned to maximize the |11> return probability (SI 'Two-qubit benchmarking sequence'). The resulting CZ gate fidelity (0.9945(6) after loss excision) is conditional on these calibrated pulse parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 3-level rate-equation model (Rydberg state, dark state, bright state) with a single normalization factor A captures the Rydberg decay dynamics.
    Used in SI Fig. S9 to extract bright-state lifetime 110(8) us and dark-state lifetime 37(2) us; assumes two independent decay channels and constant A=0.4. The measured branching is then used to construct the error budget in Fig. S12.
  • domain assumption The Rydberg interaction shift (2π x 114 MHz) far exceeds the Rabi coupling (2π x 6 MHz), so the blockade is effective for the CZ gate.
    Main text, gate description; relies on calculated Rydberg interaction potentials (acknowledged to van Bijnen and Kruckenhauser) rather than a direct on-site measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper Loss of atoms (dominated by 3P2 ionization by the 316 nm light) is independent of the computational error processes, so excising loss events yields a meaningful gate fidelity.
    The quoted two-qubit fidelity is loss-corrected; this independence is assumed and is the weakest assumption in the paper.
  • domain assumption The triple-magic magnetic field configuration makes the 1S0 and qubit states magically trapped, so the qubit coherence is not limited by differential light shifts during the gate.
    Assumed from prior work (ref 47); the paper operates at the triple magic configuration and reduces tweezer depth to 50 uK during gates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal gates for a metastable qubit in strontium-88." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKCVLAWT

@misc{pith2026250610714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal gates for a metastable qubit in strontium-88},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKCVLAWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10714}
}
abstract

Metastable atomic qubits are a highly promising platform for the realization of quantum computers, owing to their scalability and the possibility of converting leakage errors to erasure errors mid-circuit. Here, we demonstrate and characterize a universal gate set for the metastable fine-structure qubit encoded between the $^3\text{P}_0$ and $^3\text{P}_2$ states in bosonic strontium-88. We find single-qubit gate fidelities of 0.993(1), and two-qubit gate fidelities of 0.9945(6) after correcting for losses during the gate operation. Furthermore, we present a novel state-resolved detection scheme for the two fine-structure states that enables high-fidelity detection of qubit loss. Finally, we leverage the existence of a stable ground state outside the qubit subspace to perform mid-circuit erasure conversion using fast destructive imaging. Our results establish the strontium fine-structure qubit as a promising candidate for near-term error-corrected quantum computers, offering unique scaling perspectives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10714 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. A Dual Metastable-State Encoding Architecture for Quantum Processing with $^{171}\mathrm{Yb}$ Atom Arrays

    quant-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Proposes dual ³P₀/³P₂ metastable encoding in ¹⁷¹Yb atoms to separate storage and fast-operation qubits with coherent shelving for single-species fault-tolerant neutral-atom quantum computing.

  2. Expanding the Neutral Atom Gate Set: Native iSWAP and Exchange Gates from Dipolar Rydberg Interactions

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optimal-control pulse sequences realize native iSWAP and exchange gates via resonant Rydberg dipole-dipole exchange, with simulated 99.9% fidelity under noise.

  3. Direct Measurement of the $5s5p\,{}^1P_1 \to 5s4d\,{}^1D_2$ Decay Rate in Strontium

    physics.atom-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A direct Sr MOT transient measurement yields B(1D2→3P2)=0.177(4) and A(1P1→1D2)=5.3(5)×10^3 s^-1, challenging the Bauschlicher (0.322) and Cooper (9.25×10^3) predictions.

  4. Strategic Plan for Neutral Atom Quantum Computation

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    If qubit-count growth (~1.8x/yr) and gate-error reduction (~0.62x/yr) continue, neutral-atom quantum computers could reach practical quantum advantage within a decade, this roadmap projects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, J

    M. Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges, J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 202001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and computing with Rydberg-interacting qubits, A VS Quan- tum Sci. 3, 10.1116/5.0036562 (2021)

    doi:10.1116/5.0036562 2021

  5. [5]

    Sheng, X

    C. Sheng, X. He, P. Xu, R. Guo, K. Wang, Z. Xiong, M. Liu, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, High-Fidelity Single- Qubit Gates on Neutral Atoms in a Two-Dimensional Magic-Intensity Optical Dipole Trap Array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 240501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, et al., Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 604, 457 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Nikolov, E

    B. Nikolov, E. Diamond-Hitchcock, J. Bass, N. L. R. 13 Rydberg decay3 P2 ionization Phase noise Blockade fluctuations Rydberg T * 2 Parameter optimization Sum 10−4 10−3 10−2 CZ infidelity FIG. S12. CZ gate error budget. Leading contributions to the infidelity of the CZ gate with (orange) and without (blue) loss correction at a Rabi frequency of 2 π × 6 MH...

    work page 2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, et al., High-Fidelity Universal Gates in the 171Yb Ground-State Nuclear-Spin Qubit, Phys. Rev. X Quantum 6, 020334 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    L. Yan, S. Lannig, W. R. Milner, M. N. Frankel, B. Lewis, D. Lee, K. Kim, and J. Ye, A High-Power Clock Laser Spectrally Tailored for High-Fidelity Quantum State En- gineering (2025), arXiv:2501.09343

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622...

    2023

  4. [12]

    A. G. Radnaev, W. C. Chung, D. C. Cole, et al., A universal neutral-atom quantum computer with indi- vidual optical addressing and non-destructive readout, arXiv:2408.08288

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    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, Phys. Rev. X Quantum 6, 010331 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Pause, L

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits, Optica 11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Pichard, D

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, ´E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. M´ eriaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, B. Ximenez, A. Signoles, A. Browaeys, T. La- haye, and D. Dreon, Rearrangement of individual atoms in a 2000-site optical-tweezer array at cryogenic temper...

    2024

  9. [17]

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

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zei- her, High-Fidelity Detection of Large-Scale Atom Ar- rays in an Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 013401 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gyger, M

    F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Sni- girev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033104 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    M. A. Norcia, H. Kim, W. B. Cairncross, et al., It- erative Assembly of 171Yb Atom Arrays with Cavity- Enhanced Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. X Quantum 5, 030316 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Lin, H.-S

    R. Lin, H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, et al., AI-Enabled Rapid As- sembly of Thousands of Defect-Free Neutral Atom Arrays with Constant-Time Overhead, arXiv:2408.14647

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    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, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2024

  16. [24]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, et al., Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor, arXiv:2411.11822

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. J. Bedalov, M. Blakely, P. D. Buttler, et al., Fault- Tolerant Operation and Materials Science with Neutral Atom Logical Qubits, arXiv:2412.07670

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, Ul- trahigh Error Threshold for Surface Codes with Biased Noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050505 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, Fault-Tolerant Thresholds for the Surface Code in Excess of 5% under Biased Noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 130501 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Lescanne, M

    R. Lescanne, M. Villiers, T. Peronnin, A. Sarlette, M. Delbecq, B. Huard, T. Kontos, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Exponential suppression of bit-flips in a qubit 14 encoded in an oscillator, Nat. Phys. 16, 509 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    I. Cong, H. Levine, A. Keesling, D. Bluvstein, S.- T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, Hardware-Efficient, Fault- Tolerant Quantum Computation with Rydberg Atoms, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021049 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Q. Xu, N. Mannucci, A. Seif, A. Kubica, S. T. Flammia, and L. Jiang, Tailored XZZX codes for biased noise, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013035 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Sahay, J

    K. Sahay, J. Jin, J. Claes, J. D. Thompson, and S. Puri, High-threshold codes for neutral-atom qubits with biased erasure errors, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041013 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Scholl, A

    P. Scholl, A. L. Shaw, R. B.-S. Tsai, R. Finkelstein, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Erasure conversion in a high- fidelity Rydberg quantum simulator, Nature 622, 273 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Kubica, A

    A. Kubica, A. Haim, Y. Vaknin, H. Levine, F. Brand˜ ao, and A. Retzker, Erasure Qubits: Overcoming the T1 limit in Superconducting Circuits, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041022 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Alase, K

    A. Alase, K. D. Stubbs, B. C. Sanders, and D. L. Feder, Erasure conversion in Majorana qubits via local quasi- particle detection, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043294 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    K. S. Chou, T. Shemma, H. McCarrick, et al., A super- conducting dual-rail cavity qubit with erasure-detected logical measurements, Nat. Phys. 20, 1454 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    C. M. Holland, Y. Lu, S. J. Li, C. L. Welsh, and L. W. Cheuk, Demonstration of Erasure Conversion in a Molec- ular Tweezer Array, arXiv:2406.02391

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Haim, J. S. C. Hung, et al., Demonstrating a Long-Coherence Dual-Rail Erasure Qubit Using Tun- able Transmons, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011051 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Quinn, G

    A. Quinn, G. J. Gregory, I. D. Moore, S. Brudney, J. Metzner, E. R. Ritchie, J. O’Reilly, D. J. Wineland, and D. T. C. Allcock, High-fidelity entanglement of metastable trapped-ion qubits with integrated erasure conversion, arXiv:2411.12727

  31. [39]

    J. T. Wilson, S. Saskin, Y. Meng, S. Ma, R. Dilip, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Trapping Alkaline Earth Rydberg Atoms Optical Tweezer Arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 033201 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    M. Kang, W. C. Campbell, and K. R. Brown, Quan- tum Error Correction with Metastable States of Trapped Ions Using Erasure Conversion, Phys. Rev. X Quantum 4, 020358 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Barnes, P

    K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, B. J. Bloom, et al., Assembly and coherent control of a register of nuclear spin qubits, Nat. Commun. 13, 2779 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, and M. En- dres, 2000-Times Repeated Imaging of Strontium Atoms in Clock-Magic Tweezer Arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 173201 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    Unnikrishnan, P

    G. Unnikrishnan, P. Ilzh¨ ofer, A. Scholz, C. H¨ olzl, A. G¨ otzelmann, R. K. Gupta, J. Zhao, J. Krauter, S. We- ber, N. Makki, H. P. B¨ uchler, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Coherent Control of the Fine-Structure Qubit in a Sin- gle Alkaline-Earth Atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150606 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Pucher, V

    S. Pucher, V. Kl¨ usener, F. Spriestersbach, J. Geiger, A. Schindewolf, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, Fine-Structure Qubit Encoded in Metastable Strontium Trapped in an Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150605 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Ammenwerth, H

    M. Ammenwerth, H. Timme, F. Gyger, R. Tao, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Realization of a fast triple-magic all-optical qutrit in strontium-88, arXiv:2411.02869

  40. [48]

    See Supplementary Material

  41. [49]

    S. Ma, J. Dolde, X. Zheng, D. Ganapathy, A. Shtov, J. Chen, A. Stoeltzel, and S. Kolkowitz, Enhancing opti- cal lattice clock coherence times with erasure conversion, arXiv:2505.06437

  42. [50]

    Bergschneider, V

    A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, J. H. Becher, R. Klemt, G. Z¨ urn, P. M. Preiss, and S. Jochim, Spin- resolved single-atom imaging of 6Li in free space, Phys. Rev. A 97, 063613 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, A. H. H´ ebert, A. Krahn, R. Groth, G. A. Phelps, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Greiner, Fast single atom imaging for optical lattice arrays, Nat. Commun. 16, 1017 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Stellmer and F

    S. Stellmer and F. Schreck, Reservoir spectroscopy of 5s5p 3p2–5snd 3D1,2,3 transitions in strontium, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022512 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Nielsen, K

    E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, A. Russo, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, pyGSTi: A Python Package for Quantum Gate Set Tomography, Randomized Bench- marking, and Other QCVV Protocols (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Nielsen, K

    E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, A. Russo, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Probing quantum processor per- formance with pyGSTi, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 044002 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Jandura and G

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

    2022

  48. [56]

    Fuhrmanek, R

    A. Fuhrmanek, R. Bourgain, Y. R. P. Sortais, and A. Browaeys, Free-Space Lossless State Detection of a Single Trapped Atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 133003 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    M. J. Gibbons, C. D. Hamley, C.-Y. Shih, and M. S. Chapman, Nondestructive Fluorescent State Detection of Single Neutral Atom Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 133002 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Martinez-Dorantes, W

    M. Martinez-Dorantes, W. Alt, J. Gallego, S. Ghosh, L. Ratschbacher, Y. V¨ olzke, and D. Meschede, Fast Non- destructive Parallel Readout of Neutral Atom Regis- ters in Optical Potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180503 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    M. Kwon, M. F. Ebert, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Parallel Low-Loss Measurement of Multiple Atomic Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180504 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    M. Boll, T. A. Hilker, G. Salomon, A. Omran, J. Nespolo, L. Pollet, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Spin- and density- resolved microscopy of antiferromagnetic correlations in Fermi-Hubbard chains, Science 353, 1257 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Koepsell, S

    J. Koepsell, S. Hirthe, D. Bourgund, P. Sompet, J. Vi- jayan, G. Salomon, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Robust Bi- layer Charge Pumping for Spin- and Density-Resolved Quantum Gas Microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010403 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    T.-Y. Wu, A. Kumar, F. Giraldo, and D. S. Weiss, Stern–Gerlach detection of neutral-atom qubits in a state-dependent optical lattice, Nat. Phys. 15, 538 (2019). 15

    2019

  55. [63]

    M. A. Norcia, W. B. Cairncross, K. Barnes, et al., Midcir- cuit Qubit Measurement and Rearrangement in a 171Yb Atomic Array, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041034 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Y. Wu, S. Kolkowitz, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Era- sure conversion for fault-tolerant quantum computing in alkaline earth Rydberg atom arrays, Nat. Commun. 13, 4657 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    M. N. H. Chow, V. Buchemmavari, S. Omanakut- tan, B. J. Little, S. Pandey, I. H. Deutsch, and Y.-Y. Jau, Circuit-Based Leakage-to-Erasure Conversion in a Neutral-Atom Quantum Processor, Phys. Rev. X Quan- tum 5, 040343 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Yu, Z.-H

    C.-C. Yu, Z.-H. Chen, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Processing and Decoding Rydberg Decay Error with MBQC (2024), arXiv:2411.04664

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Perrin, S

    H. Perrin, S. Jandura, and G. Pupillo, Quantum Er- ror Correction resilient against Atom Loss (2024), arXiv:2412.07841

    2024

  60. [68]

    S. J. Masson, J. P. Covey, S. Will, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Dicke Superradiance in Ordered Arrays of Multilevel Atoms, Phys. Rev. X Quantum 5, 010344 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. L¨ auchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of Rydberg atoms, Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, and A. M. Kaufman, Mi- croscopic control and detection of ultracold strontium in optical-tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041054 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, E. Oelker, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Seconds-scale coherence on an optical clock transition in a tweezer array, Science 366, 93 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Denecker, Y

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

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    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, and A. M. Kaufman, Multi-qubit gates and schr¨ odinger cat states in an optical clock, Nature 634, 315 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    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, et al., High-fidelity univer- sal gates in the 171Yb ground state nuclear spin qubit, arXiv:2411.11708

    arXiv

  68. [88]

    Quantum technologies— from basic research to market

    In addition to the demonstrated erasure conversion, this qubit has several distinct advantages over existing approaches. First, by employing larger intermediate- state detunings and higher optical powers, single-qubit gate times could be driven well below those demon- strated ...

    2022

Pith tools

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