Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Neutral atoms can implement a native iSWAP gate and the full exchange family from dipole-coupled Rydberg states, reaching above 99.9% fidelity in 88Sr under realistic noise.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:27 UTC pith:FVD37RRL

load-bearing objection Useful optimal-control design for a native iSWAP gate, but the headline 99.9% fidelity claim rests on a model that omits the van der Waals shifts the abstract itself calls a significant challenge. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.05037 v2 pith:FVD37RRL submitted 2025-12-04 quant-ph

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

Pedro Ildefonso , Andrew Byun , Aleksei Konovalov , Javad Kazemi , Michael Schuler , Wolfgang Lechner This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords neutral atom quantum computingiSWAP gateexchange gateRydberg dipole-dipole interactionoptimal controlfidelity response theorystrontium-88quantum gates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Neutral-atom quantum computers currently rely on a diagonal entangling gate (the Rydberg-blockade CZ); this paper asks whether they can also run a fast, non-diagonal entangling gate natively. It argues yes: two dipole-coupled Rydberg states with a resonant exchange interaction, driven by optimized global pulses, can implement the iSWAP gate and the whole exchange family U_XY(θ) in the qubit subspace. For a 88Sr architecture the paper reports iSWAP fidelities above 99.9% (up to 99.92%) when realistic atomic motion, Rydberg decay, and measured laser phase/intensity noise are included. If right, neutral-atom platforms gain a native non-diagonal gate alongside CZ, which can reduce gate counts and circuit depths in algorithms, quantum optimization, and error-correction schemes.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the resonant dipole-dipole exchange interaction between two Rydberg states |r⟩ and |r'⟩—with the two-atom pair states |rr'⟩ and |r'r⟩ degenerate by construction—provides a native physical resource for exchange gates U_XY(θ) in the computational subspace. The authors show that a single time-continuous pulse, found by gradient-based optimal control with smoothness regularization, can simultaneously move population between ground and Rydberg manifolds and accumulate the exchange phase, replacing a fragile three-step Ramsey sequence. They demonstrate noiseless gate infidelities below 1e-10 for two driving schemes (direct excitation of both qubit states, and a la

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the off-diagonal exchange Hamiltonian H_exchange = C3/R^3 (|rr'⟩⟨r'r| + h.c.), which swaps the Rydberg states of two atoms when the pair states are degenerate. The key objects are the optimal-control pulses that transfer this interaction into the qubit manifold; they are constructed for two global driving schemes and two modulation types, with smoothness regularization to make them experimentally feasible. The paper also defines three noise-relevant scalar metrics—T_ryd (total time spent in Rydberg states), T_int·V_dipole (accumulated exchange phase), and the gate duration τ—and uses them to select pulses that are least sensitive to atomic motion, decay, and laser no

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the only relevant Rydberg-pair interaction is the resonant exchange term C3/R^3, with all van der Waals shifts and off-resonant channels omitted; if these neglected shifts are significant at R≈6 µm for n=61–65 strontium Rydberg states, the optimized pulses acquire extra phase errors and the 99.9% fidelity claim no longer follows.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the C6 van der Waals shift for the chosen strontium Rydberg pair (e.g., 5s61s 3S1 / 5s61p 3P0) at R≈6 µm and compare it with the exchange coupling C3/R^3 (~2π×5–10 MHz). If the vdW shift is comparable to or larger than the exchange or Rabi frequencies, the noiseless gate infidelity will exceed the reported ~1e-10 and the noise budget must be recomputed. A direct two-atom interferometric measurement of the exchange oscillation frequency versus distance would reveal any additional diagonal shift.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Neutral-atom QPUs can natively run iSWAP and arbitrary-angle exchange gates U_XY(θ) with only one additional Rydberg state and a microwave or laser drive, complementing the standard diagonal CZ gate.
  • For strontium-88, the optimized scheme-A pulse reaches 99.92% iSWAP fidelity under realistic noise (99.81% at standard parameters, 99.95% for a phase-modulated variant in the appendix), giving a concrete error budget for an experiment.
  • The exchange gate family U_XY(θ) is obtained by continuously deforming the iSWAP pulse, so a single calibration family can serve multiple angles.
  • Because the exchange interaction scales as R^-3 while the van der Waals interaction scales as R^-6, native exchange gates can operate at larger interatomic distances than CZ gates, potentially increasing connectivity without sacrificing speed.
  • Reduced gate counts follow in circuits that need swap or XY interactions: quantum Fourier transform implementations, parity-architecture optimization, and error-correction schemes using iSWAP all benefit from a native non-diagonal gate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The R^-3 vs R^-6 scaling suggests a quantitative distance-fidelity tradeoff the paper does not compute; a natural extension is to map the maximum interatomic separation at which 99.9% exchange-gate fidelity holds for a given C3, which would test the connectivity promise directly.
  • Inference: Since the pulses form a continuous one-parameter family in the gate angle, analytic or interpolated pulse families over the full range (0, π] could remove per-angle optimal-control runs; the paper notes the continuous deformation but does not develop such a parameterization.
  • Inference: The fidelity-response framework could be inverted to co-design laser filters and pulses: given a pulse's response function, one could shape the laser PSD (e.g., cavity-filtering) to minimize overlap, beyond simply choosing among precomputed pulses.
  • Inference: Native iSWAP could change compiler cost models: replacing the standard three-CZ SWAP construction with a single iSWAP plus single-qubit rotations would cut entangling-gate count in routing-heavy circuits, which matters for neutral-atom QEC architectures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a native implementation of iSWAP and parameterized exchange gates U_XY(θ) for neutral atoms using two dipole-coupled Rydberg states with vanishing Förster defect, combined with optimally controlled global drives. The authors consider two driving schemes (A and B) and both Rabi- and phase-modulated pulse ansätze, reporting noiseless gate infidelities below 1e-10 for optimized pulses. For a 88Sr architecture they construct a noise budget including atomic motion, Rydberg decay, and laser phase/intensity noise modeled by PSDs, and use a noise-aware pulse selection strategy to identify a pulse ('Pulse 2') that reaches 99.81% fidelity with standard parameters and 99.92% with an 'optimal' parameter set (Table I). They also optimize the full exchange gate family U_XY(θ) and apply fidelity response theory to analyze laser-noise sensitivity.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper offers a useful extension of the neutral-atom entangling gate set beyond the usual diagonal CZ-type gates, with potential circuit-depth reductions in optimization and QEC settings. The strengths include a transparent optimal-control pipeline (JAX/AD, smoothing regularization), an extensive noise model with experimentally motivated PSDs, the FRT-based pulse selection analysis, and the extension to a continuous exchange gate family. However, the headline fidelity claim rests on a model Hamiltonian that omits van-der-Waals interactions that the abstract itself flags as a significant challenge; without a quantitative justification of that omission, the 99.9% claim is not yet supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (3); Sec. IV; Table I] Eq. (3) omits all van-der-Waals (vdW) shifts: only the resonant exchange term C3/R^3(|rr'><r'r|+h.c.) is kept, while diagonal C6/R^6 terms for |rr>, |r'r'>, |rr'>, |r'r> and off-resonant Förster channels are dropped. The abstract calls vdW interactions a 'significant challenge', yet no C6 estimate is given for the 88Sr states used in Sec. IV/Table I (n=61, R=6.8 µm; 'optimal': n=65, R=6.0 µm). During Scheme A both atoms can occupy the same Rydberg state, so these shifts act on populated states. With C3=2π×1570 MHz µm^3 at n=61, plausible C6 values produce shifts 0.01–10 MHz at R≈6 µm—comparable to or exceeding V_dipole=2π×5–10 MHz. This introduces phase errors absent from the 10^-10 noiseless infidelities and the noise budget. Provide quantitative C6 bounds and include them in the model/noise analysis; otherwise the >99.9% claim is unsupported.
  2. [Secs. IV–V, Table I] The reported 99.92% fidelity is an in-sample prediction. 'Pulse 2' was selected from the noise-free landscape using the same noise model that later evaluates it, and the 'optimal' experimental parameters are chosen to minimize the total infidelity predicted by that same model. No cross-validation on independent noise realizations or parameter sets, and no Monte-Carlo uncertainty estimate, is reported. A more robust statement would provide error bars on 1−F from the MC sampling (App. B4) or test the optimized pulse under a different PSD/trap model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting issues: 'dephts' in the Introduction, 'Kleéber' in the affiliation, and garbled axis labels in several figures (e.g., 'V dipoΩeφΩ'). These should be cleaned up.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (D5)] In the phase-noise derivation, the second line should contain |a⟩⟨b| rather than |a⟩⟨1|; as written it is inconsistent with the preceding expansion.
  3. [Appendix E] The scaling formula 'Ω new = Ω Ω 1,˜r(n)/Ω1,r(61)' is unclear; it should read Ω_new = Ω × Ω_{1,˜r}(n)/Ω_{1,r}(61) with definitions of the matrix elements.
  4. [Table I and Sec. IV] The 'Optimal' column entry 'Laser wavevector k_x^eff –' is ambiguous; the text implies k_x^eff is fixed at 3×10^6 m^-1 for the standard analysis. Please clarify whether it is held fixed in the optimization.
  5. [Sec. IV, Eq. (6) and Eq. (11)] The fidelity metric in Eq. (6) is used also for the noisy, non-unitary evolution generated by Eq. (11). Please clarify how the trace fidelity is normalized for non-trace-preserving dynamics and why this equals the standard gate fidelity in the noiseless limit.
  6. [Sec. VI / Note added] The related work [65] is acknowledged only in a note. A brief comparison of the proposed approach with Ref. [65] (e.g., Förster-resonant vs. ΔF=0 exchange) would help readers place the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the optimal-control and noise-model derivation is self-contained; the 99.9% figure is an in-sample simulation result and the self-citations are motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: adopt the two-atom exchange-plus-drive Hamiltonian [Eq. (3)], numerically optimize control pulses to maximize the fidelity to U_XY(theta) [Eqs. (5)-(6)], then evaluate the selected pulses in a noise model using external PSD data [43] and independently computed Sr decay rates. The noiseless F≈1 values are the optimized objective, not predictions; the noisy fidelities are model outputs, and the 'optimal' parameters in Table I are chosen by minimizing that same model's infidelity in Sec. V. This in-sample selection is a potential optimistic-bias/validity caveat for the headline 99.9%, but no target result is used as an input, and no equation is defined in terms of the result it derives. Self-citations (Refs. [15], [38]-[40]) occur only in background/motivation and are not load-bearing. The main unaddressed issue is physical completeness: Eq. (3) omits van der Waals shifts on pair states, which the abstract itself calls 'a significant challenge,' and no C6 bound is supplied. That is a correctness risk for the stated fidelity, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numbers rest on a model that assumes a clean two-level exchange interaction and drops vdW; all remaining noise is parameterized by measured PSDs and calculated lifetimes. The optimization introduces many pulse degrees of freedom, and the final 99.9% figure is further tuned by choosing experimental parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Optimal pulse controls {Ω_ab(t), φ_ab(t)} = piecewise values not published
    The central result is obtained by numerically optimizing these time-dependent drives to maximize fidelity (Eq. 8). The specific waveforms are not released.
  • Smoothness regularization λ = not stated
    The cost function Eq. (8) balances infidelity against pulse smoothness; λ is a manually chosen hyperparameter per optimization run.
  • Optimal experimental parameter set = Ω=2π×20 MHz, ω_xy=2π×50 kHz, n=65, V_dipole=2π×10 MHz, R=6.0 µm
    Chosen in Sec. V to minimize the simulated infidelity; the headline 99.9% fidelity depends on these parameter values being simultaneously realizable.
  • Pulse candidate selection ('Pulse 2') = N/A
    One of many optimized pulses selected post hoc for best performance under the paper's noise model; this in-sample selection is part of the reported fidelity.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Two Rydberg states |r⟩,|r'⟩ have exact Förster resonance ΔF=0 and the only relevant DDI channel is |rr'⟩↔|r'r⟩; all other pair states and vdW terms are neglected.
    Used to write H_exchange, Eq. (1), and the total H(t), Eq. (3); the abstract admits vdW is a challenge but no magnitude or bound is given.
  • domain assumption Global drives act on the two target atoms only; spectator atoms in a multi-qubit array are absent from U(τ).
    Eq. (2) describes lasers that 'globally illuminate the atoms,' but Eq. (5) defines fidelity in a single two-qubit subspace; multi-atom crosstalk is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption Frozen-gas approximation: atomic positions and velocities are constant during each gate and sampled shot-to-shot.
    Underpins interaction and Doppler noise in Appendix B1; standard for Rydberg-gate noise modeling but ignores intra-pulse motion.
  • domain assumption Non-Hermitian decay model with effective rates Γ_r, Γ_r' adequately describes Rydberg decay.
    Eq. (B9); the authors call the method approximate but sufficient for their tasks.
  • domain assumption Laser phase and intensity PSDs taken from Ref. [43] are representative, and identical PSDs are used for all drives.
    Sec. IV.B; the laser-noise contribution to the total infidelity depends directly on these PSDs.
  • domain assumption Quantum-defect wavefunctions with chosen integer parameters I(l) reproduce the needed dipole matrix elements and lifetimes.
    Appendix C; validated against a few experimental lifetimes, but the I(l) choice is partly arbitrary.
  • domain assumption Black-body radiation induced Rydberg transitions can be neglected.
    Appendix C explicitly states BBR is neglected, justified by assuming cryogenic apparatus.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34628 in / 16878 out tokens · 161335 ms · 2026-08-03T18:27:44.568136+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a native realization of iSWAP and parameterized \textit{exchange} gates for neutral-atom quantum processing units. Our approach leverages strong dipole-dipole interactions between two different dipole-coupled Rydberg states, employing optimal control techniques to design high-fidelity, time-efficient gate pulses. To minimize experimental complexity, we utilize global driving fields acting identically on all atoms and apply pulse smoothing techniques. While detrimental van-der-Waals interactions pose a significant challenge, we demonstrate that for both $^{133}$Cs, as a representative alkali atom, and $^{88}$Sr, an alkaline-earth species, high-fidelity pulses can nevertheless be obtained over a broad range of parameters. We identify candidate protocols with reduced susceptibility to noise and analyze their performance under realistic conditions, accounting for atomic motion, Rydberg decay, and experimentally motivated laser frequency and intensity noise. Crucially, we demonstrate that in both Alkali and alkaline-earth-based systems, we can obtain fast iSWAP gates with fidelities of $99.9\%$ under realistic experimental conditions. These results pave the way for expanding the neutral-atom gate set beyond conventional Rydberg-blockade-based entangling gates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.05037 by Aleksei Konovalov, Andrew Byun, Javad Kazemi, Michael Schuler, Pedro Ildefonso, Wolfgang Lechner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Optimal control framework for iSWAP gates with Rydberg Atoms. (a) We consider a pair of neutral atoms with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Optimal control results for iSWAP gate. (a-b) Gate infidelity of different optimal control runs versus unitless gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Optimal control results for Rabi modulated drives for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Possible atomic driving scheme proposals for typical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Noise-aware pulse selection. (a) Pulse landscape for pulses with infidelities below [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Laser noise induced gate infidelities for the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. FRT based analysis of selected pulses [c.f. Fig. 5(a)]. (a-c) FRT analysis of laser phase noise showing (a) the pulses’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Noise sensitivity of “Pulse 2”. (a-d) Gate infidelity contributions of different noise sources under variations of, (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Parameterized exchange gate optimization. Opti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Radiative lifetimes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Phase and intensity response functions of scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Scaling of dipole matrix element and Rabi frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Noise-aware pulse selection for “Scheme A” with phase modulation. See Fig. 5 in the main text for details. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Noise sensitivity for “Scheme A” with phase modulation. Here we consider “Pulse 2” selected in Fig. 15. See Fig. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Entangling gate performance and fidelity limits with neutral atom F\"orster resonances

    quant-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    A two-eigenstate model near Förster resonances bounds neutral-atom gate fidelity by F ≤ 1 - (π/2)/(V τ_R) and supplies a saturating protocol that improves the prior limit by ~40%.

  2. Entangling gate performance and fidelity limits with neutral atom F\"orster resonances

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A two-eigenstate model near Förster resonances yields a gate fidelity bound F ≤ 1 - (π/2)/(V τ_R) saturated by a new protocol that improves prior limits by ~40%, with common protocols showing up to 100x higher fidelit...

  3. Routing Codes: High-Rate Quantum LDPC Codes with Short, Parallel Non-Local Connectivity

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Routing codes are high-rate qLDPC codes with short parallel non-local couplings that achieve BB-code rates while cutting qubit overhead by a factor of ~8 versus surface codes in circuit simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    standard

    = 0for our selected pulse [c.f. Fig. 7(a)], increasing Ωmoves the peaks inI ϕ(f) to largerf. Given that the PSDS ϕ(f)strongly decreases withf, this leads to the observed decay of the laser phase induced noise whenΩ is increased. Laser intensity noise, by contrast, leads to larger contributions to gate infidelity with increasingΩ, as expected. This can als...

    2021

  2. [2]

    Gyger, M

    F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Snigirev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Continuous op- eration of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices, arXiv:2402.04994 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    M. A. Norcia, H. Kim, W. B. Cairncross, M. Stone, A. Ryou, M. Jaffe, M. O. Brown, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, A. Brown, K. Cassella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, J. Epstein, C. Griger, E. Halperin, F. Hummel, A. M. W. Jones, J. M. Kindem, J. King, K. Kotru, J. Lauigan, M. Li, M. Lu, E. Megidish, J. Marjanovic, M. McDonald, T. Mittiga, J. A. Mu- niz, S. Nar...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit system, arXiv:2506.20660 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20660 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20660 2025

  6. [6]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    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. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    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. Cairncross, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, D. Crow, M. Feldkamp, C. Griger, A. Heinz, A. M. W. Jon...

    2025

  9. [9]

    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 readout for tweezer clocks, Nature634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    R. Tao, O. Lib, F. Gyger, H. Timme, M. Ammen- werth, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Universal gates for a metastable qubit in strontium-88, arXiv:2506.10714 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10714 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10714 2025

  11. [11]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Côté, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  12. [12]

    Isenhower, E

    L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Demonstration of a neutral atom controlled- not quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 010503 (2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Time-Optimal Two- and Three-Qubit Gates for Rydberg Atoms, Quantum6, 712 (2022), arXiv:2202.00903 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Fromonteil, D

    C. Fromonteil, D. Bluvstein, and H. Pichler, Protocols for rydberg entangling gates featuring robustness against quasistatic errors, PRX Quantum4, 020335 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Kazemi, M

    J. Kazemi, M. Schuler, C. Ertler, and W. Lechner, Mul- tiqubit parity gates for rydberg atoms in various config- urations, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033269 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de Léséleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science354, aah3778 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Barredo, V

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, S. de Léséleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Synthetic three-dimensional atomic struc- tures assembled atom by atom, Nature561, 79 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    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. B. Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. S. Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 10.1038/s41586-02...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3 2023

  21. [21]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. v. Dam, M. B. Hastings, A. Paz, M. P. d. Silva, A. Sundaram, K. M. Svore, A. Vaschillo, Z. Wang, M. Zanner, W. B. Cairncross, C.-A. Chen, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. M. Kin- dem, J. King, M. McDonald, M. A. Norcia, A. Ryou, M. Stone, L. Wadleigh, K. Barnes, P. Battagli...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. B. Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuletic, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, Architectural mechanisms of a univer- sal fault-tolerant quantum compute...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20661 2025

  23. [23]

    M. Cain, C. Zhao, H. Zhou, N. Meister, J. P. B. Ataides, A. Jaffe, D. Bluvstein, and M. D. Lukin, Correlated de- coding of logical algorithms with transversal gates, Phys- ical Review Letters133, 240602 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    P. S. Rodriguez, J. M. Robinson, P. N. Jepsen, Z. He, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, K.-H. Wu, J. Campo, K. Bag- nall, M. Kwon, T. Karolyshyn, P. Weinberg, M. Cain, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, M. Kalinowski, S. H. Li, T. Manovitz, J. Amato-Grill, J. I. Basham, L. Bern- stein, B. Braverman, A. Bylinskii, A. Choukri, R. DeAn- gelo, F. Fang, C. Fieweger, P. Frederick,...

    2025

  25. [25]

    Saffman, T

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

    2010

  26. [26]

    Pelegrí, A

    G. Pelegrí, A. J. Daley, and J. D. Pritchard, High-fidelity multiqubit Rydberg gates via two-photon adiabatic rapid passage, Quantum Science and Technology7, 045020 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    D. F. Locher, J. Old, K. Brechtelsbauer, J. Holschbach, H. P. Büchler, S. Weber, and M. Müller, Multi- qubit Rydberg Gates for Quantum Error Correction, arXiv:2512.00843 10.48550/arXiv.2512.00843 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00843 2025

  28. [28]

    Barredo, H

    D. Barredo, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, and C. S. Adams, Coherent Excitation Transfer in a Spin Chain of Three Rydberg Atoms, Phys- ical Review Letters114, 113002 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Leclerc, V. S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee, M. Schuler, A. M. Läuchli, M. P. Zale- tel, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Continuous symmetry breaking in a two-dimensional Rydberg array, Nature616, 691 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Sbierski, M

    B. Sbierski, M. Bintz, S. Chatterjee, M. Schuler, N. Y. Yao, and L. Pollet, Magnetism in the two-dimensional dipolar XY model, Physical Review B109, 144411 (2024). 14

    2024

  31. [31]

    de Léséleuc, V

    S. de Léséleuc, V. Lienhard, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, S. We- ber, N. Lang, H. P. Büchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Observation of a symmetry-protected topological phase of interacting bosons with Rydberg atoms, Science365, aav9105 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Yue, Y.-F

    Z. Yue, Y.-F. Mao, X. Liang, Z.-X. Hua, P. Ge, Y.-X. Chao, K. Li, C. Jia, M. K. Tey, Y. Xu, and L. You, Obser- vation of average topological phase in disordered rydberg atom array, arXiv:2505.06286 (2025), arXiv:2505.06286 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Y. Chew, T. Tomita, T. P. Mahesh, S. Sugawa, S. de Léséleuc, and K. Ohmori, Ultrafast energy ex- change between two single rydberg atoms on a nanosec- ond timescale, Nature Photonics16, 724 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Giudici, S

    G. Giudici, S. Veroni, G. Giudice, H. Pichler, and J. Zei- her, Fast entangling gates for rydberg atoms via reso- nant dipole-dipole interaction, PRX Quantum6, 030308 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, B. R. Johnson, M. P. da Silva, and C. A. Ryan, Implementation of the XY interaction family with calibration of a single pulse, Nature Electron- ics3, 744 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    E. C. Peterson, G. E. Crooks, and R. S. Smith, Fixed- Depth Two-Qubit Circuits and the Monodromy Poly- tope, Quantum4, 247 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Križan, J

    C. Križan, J. Biznárová, L. Chen, E. Hogedal, A. Osman, C. W. Warren, S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, T. Abad, A. Ag- garwal, M. Caputo, J. Fernández-Pendás, A. Gaikwad, L. Grönberg, A. Nylander, R. Rehammar, M. Rommel, O. I. Yuzephovich, A. F. Kockum, J. Govenius, G. Tan- credi, and J. Bylander, Quantum SWAP gate realized with CZ and iSWAP gates in a superconducting...

    2025

  38. [38]

    Z. Wang, N. C. Rubin, J. M. Dominy, and E. G. Ri- effel, $XY$-mixers: analytical and numerical results for QAOA, Physical Review A101, 012320 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Drieb-Schön, K

    M. Drieb-Schön, K. Ender, Y. Javanmard, and W. Lech- ner, Parity Quantum Optimization: Encoding Con- straints, Quantum7, 951 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Klaver, S

    B. Klaver, S. Rombouts, M. Fellner, A. Messinger, K. En- der, K. Ludwig, and W. Lechner, SWAP-less Implemen- tationofQuantumAlgorithms,arXiv:2408.10907 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Dreier, C

    F. Dreier, C. Fleckenstein, G. Aigner, M. Fell- ner, R. Stahn, M. Lanthaler, and W. Lechner, Connectivity-aware Synthesis of Quantum Algorithms, arXiv:2501.14020 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14020 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14020 2025

  42. [42]

    Eickbusch, M

    A. Eickbusch, M. McEwen, V. Sivak, A. Bourassa, J. Atalaya, J. Claes, D. Kafri, C. Gidney, C. W. Warren, J. Gross, A. Opremcak, N. Zobrist, K. C. Miao, G. Roberts, K. J. Satzinger, A. Bengtsson, M. Neeley, W. P. Livingston, A. Greene, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie Beni, G. Aigeldinger, R. Alcaraz, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. As- faw, R. ...

    2025

  43. [43]

    G. P. Gehér, D. Byfield, and A. Ruban, Direc- tional Codes: a new family of quantum LDPC codes on hexagonal- and square-grid connectivity hardware, arXiv:2507.19430 10.48550/arXiv.2507.19430 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19430 2025

  44. [44]

    R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, and M. Endres, Benchmarking and fidelity response theory of high-fidelity rydberg entangling gates, PRX Quantum6, 010331 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    T. G. Walker and M. Saffman, Zeros of Ryd- berg–Rydberg Föster interactions, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics38, S309 (2005)

    2005

  46. [46]

    Ravets, H

    S. Ravets, H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, L. Béguin, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Coherent dipole–dipole coupling be- tween two single Rydberg atoms at an electrically-tuned Förster resonance, Nature Physics10, 914 (2014)

    2014

  47. [47]

    A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, P. Scholl, T. H. Yoon, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Multi-ensemble metrology by programming local rotations with atom movements, Nature Physics20, 195 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: Design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  49. [49]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. Vander- Plas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, JAX: Com- posable transformations of Python+NumPy programs (2018)

    2018

  50. [50]

    Maskara, S

    N. Maskara, S. Ostermann, J. Shee, M. Kalinowski, A. M. Gomez, R. A. Bravo, D. S. Wang, A. I. 15 Krylov, N. Y. Yao, M. Head-Gordon, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Programmable Simulations of Molecules and Materials with Reconfigurable Quantum Processors, arXiv:2312.02265 (2023), arXiv:2312.02265 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    de Léséleuc, D

    S. de Léséleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Analysis of imperfections in the coherent optical excitation of single atoms to rydberg states, Phys. Rev. A97, 053803 (2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    Pagano, S

    A. Pagano, S. Weber, D. Jaschke, T. Pfau, F. Meinert, S. Montangero, and H. P. Büchler, Error budgeting for a controlled-phase gate with strontium-88 rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033019 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    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, Nature622, 273 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    Katori, M

    H. Katori, M. Takamoto, V. G. Pal’chikov, and V. D. Ovsiannikov, Ultrastable optical clock with neutral atoms in an engineered light shift trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 173005 (2003)

    2003

  55. [55]

    A. D. Ludlow, T. Zelevinsky, G. Campbell, S. Blatt, M. Boyd, M. H. de Miranda, M. Martin, J. Thomsen, S. M. Foreman, J. Ye,et al., Sr lattice clock at 1×10–16 fractional uncertainty by remote optical evaluation with a ca clock, Science319, 1805 (2008)

    2008

  56. [56]

    M. D. Swallows, G. K. Campbell, A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. W. Thomsen, M. J. Martin, S. Blatt, T. L. Nicholson, and J. Ye, Precision measurement of fermionic collisions using an 87sr optical lattice clock with 1×10- 16 inaccuracy, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferro- electrics, and Frequency Control57, 574 (2010)

    2010

  57. [57]

    N. D. Lemke, A. D. Ludlow, Z. W. Barber, T. M. Fortier, S. A. Diddams, Y. Jiang, S. R. Jefferts, T. P. Heavner, T. E. Parker, and C. W. Oates, Spin-1/2optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 063001 (2009)

    2009

  58. [58]

    P. G. Westergaard, J. Lodewyck, L. Lorini, A. Lecal- lier, E. A. Burt, M. Zawada, J. Millo, and P. Lemonde, Lattice-induced frequency shifts in sr optical lattice clocks at the10 −17 level, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 210801 (2011)

    2011

  59. [59]

    Bishof, M

    M. Bishof, M. J. Martin, M. D. Swallows, C. Benko, Y. Lin, G. Quéméner, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Inelastic collisions and density-dependent excitation suppression in a 87sr optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A84, 052716 (2011)

    2011

  60. [60]

    Heinz, A

    A. Heinz, A. J. Park, N. Šantić, J. Trautmann, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, State- dependent optical lattices for the strontium optical qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 203201 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Meinert, T

    F. Meinert, T. Pfau, and C. Hölzl, Quantum comput- ing device, use, and method eu patent application no, EP202141875(2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    Pucher, V

    S. Pucher, V. Klüsener, F. Spriestersbach, J. Geiger, A. Schindewolf, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, Fine-structure qubit encoded in metastable strontium trapped in an op- tical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 150605 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Unnikrishnan, P

    G. Unnikrishnan, P. Ilzhöfer, A. Scholz, C. Hölzl, A. Götzelmann, R. K. Gupta, J. Zhao, J. Krauter, S. We- ber, N. Makki, H. P. Büchler, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Coherent control of the fine-structure qubit in a single alkaline-earthatom,Phys.Rev.Lett.132,150606(2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Poole, T

    C. Poole, T. M. Graham, M. A. Perlin, M. Otten, and M. Saffman, Architecture for fast implementation of qLDPC codes with optimized Rydberg gates, Physical Review A111, 022433 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Scott, M. Friesen, and M. Saffman, Sensitiv- ity of quantum gate fidelity to laser phase and intensity noise, Physical Review A107, 042611 (2023)

    2023

  66. [66]

    Bergonzoni, R

    M. Bergonzoni, R. R. Riso, and G. Pupillo, Fast Quantum Gates for Neutral Atoms Separated by a Few Tens of Micrometers, arXiv:2511.20437 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20437 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20437 2025

  67. [67]

    de Keijzer, J

    R. de Keijzer, J. Snijders, A. Carvalho, and S. Kokkel- mans, Pulse family optimization for parametrized quan- tum gates using spectral clustering, Academia Quantum 1, 7374 (2024)

    2024

  68. [68]

    Froese-Fischer, T

    C. Froese-Fischer, T. Brage, and P. Jonsson, Computational atomic structure: an MCHF approach (Routledge, 2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    M. Y. Amusia,Atomic photoeffect (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  70. [70]

    V. A. Kosteleck` y and M. M. Nieto, Analytical wave func- tions for atomic quantum-defect theory, Physical Review A32, 3243 (1985)

    1985

  71. [71]

    Couturier, I

    L. Couturier, I. Nosske, F. Hu, C. Tan, C. Qiao, Y. Jiang, P. Chen, and M. Weidemüller, Measurement of the stron- tium triplet rydberg series by depletion spectroscopy of ultracold atoms, Physical Review A99, 022503 (2019)

    2019

  72. [72]

    Armstrong, J

    J. Armstrong, J. Wynne, and P. Esherick, Bound, odd- parity j= 1 spectra of the alkaline earths: Ca, sr, and ba, Journal of the Optical Society of America69, 211 (1979)

    1979

  73. [73]

    Schymik, S

    K.-N. Schymik, S. Pancaldi, F. Nogrette, D. Barredo, J. Paris, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Single atoms with 6000-second trapping lifetimes in optical-tweezer arrays at cryogenic temperatures, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 034013 (2021)

    2021

  74. [74]

    Pichard, D

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. Mériaux, 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- atures, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 024073 (2024)

    2000

  75. [75]

    Kunze, R

    S. Kunze, R. Hohmann, H. J. Kluge, J. Lantzsch, L. Monz, J. Stenner, K. Stratmann, K. Wendt, and K. Zimmer, Lifetime measurements of highly excited ryd- bergstatesofstrontiumi,ZeitschriftfürPhysikDAtoms, Molecules and Clusters27, 111 (1993)

    1993

  76. [76]

    Camargo, J

    F. Camargo, J. Whalen, R. Ding, H. Sadeghpour, S. Yoshida, J. Burgdörfer, F. Dunning, and T. Kil- lian, Lifetimes of ultra-long-range strontium rydberg molecules, Physical Review A93, 022702 (2016)

    2016

  77. [77]

    Rubbmark and S

    J. Rubbmark and S. Borgström, Rydberg series in stron- tium found in absorption by selectively laser-excited atoms, Physica Scripta18, 196 (1978)

    1978

  78. [78]

    J. A. Muniz, D. J. Young, J. R. Cline, and J. K. Thomp- son, Cavity-qed measurements of the sr 87 millihertz op- tical clock transition and determination of its natural linewidth, Physical Review Research3, 023152 (2021)

    2021

  79. [79]

    Derevianko, Feasibility of cooling and trapping metastable alkaline-earth atoms, Physical Review Letters 87, 023002 (2001)

    A. Derevianko, Feasibility of cooling and trapping metastable alkaline-earth atoms, Physical Review Letters 87, 023002 (2001)

    2001

  80. [80]

    Scheme A

    B. Kaulakys, Consistent analytical approach for the quasi-classical radial dipole matrix elements, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics28, 4963 (1995). 16 10□14 10□13 10□12 Infidelity 1 − F 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 Ω 1r(t)/(2π) (MHz) 0.0 0.5 1.0 Angle θ/π 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Duration τ (µs) 0.0 0.5 1.0 t/τ 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 Ω 0r′ (t)/...

    1995

Showing first 80 references.