Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Protected quantum gates using qubit doublons in dynamical optical lattices

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A purely geometric SWAP gate runs on fermionic qubit doublons at 99.91(7)% fidelity.

desk verdict A genuinely new geometric SWAP mechanism with clean experimental data, but the 99.91% fidelity is a post-selected amplitude fidelity, not an unconditional process fidelity, and the fault-tolerant framing outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22112 v2 pith:O5KE2JSW submitted 2025-07-29 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

Yann Kiefer , Zijie Zhu , Lars Fischer , Samuel Jele , Marius Gächter , Giacomo Bisson , Konrad Viebahn , Tilman Esslinger This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph PACS 03.67.Lx03.65.Vz37.10.Jk03.75.Ss
keywords geometricquantumgatequbitdoublonopticallatticefermionicatomsSWAPholonomyFermi-Hubbardmodelsinglet-tripletoscillation
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

Two-qubit gates in optical lattices have usually been built from ultracold collisions tuned to precise interaction strengths. This paper argues that the collisions themselves can be removed from the problem: if two fermionic qubits are transiently brought to occupy the same orbital, the resulting doublon states enlarge the Hilbert space and let the system evolve along a zero-energy dark state that picks up only a geometric phase. The phase is fixed by the solid angle enclosed on the Bloch sphere, so the resulting SWAP gate is insensitive to fluctuations and inhomogeneities of the confining potentials. The authors report a loss-corrected amplitude fidelity of 99.91(7)% averaged over more than 17,000 atom pairs, with a fidelity plateau extending to roughly 5% added tunnelling noise. They also show that the same doublon mechanism produces (SWAP)$^\alpha$ entangling gates that outperform superexchange gates in speed and noise robustness.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fermionic qubit doublon: two qubits occupying the same lattice orbital, with the antisymmetric combination $|D_-\rangle=(|\uparrow\downarrow,0\rangle-|0,\uparrow\downarrow\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. The gate is carried by the zero-energy dark state $|\psi\rangle=\cos(\theta/2)|s\rangle+\sin(\theta/2)|D_-\rangle$, which forms a $\Lambda$-system with the singlet $|s\rangle$ and the bright state $|D_+\rangle$. Adiabatically sweeping the energy bias $\Delta$ changes the mixing angle $\theta$ from $0$ to $2\pi$, making the dark state trace a meridian of the singlet Bloch sphere and return with a geometric phase $\gamma=-\pi$. Fermionic antisymmetry decouples the triplet manifold, which acts as a phase reference; time-reversal symmetry confines the trajectory to real states; and chiral symmetry at $U=0$ keeps the dark-state energy at zero, eliminating dynamical phases. The same manifold, with finite Hubbard $U$, supplies $(\mathrm{SWAP})^\alpha$ gates whose exchange energy is $J_{\rm Ex}\propto U$ in the direct-exchange regime, in contrast to the second-order superexchange energy $J_{\rm SupEx}\propto t^2/U$.

What would settle it

Apply the same bias sweep with a magnetic-field gradient large enough to break time-reversal symmetry, or with a spin-dependent potential, and measure the singlet-triplet oscillation phase: if the acquired phase deviates from $\pi$ or the triplet population changes, the geometric protection is not as claimed. Alternatively, measure fidelity versus tunnelling noise at a 3 kHz bandwidth: the paper predicts the robustness window shrinks to 3%, so a plateau beyond that would contradict the gap-protection mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a two-qubit SWAP gate can be realized as a purely geometric operation by transiently populating qubit doublon states in a dynamical optical lattice. For two fermions in a biased double well with $U=0$, the Hamiltonian on the singlet subspace has a zero-energy dark state $|\psi\rangle=\cos(\theta/2)|s\rangle+\sin(\theta/2)|D_-\rangle$ with $\cot(\theta/2)=-\Delta/t$. Adiabatically sweeping the bias $\Delta/t$ from large negative to large positive values takes $\theta$ from $0$ to $2\pi$, so the dark state traverses a closed loop on the Bloch sphere that encloses solid angle $\Omega=2\pi$; the acquired Aharonov-Anandan phase is $\gamma=-\Omega/2=-\pi$. The three triplet states remain pinned at zero energy and decoupled by fermionic antisymmetry, so the relative phase between singlet and triplet is exactly the geometric phase, making the operation a SWAP with no dynamical phase. Time-reversal symmetry keeps the trajectory on a real great circle, and chiral symmetry at $U=0$ protects the zero-energy dark state, so the phase is quantized and robust. The experiment verifies the state evolution and the $\pi$ phase shift, measures a raw fidelity of $99.5(1)\%$ and a loss-corrected fidelity of $99.91(7)\%$ across more than $17{,}000$ pairs. In the interacting regime $U\neq0$, the same dark-state manifold yields $(\mathrm{SWAP})^\alpha$ gates whose exchange energy is first order in $U$ and therefore less sensitive to tunnelling noise than superexchange gates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that during the sweep the two atoms stay in the lowest energy level of a simple two-site lattice with no interactions between them, so the protected state remains exactly a superposition of the singlet and the doublon state and the other spin states stay untouched; if magnetic field gradients, spin-dependent forces, higher energy levels, or stray interaction fluctuations become significant, the protection window narrows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, exchange-based two-qubit logic no longer requires fine-tuned collision dynamics: the phase is set by the solid angle of the trajectory, not by precise interaction timing.
  • Lattice potential inhomogeneities and fluctuations cease to be the dominant error source; the measured fidelity plateau persists up to about 5% added tunnelling noise at 2 kHz bandwidth.
  • The scheme can be integrated with topological pumping for atom transport, enabling large-scale, nonlocal connectivity without the empty-space overhead of movable tweezers.
  • Direct-exchange $(\mathrm{SWAP})^\alpha$ gates are faster and more robust than superexchange gates realized with the same apparatus, with loss-corrected fidelities of $99.0(2)\%$ and $98.6(2)\%$ compared with $93.8(7)\%$ for the superexchange gate.
  • Because the gate is a native SWAP, architectures without exchange physics, such as Rydberg processors, would otherwise need several additional gates to synthesize the same operation, which lowers the achievable fidelity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the protection is truly geometric, the same dark-state holonomy should be implementable in any platform with two indistinguishable particles in a tunnel-coupled double well, such as semiconductor spin qubits; a direct test is to repeat the $\Delta/t$ sweep there and check that the singlet acquires exactly $\pi$ independent of sweep speed.
  • Because the geometric phase is fixed by the enclosed solid angle, the gate could potentially be accelerated by merging the double well into a single harmonic trap ($2t\to\hbar\omega$) without changing the phase; the paper mentions this route but does not demonstrate it.
  • The residual error is attributed mainly to fluctuating Hubbard $U$; an inference is that magnetic-field stabilization or a less field-sensitive atomic species could push the fidelity beyond the reported 99.91%, a statement the paper itself anticipates.
  • The bosonic extension presented in the paper suggests that geometric doublon gates are a statistical-mechanics effect rather than a fermion-specific trick; the additional challenge for bosons is that all three triplet states acquire different dynamical phases unless scattering lengths are balanced.
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 proposes and experimentally demonstrates a two-qubit geometric SWAP gate in a dynamical optical lattice, based on transiently populating qubit doublon states of fermionic atoms. The central theoretical claim is that for U=0 the Fermi-Hubbard dimer has a zero-energy dark state spanning the singlet |s⟩ and the antisymmetric doublon state |D−⟩, that the triplet manifold is decoupled by fermionic antisymmetry, and that a full adiabatic sweep of the energy bias Δ/t accumulates only the geometric phase γ=−π, realizing a SWAP. The authors support this with no-free-parameter measurements of the singlet, doublon, and triplet fractions during the sweep, and with singlet-triplet oscillation measurements showing the expected π phase shift. They report a loss-corrected amplitude fidelity of 99.91(7)% averaged over more than 17,000 atom pairs, and demonstrate robustness against added tunnelling noise up to about 5%. They further realize tunable (swap)^α gates in the direct-exchange regime, with loss-corrected fidelities of 99.0(2)% and 98.6(2)%, and compare these with a superexchange √SWAP implementation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work is significant: it demonstrates a two-particle holonomic gate in a scalable optical-lattice platform, with a parameter-independent geometric phase and protection against potential inhomogeneities, and it connects naturally to topological-pumping architectures for nonlocal connectivity. The strengths include a clean analytical derivation based on the dark state and the chiral/time-reversal symmetries, the no-free-parameter comparison with theory in Fig. 2, and the public dataset in ref. [53]. The main caveat is that the headline fidelity is a conditional amplitude fidelity for a single input state, and the loss-correction procedure may remove genuine doublon leakage as if it were dispersive atom loss. With a corrected fidelity analysis and more carefully scoped claims, this would be a valuable contribution to the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II 'Geometric swap gate fidelity'; Methods D and E] The reported 99.91(7)% is a post-selected amplitude fidelity, and the survival correction likely removes genuine gate error. Methods D states that atoms on doubly occupied sites are removed by Landau-Zener RF sweeps before STO detection; at the final bias Δ/t≈30 the dark state retains a doublon component sin²(θ/2)=1/(1+(Δ/t)²)≈1.1×10⁻³. Methods E defines the survival fidelity from the decay of the STO offset y0 and divides the raw amplitude fidelity by it, but y0 cannot distinguish dispersive atom loss from residual doublon leakage, because both remove pairs from the detected ensemble. The headline number therefore characterizes pairs that survive and remain in {|s⟩,|t0⟩}; it is not an unconditional gate fidelity. In addition, the metric tests only the |i−⟩ input and the STO visibility, so it is not a process fidelity for the full SWAP unitary. The authors should report the unconditional fidelity including doublon leakage, or demonstrate explicitly that the residual doublon fraction is negligible compared with the 0.09% residual error, before the abstract's central quantitative claim is supported.
  2. [Methods H, Eq. (M11)] Equation (M11) is incorrect. For the U=0 dark state |ψ⟩=cos(θ/2)|s⟩+sin(θ/2)|D−⟩, first-order perturbation theory in the Hubbard interaction gives E_ψ = U sin²(θ/2) = U/(1+(Δ/t)²), with a plus sign in the denominator; at Δ=0 this equals +U, matching the exact eigenvalue of |D−⟩. The published expression U/((Δ/t)²−1) has the wrong sign in the denominator, changes sign at Δ=t, and gives −U at Δ=0. Since this formula is used to argue for the t-independence and robustness of the direct-exchange energy, it should be corrected. The numerical diagonalization used for Extended Data Fig. 4 is not affected, but the analytical claim is.
  3. [§III 'direct exchange regime'; Extended Data Table 1] The text states that the direct-exchange and superexchange √SWAP gates are compared 'under otherwise identical conditions—same apparatus, same lattice depth, and same gate duration'. This is not supported by Extended Data Table 1: the exchange √SWAP uses V_X=10.02(8) E_r, while the superexchange √SWAP uses a Blackman pulse with V_X=24.9(1)/9.89(6) E_r, and the two rows also differ in V_Z (30.24(11) vs 21.70(10) E_r) and I_XZ (0.800 vs 0.758). The comparison is therefore not made at the same lattice depth, and the claimed advantage over 'state-of-the-art' superexchange gates is based on a non-identical implementation. The authors should either match the lattice parameters or temper the comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The phrase 'fault-tolerant computation' overstates what is demonstrated: the reported number is a loss-corrected amplitude fidelity for one input state, and no fault-tolerance threshold or full process characterization is provided. I recommend softening this claim.
  2. [Methods H, Ref. [35]] Reference [35] (Kasevich and Chu, PRL 69, 1741 (1992)) is cited for the Blackman pulse used in the superexchange gate, but that paper is about laser cooling, not Blackman pulses; a correct reference for the Blackman window function should be supplied.
  3. [Figure 4c caption] The caption says the data points are 'the amplitudes of sinusoidal fits to the STOs', while the main text describes the plotted quantity as the spin chirality κ_ij^z; the relation between the STO amplitude and the displayed chirality should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'the theswapgate' in Section II, 'measurment' and 'occurence' in Fig. 2a caption, 'sinusodial' in Fig. 4d caption, 'nomalised' in the Section III text, and 'f-SWAPSTO' in Extended Data Table 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometric gate phase is computed from the stated two-fermion Hamiltonian with no fitted parameters, and the experimental checks are independent of the derivation.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The geometric swap is obtained by diagonalizing the explicit Fermi-Hubbard dimer (Eq. 1), transforming to the singlet/triplet basis (Eq. 3), and computing the Aharonov-Anandan phase from Eq. M6 with the dark-state eigenstate of Eq. M7; the phase gamma = -pi follows from the gauge constraint and the closed trajectory in theta, with no fitted parameter. The theoretical curves in Fig. 2 are described as "the theoretical evolution with no free parameters," and the fidelity and noise-plateau data are independent experimental measurements, not used to set any Hamiltonian constant. Self-citations [16,24] appear only in contextual statements about topological pumping integration and superlattice modulation technique; neither supplies a load-bearing premise of the gate derivation. The manuscript's own limitation statements (Methods C on preparation efficiency, Methods D/E on removal of doubly occupied sites and survival correction) are explicit about what the reported loss-corrected amplitude fidelity conditions on; those are experimental metrology caveats, not circular reductions of the theoretical claim. No step was found in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, or a uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

The central claim is derived from a standard Fermi-Hubbard dimer with no new entities and no fitted constants; the experimental theory curves have no free parameters. The main load-bearing assumptions are model validity and the adiabatic theorem.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single-band Fermi-Hubbard dimer model (Eq. 1) accurately describes the two-particle gate dynamics; higher bands and neighboring sites are neglected.
    Used to define H_full and the dark state in Section I. The paper estimates band gaps of 5.6-8.1 kHz and small non-adiabatic excitation probability, but if higher bands participate the protected subspace changes.
  • standard math Adiabatic theorem holds during the bias sweep, so the system remains in the instantaneous dark state.
    Methods F and Section I; Landau-Zener estimate Pe ~ 4e-7 supports it, and the robustness window is defined by the gap.
  • domain assumption Fermionic antisymmetrization decouples the triplet states exactly for a spin-independent Hamiltonian.
    Eq. (3) and Section I; if spin-dependent terms or magnetic gradients are present, |t0> can couple to |s>, breaking the geometric SWAP.
  • standard math The Aharonov-Anandan phase formula with the gauge condition in Methods F correctly yields the geometric phase.
    Methods F; the compaction is terse but the result is the holonomy of a real projective line and is consistent with the -pi phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Protected quantum gates using qubit doublons in dynamical optical lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5KE2JSW

@misc{pith2026250722112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Protected quantum gates using qubit doublons in dynamical optical lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5KE2JSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22112}
}
abstract

Quantum computing represents a central challenge in modern science. Neutral atoms in optical lattices have emerged as a leading computing platform, with collisional gates offering a stable mechanism for quantum logic. However, previous experiments have treated ultracold collisions as a dynamically fine-tuned process, which obscures the underlying quantum- geometry and statistics crucial for realising intrinsically robust operations. Here, we propose and experimentally demonstrate a purely geometric two-qubit swap gate by transiently populating qubit doublon states of fermionic atoms in a dynamical optical lattice. The presence of these doublon states, together with fermionic exchange anti-symmetry, enables a two-particle quantum holonomy -- a geometric evolution where dynamical phases are absent. This yields a gate mechanism that is intrinsically protected against fluctuations and inhomogeneities of the confining potentials. The resilience of the gate is further reinforced by time-reversal and chiral symmetries of the Hamiltonian. We experimentally validate this exceptional protection, achieving a loss-corrected amplitude fidelity of $99.91(7)\%$ measured across the entire system consisting of more than $17'000$ atom pairs. When combined with recently developed topological pumping methods for atom transport, our results pave the way for large-scale, highly connected quantum processors. This work introduces a new paradigm for quantum logic, transforming fundamental symmetries and quantum statistics into a powerful resource for fault-tolerant computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    Pro- tected quantum gates using qubit doublons in dynamical optical lattices

    Y. Kiefer, Z. Zhu, L. Fischer, S. Jele, M. G¨ achter, G. Bis- son, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Dataset for “Pro- tected quantum gates using qubit doublons in dynamical optical lattices”, ETH Research Collection (2026). 9 METHODS A. Dynamical superlattice potential The optical lattice in our setup is generated by a sin- gle red-detuned laser withλ= 1064 ...

    work page 2026

  2. [1]

    Jaksch, H.-J

    D. Jaksch, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Entanglement of Atoms via Cold Controlled Collisions, Physical Review Letters82, 1975 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [2]

    G. K. Brennen, C. M. Caves, P. S. Jessen, and I. H. Deutsch, Quantum Logic Gates in Optical Lattices, Physical Review Letters82, 1060 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Spin-Spin Interaction and Spin Squeezing in an Optical Lattice, Physical Review Letters83, 2274 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Hayes, P

    D. Hayes, P. S. Julienne, and I. H. Deutsch, Quantum Logic via the Exchange Blockade in Ultracold Collisions, Physical Review Letters98, 070501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    A. J. Daley, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Quantum Computing with Alkaline-Earth-Metal Atoms, Physical Review Letters101, 170504 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Weitenberg, S

    C. Weitenberg, S. Kuhr, K. Mølmer, and J. F. Sherson, Quantum computation architecture using optical tweez- ers, Physical Review A84, 032322 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Nemirovsky and Y

    J. Nemirovsky and Y. Sagi, Fast universal two-qubit gate for neutral fermionic atoms in optical tweezers, Physical Review Research3, 013113 (2021). 7

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Zhou, B. Xiao, M.-D. Li, Q. Zhao, Z.-S. Yuan, X. Ma, and J.-W. Pan, A scheme to create and verify scalable en- tanglement in optical lattice, npj Quantum Information 8, 99 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Singh, J

    J. Singh, J. A. Reuter, T. Calarco, F. Motzoi, and R. Zeier, Optimizing two-qubit gates for ultracold atoms using Fermi-Hubbard models, Physical Review Applied 24, 034007 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Mandel, M

    O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Controlled collisions for multi- particle entanglement of optically trapped atoms, Nature 425, 937 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Anderlini, P

    M. Anderlini, P. J. Lee, B. L. Brown, J. Sebby-Strabley, W. D. Phillips, and J. V. Porto, Controlled exchange in- teraction between pairs of neutral atoms in an optical lattice, Nature448, 452 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, M. Foss-Feig, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, and C. A. Regal, Entangling two trans- portable neutral atoms via local spin exchange, Nature 527, 208 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    F¨ olling, S

    S. F¨ olling, S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, M. Feld, R. Saers, A. Widera, T. M¨ uller, and I. Bloch, Direct observation of second-order atom tunnelling, Nature448, 1029 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Trotzky, Y.-A

    S. Trotzky, Y.-A. Chen, U. Schnorrberger, P. Cheinet, and I. Bloch, Controlling and Detecting Spin Correlations of Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Physical Review Letters105, 265303 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Z. Zhu, Y. Kiefer, S. Jele, M. G¨ achter, G. Bisson, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Splitting and Connecting Singlets in Atomic Quantum Circuits, Physical Review X15, 041032 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Chalopin, P

    T. Chalopin, P. Bojovi´ c, D. Bourgund, S. Wang, T. Franz, I. Bloch, and T. Hilker, Optical Superlattice for Engineering Hubbard Couplings in Quantum Simula- tion, Physical Review Letters134, 053402 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, C.-J. Huang, H.-Y. Wang, Y. Deng, H.-N. Dai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Cooling and en- tangling ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science369, 550 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Zhang, M.-G

    W.-Y. Zhang, M.-G. He, H. Sun, Y.-G. Zheng, Y. Liu, A. Luo, H.-Y. Wang, Z.-H. Zhu, P.-Y. Qiu, Y.-C. Shen, X.-K. Wang, W. Lin, S.-T. Yu, B.-C. Li, B. Xiao, M.-D. Li, Y.-M. Yang, X. Jiang, H.-N. Dai, Y. Zhou, X. Ma, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Scalable Multipartite Entan- glement...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Bojovi´ c, T

    P. Bojovi´ c, T. Hilker, S. Wang, J. Obermeyer, M. Baren- dregt, D. Tell, T. Chalopin, P. M. Preiss, I. Bloch, and T. Franz, High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2506.14711

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Murmann, A

    S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Two Fermions in a Double Well: Exploring a Fundamental Building Block of the Hubbard Model, Physical Review Letters114, 10.1103/physrevlett.114.080402 (2015)

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Hartke, B

    T. Hartke, B. Oreg, N. Jia, and M. Zwierlein, Quantum register of fermion pairs, Nature601, 537 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Sj¨ oqvist, Geometric phases in quantum information, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry115, 1311 (2015)

    E. Sj¨ oqvist, Geometric phases in quantum information, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry115, 1311 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Walter, Z

    A.-S. Walter, Z. Zhu, M. G¨ achter, J. Minguzzi, S. Roschinski, K. Sandholzer, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Quantization and its breakdown in a Hub- bard–Thouless pump, Nature Physics19, 1471 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Geometric Ma- nipulation of Trapped Ions for Quantum Computation, Science292, 1695 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Desbuquois, M

    R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, F. G¨ org, K. Sandholzer, G. Jotzu, and T. Esslinger, Controlling the Floquet state population and observing micromotion in a periodically driven two-body quantum system, Physical Review A96, 053602 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hu and S

    X. Hu and S. Das Sarma, Gate errors in solid-state quantum-computer architectures, Physical Review A66, 10.1103/physreva.66.012312 (2002)

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    T. A. Kaplan and C. Piermarocchi, Spin swap versus dou- ble occupancy in quantum gates, Physical Review B70, 10.1103/physrevb.70.161311 (2004)

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism, springer new york ed

    A. Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism, springer new york ed. (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in physics, chemistry, and beyond, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Aharonov and J

    Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution, Physical Review Letters58, 1593 (1987)

    1987

  25. [33]

    Greif, T

    D. Greif, T. Uehlinger, G. Jotzu, L. Tarruell, and T. Esslinger, Short-Range Quantum Magnetism of Ultra- cold Fermions in an Optical Lattice, Science340, 1307 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Fes- hbach resonances in ultracold gases, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Laser cooling below a photon recoil with three-level atoms, Physical Review Letters69, 1741 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    Fern´ andez and M

    P. Fern´ andez and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Implement- ing the Grover algorithm in homomorphic encryption schemes, Physical Review Research6, 10.1103/phys- revresearch.6.043109 (2024)

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    C. K. Andersen and E. Greplov´ a, Small Quantum Low Parity Density Check Codes for Near-Term Experiments (2025), arXiv:2507.09690 [quant-ph]

    2025

  30. [38]

    Tan and J

    B. Tan and J. Cong, Optimal layout synthesis for quan- tum computing, inProceedings of the 39th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design(ACM, Virtual Event USA, 2020) pp. 1–9

    2020

  31. [39]

    Camps, R

    D. Camps, R. Van Beeumen, and C. Yang, Quantum Fourier transform revisited, Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications28, e2331 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants, Physics Reports1068, 1 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    Rines, B

    R. Rines, B. Hall, M. H. Teo, J. Viszlai, D. C. Cole, D. Mason, C. Barker, M. J. Bedalov, M. Blakely, T. Bothwell, C. Carnahan, F. T. Chong, S. Y. Eubanks, B. Fields, M. Gillette, P. Goiporia, P. Gokhale, G. T. 8 Hickman, M. Iliev, E. B. Jones, R. A. Jones, K. W. Kuper, S. Lee...

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Peper, Y

    M. Peper, Y. Li, D. Y. Knapp, M. Bileska, S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. P. Horvath, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Spectroscopy and Modeling of Yb 171 Ryd- berg States for High-Fidelity Two-Qubit Gates, Physical Review X15, 011009 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

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

    2025

  37. [45]

    Senoo, A

    A. Senoo, A. Baumg¨ artner, J. W. Lis, G. M. Vaidya, Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, H. Pichler, and A. M. Kauf- man, High-fidelity entanglement and coherent multi- qubit mapping in an atom array (2025), arXiv:2506.13632 [quant-ph]

    2025

  38. [46]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic Quantum Com- putation, Annals of Physics298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermersch, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays, Proceedings of the National A...

    2023

  40. [48]

    C. Zhu, X. Wu, Z. Yang, J. Wang, A. Wu, S. Zheng, and X. Wang, Quantum Compiler Design for Qubit Mapping and Routing: A Cross-Architectural Survey of Supercon- ducting, Trapped-Ion, and Neutral Atom Systems (2025), arXiv:2505.16891 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhou, R.-L

    Y.-C. Zhou, R.-L. Ma, Z. Kong, A.-R. Li, C. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Liu, H.-T. Jiang, Z.-T. Wu, G.-L. Wang, G. Cao, G.-C. Guo, H.-O. Li, and G.-P. Guo, High- fidelity geometric quantum gates exceeding 99.9% in germanium quantum dots, Nature Communications16, 7953 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Clas- sification of topological quantum matter with symme- tries, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 10.1103/revmod- phys.88.035005 (2016)

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    V. Neef, M. Heinrich, T. A. W. Wolterink, and A. Sza- meit, Pairing particles into holonomies, Science Advances 12, eady3856 (2026)

    2026

  44. [52]

    M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, A neutral-atom Hubbard quantum simulator in the cryo- genic regime, Nature642, 909 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.