pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11340 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🪐 quant-ph

Optimal Two-Qubit Gates for Group-IV Color-Centers in Diamond

Jurek Frey , Katharina Senkalla , Philipp J. Vetter , Fedor Jelezko , Frank K. Wilhelm , Matthias M. M\"uller This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum optimal controltwo-qubit gatesgermanium-vacancy centersdiamond color centersnuclear spinselectron spinsquantum networks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Numerical quantum optimal control produces two-qubit gates exceeding 99.9% fidelity in germanium-vacancy centers under realistic noise.

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

The paper investigates how quantum optimal control can implement fast gates between the electron spin of a germanium-vacancy center and a nearby strongly coupled carbon-13 nuclear spin. These gates are optimized and tested numerically across parameter regimes while accounting for realistic noise sources. The goal is to support entanglement distribution protocols needed for quantum repeaters and distributed computing nodes based on group-IV diamond color centers. If the gates perform as simulated, they would provide a practical route to high-fidelity operations in existing experimental setups.

Core claim

Numerical optimization of control pulses for an existing GeV center with a strongly coupled 13C spin produces robust two-qubit gates that maintain fidelities above 99.9% even when realistic noise is included, across multiple parameter regimes and gate types.

What carries the argument

Quantum optimal control applied to time-dependent driving fields acting on the electron-nuclear spin Hamiltonian of the GeV-13C system.

If this is right

  • The gates enable high-fidelity entanglement generation and distribution protocols using group-IV color centers as quantum network nodes.
  • The same optimization approach scales to other parameter regimes and gate operations within the GeV platform.
  • The framework can be adapted to related group-IV architectures for distributed quantum computing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same numerical strategy could be applied to other group-IV centers such as silicon-vacancy or tin-vacancy by updating the specific noise parameters and coupling strengths.
  • Testing these gates in larger spin registers would reveal how accumulated errors affect multi-qubit operations in diamond-based systems.

Load-bearing premise

The noise model used in the numerical optimization accurately captures the dominant decoherence channels present in the actual GeV-13C experimental device.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies one of the numerically optimized gate sequences to a real GeV center coupled to a 13C spin and measures the achieved two-qubit gate fidelity; a result substantially below 99.9% would falsify the prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11340 by Fedor Jelezko, Frank K. Wilhelm, Jurek Frey, Katharina Senkalla, Matthias M. M\"uller, Philipp J. Vetter.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Circuit diagram of a SWAP alternative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ), the nuclear-controlled CnNOTe gate (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Optimization process of a SWAP gate for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Optimization process of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Shown is the performance of a SWAP gate as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Optimization process of a Hadamard ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Optimization process of a Hadamard ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Color centers associated with group-IV dopants in diamond with long-lived nuclear spins have emerged as major candidates for distributed quantum computing nodes and quantum repeaters. Several proof-of-principle experiments have already been demonstrated. A key operation for long-distance entanglement-distribution protocols are fast and robust gates between the electron spin and a nuclear spin. Here, we investigate numerically for an existing experimental platform of a Germanium-vacancy (GeV) center with a strongly-coupled ${}^{13}$C spin, how such gates can be implemented via quantum optimal control. In the presence of realistic noise we investigate different parameter regimes and gate operations and obtain robust two-qubit gates with fidelities exceeding $99.9 \%$. The framework provides a scalable strategy for group-IV quantum nodes and can be adapted to related architectures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript numerically investigates quantum optimal control for implementing fast, robust two-qubit gates between the electron spin of a GeV color center in diamond and a strongly coupled 13C nuclear spin. Using a Lindblad master equation with fixed phenomenological decoherence rates taken from prior literature, the authors report gate fidelities exceeding 99.9% across different parameter regimes and gate types, proposing this as a scalable approach for group-IV quantum nodes.

Significance. If the numerical results hold under the stated noise model, the work provides a concrete, adaptable framework for high-fidelity electron-nuclear gates in group-IV centers, which are relevant for quantum repeaters and distributed computing due to their nuclear spin coherence. The explicit use of optimal control to mitigate realistic noise is a strength, as is the focus on an existing experimental GeV-13C platform.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical optimization and results] Numerical optimization section: no details are provided on pulse discretization, convergence checks for the optimal control algorithm, or comparison of the noise-free case to analytic limits (e.g., ideal CNOT or iSWAP fidelities). This is load-bearing for the central >99.9% fidelity claim, as unverified numerics could mask discretization artifacts or local minima.
  2. [Noise model] Noise model section (Lindblad master equation): the decoherence rates are fixed to published T1/T2 values for GeV centers without any sensitivity scan over experimental uncertainties (e.g., ±30-50% variation) or inclusion of possible additional terms such as strain or charge noise. The quoted fidelities therefore rest on an untested assumption that this specific phenomenological model captures the dominant channels in the target device.
  3. [Results] Results and discussion: there is no direct comparison of the simulated coherence times or optimized gate performance against measured values on the same GeV-13C sample used in the cited experiments. This weakens the claim that the gates are 'robust' for the actual experimental platform.
minor comments (3)
  1. [System Hamiltonian] The Hamiltonian for the GeV-13C system (likely Eq. 1 or 2) uses notation for the hyperfine coupling that could be clarified with an explicit tensor form or reference to the specific orientation.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the optimized pulse shapes and fidelity plots should include the exact cost function minimized and the number of time steps used in the discretization.
  3. [Methods] A reference to the specific optimal control algorithm (e.g., GRAPE or Krotov) and its implementation details is missing in the methods.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have addressed the major comments by providing additional details on the numerical methods, performing sensitivity analyses on the noise model, and clarifying the scope of the numerical study. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Numerical optimization section: no details are provided on pulse discretization, convergence checks for the optimal control algorithm, or comparison of the noise-free case to analytic limits (e.g., ideal CNOT or iSWAP fidelities). This is load-bearing for the central >99.9% fidelity claim, as unverified numerics could mask discretization artifacts or local minima.

    Authors: We agree that these details are important for validating the numerical results. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Numerical optimization section to include: (i) the time discretization used (e.g., 100 time steps over the gate duration), (ii) convergence checks showing that the optimization reaches a stable fidelity plateau with changes below 10^{-7} upon further iterations, and (iii) noise-free simulations where the optimized pulses achieve fidelities >0.9999 for both CNOT and iSWAP, matching the analytic ideal limits within numerical tolerance. This confirms the absence of significant discretization artifacts or trapping in local minima. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Noise model section (Lindblad master equation): the decoherence rates are fixed to published T1/T2 values for GeV centers without any sensitivity scan over experimental uncertainties (e.g., ±30-50% variation) or inclusion of possible additional terms such as strain or charge noise. The quoted fidelities therefore rest on an untested assumption that this specific phenomenological model captures the dominant channels in the target device.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of testing the robustness of the results to variations in the noise parameters. We have added a new figure and accompanying text in the revised manuscript showing the gate fidelity as a function of variations in the decoherence rates up to ±50%. The fidelities remain above 99.8% across this range for the optimized gates. Regarding additional noise terms, we have included a discussion explaining that for the GeV center under the considered cryogenic and low-strain conditions, charge noise and strain effects are minimized and not the dominant decoherence sources based on experimental reports; however, we note this as a limitation of the phenomenological model. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Results and discussion: there is no direct comparison of the simulated coherence times or optimized gate performance against measured values on the same GeV-13C sample used in the cited experiments. This weakens the claim that the gates are 'robust' for the actual experimental platform.

    Authors: The present work is a numerical investigation using parameters extracted from the literature on GeV-13C systems. We do not have access to new experimental data on a specific sample for direct comparison. In the revised discussion, we have added comparisons to the coherence times and gate performances reported in the cited experimental papers, showing that our simulated gate times and fidelities are consistent with what is experimentally achievable. We believe this supports the relevance to the platform, though a full experimental validation would require future work. revision: no

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct experimental validation and measurements on the specific GeV-13C sample, since the manuscript presents a numerical study without performing new experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: optimization result is independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper numerically optimizes two-qubit gates via quantum optimal control under a fixed Lindblad noise model whose rates are taken from prior experimental literature on GeV centers. The reported fidelities (>99.9%) are computed outputs of the simulation for chosen pulse shapes and parameter regimes; they are not fitted to data nor defined in terms of the target fidelity. No equation reduces to a self-citation, no parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the central claim does not rely on a uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors' own prior work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the external noise model.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a numerical optimization whose inputs are taken from prior experimental characterization of the GeV-13C system; no new physical entities or ad-hoc axioms are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5451 in / 1093 out tokens · 46328 ms · 2026-05-10T15:12:32.289673+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. As- sumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, et al., Nature629, 573 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    M. Ruf, N. H. Wan, H. Choi, D. Englund, and R. Hanson, Journal of Applied Physics130(2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Wei, P.-J

    Y.-C. Wei, P.-J. Stas, A. Suleymanzade, G. Baranes, F. Machado, Y. Q. Huan, C. M. Knaut, S. W. Ding, M. Merz, E. N. Knall, et al., Science388, 509 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Stas, Y.-C

    P.-J. Stas, Y.-C. Wei, M. Sirotin, Y. Huan, U. Yazlar, F. A. Arias, E. Knyazev, G. Baranes, B. Machielse, S. Grandi, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09464 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    M. H. Metsch, K. Senkalla, B. Tratzmiller, J. Scheuer, M. Kern, J. Achard, A. Tallaire, M. B. Plenio, P. Siyu- shev, and F. Jelezko, Physical review letters122, 190503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Grimm, K

    N. Grimm, K. Senkalla, P. J. Vetter, J. Frey, P. Gund- lapalli, T. Calarco, G. Genov, M. M. M¨ uller, and F. Jelezko, Physical Review Letters134, 043603 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Klotz, A

    M. Klotz, A. Tangemann, D. Opferkuch, and A. Kubanek, Nature Communications17, 2325 (2026)

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Resch, I

    J. Resch, I. Karapatzakis, M. Elshorbagy, M. Schrodin, P. Fuchs, P. Graßhoff, L. Kussi, C. S¨ urgers, C. Popov, C. Becher, W. Wernsdorfer, and D. Hunger, Phys. Rev. X16, 011060 (2026)

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    T. H. Taminiau, J. Cramer, T. van der Sar, V. Do- brovitski, and R. Hanson, Nature Nanotechnology9, 171 (2014)

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Childress, M

    L. Childress, M. Gurudev Dutt, J. Taylor, A. Zibrov, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, P. Hemmer, and M. Lukin, Science314, 281 (2006)

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Physical Review X 9, 031045 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    I. B. Harris, C. P. Michaels, K. C. Chen, R. A. Parker, M. Titze, J. Arjona Mart´ ınez, M. Sutula, I. R. Chris- ten, A. M. Stramma, W. Roth, et al., PRX Quantum4, 040301 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    H. K. Beukers, C. Waas, M. Pasini, H. B. Van Ommen, Z. Ademi, M. Iuliano, N. Codreanu, J. M. Brevoord, T. Turan, T. H. Taminiau, et al., Physical Review X15, 021011 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    P. J. Vetter, C. Findler, A. Verd´ u, M. Kost, R. Blin- der, J. Fuhrmann, C. Osterkamp, J. Lang, M. B. Plenio, J. Prior, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.27374 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Robledo, L

    L. Robledo, L. Childress, H. Bernien, B. Hensen, P. F. Alkemade, and R. Hanson, Nature477, 574 (2011)

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    Gundlapalli, P

    P. Gundlapalli, P. J. Vetter, G. Genov, M. Olney-Fraser, P. Wang, M. M. M¨ uller, K. Senkalla, and F. Jelezko, High-fidelity single-shot readout and selective nuclear spin control for a spin-1/2 quantum register in diamond (2025), arXiv:2510.09164 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. K¨ ockenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, et al., The Euro- pean Physical Journal D69, 279 (2015)

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    M. M. M¨ uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Reports on progress in physics85, 076001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Rembold, N

    P. Rembold, N. Oshnik, M. M. M¨ uller, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, and E. Neu, AVS Quantum Science2, 024701 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0006785

    work page doi:10.1116/5.0006785 2020

  20. [20]

    C. P. Koch, Introduction to quantum control: From basic concepts to applications in quantum technologies (2025), arXiv:2512.04990 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Rossignolo et al., Computer Physics Communications 291, 108782 (2023)

    M. Rossignolo et al., Computer Physics Communications 291, 108782 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    N. Rach, M. M. M¨ uller, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Physical Review A92, 062343 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein, Physical review36, 823 (1930)

    work page 1930

  24. [24]

    Senkalla, G

    K. Senkalla, G. Genov, M. H. Metsch, P. Siyushev, and F. Jelezko, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 026901 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    M. M. M¨ uller, D. M. Reich, M. Murphy, H. Yuan, J. Vala, K. B. Whaley, T. Calarco, and C. P. Koch, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042315 (2011)

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    Watts, J

    P. Watts, J. Vala, M. M. M¨ uller, T. Calarco, K. B. Wha- ley, D. M. Reich, M. H. Goerz, and C. P. Koch, Physical Review A91, 062306 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    M. H. Goerz, G. Gualdi, D. M. Reich, C. P. Koch, F. Mot- zoi, K. B. Whaley, J. Vala, M. M. M¨ uller, S. Montangero, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. A91, 062307 (2015)

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Bradac, W

    C. Bradac, W. Gao, J. Forneris, M. E. Trusheim, and I. Aharonovich, Nature communications10, 5625 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    S. S. Hegde, J. Zhang, and D. Suter, Physical review letters124, 220501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    H. H. Vallabhapurapu, C. Adambukulam, A. Saraiva, and A. Laucht, Physical Review B105, 205435 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    J. Frey, F. K. Wilhelm, and M. M. M¨ uller, Protocols for entangling gates for group iv color-centers in diamond (2026)

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Dobrovitski, G

    V. Dobrovitski, G. Fuchs, A. Falk, C. Santori, and D. Awschalom, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.4, 10 23 (2013)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Dolde, V

    F. Dolde, V. Bergholm, Y. Wang, I. Jakobi, B. Nayde- nov, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, F. Jelezko, P. Neumann, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen,et al., Nature communications 5, 3371 (2014)

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    N. H. Nickerson, J. F. Fitzsimons, and S. C. Benjamin, Physical Review X4, 041041 (2014)

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    D¨ ur, H.-J

    W. D¨ ur, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Physical Review A59, 169 (1999)

    work page 1999

  36. [36]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045006 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86, 032324 (2012)

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. W. Bakermans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Benjamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Science356, 928 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aan0070

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan0070 2017

  39. [39]

    Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid- state qubits,

    M. Pompili, S. L. N. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. C. Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Science372, 259 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abg1919

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abg1919 2021

  40. [40]

    A. J. Stolk, K. L. van der Enden, M.-C. Slater, I. te Raa-Derckx, P. Botma, J. van Rantwijk, J. J. B. Biemond, R. A. J. Hagen, R. W. Herfst, W. D. Koek, A. J. H. Meskers, R. Vollmer, E. J. van Zwet, M. Markham, A. M. Edmonds, J. F. Geus, F. Elsen, B. Jungbluth, C. Haefner, C. Tresp, J. Stuhler, S. Ritter, and R. Hanson, Science Advances10, eadp6442 (2024)...

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adp6442 2024

  41. [41]

    Makhlin, Quantum Information Processing1, 243 (2002)

    Y. Makhlin, Quantum Information Processing1, 243 (2002)

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    Knill, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    E. Knill, Nature434, 39 (2005)

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    Waldherr, Y

    G. Waldherr, Y. Wang, S. Zaiser, M. Jamali, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, J. Du, P. Neu- mann, et al., Nature506, 204 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Khaneja and S

    N. Khaneja and S. J. Glaser, Chemical Physics267, 11 (2001)

    work page 2001

  45. [45]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 027903 (2003)

    work page 2003

  46. [46]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A69, 042309 (2004)

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    Nakajima, Y

    Y. Nakajima, Y. Kawano, and H. Sekigawa, Quantum Inf. Comput.6, 67 (2005)

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Y. X. Wang, T. Calarco, F. Motzoi, and M. M. M¨ uller, Circuit design for a star-shaped spin-qubit processor via algebraic decomposition and optimal control (2025), arXiv:2506.16900 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Physical Review A67, 042313 (2003)

    work page 2003

  50. [50]

    R. S. Said and J. Twamley, Phys. Rev. A80, 032303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    Scheuer, X

    J. Scheuer, X. Kong, R. S. Said, J. Chen, A. Kurz, L. Marseglia, J. Du, P. R. Hemmer, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, et al., New Journal of Physics16, 093022 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Frank, T

    F. Frank, T. Unden, J. Zoller, R. S. Said, T. Calarco, S. Montangero, B. Naydenov, and F. Jelezko, npj Quan- tum Information3, 48 (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Y. Chen, S. Stearn, S. Vella, A. Horsley, and M. W. Do- herty, New Journal of Physics22, 093068 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Oshnik, P

    N. Oshnik, P. Rembold, T. Calarco, S. Montangero, E. Neu, and M. M. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. A106, 013107 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Takou, E

    E. Takou, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011004 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    P. J. Vetter, T. Reisser, M. G. Hirsch, T. Calarco, F. Mot- zoi, F. Jelezko, and M. M. M¨ uller, npj Quantum Infor- mation10, 96 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    H. M. Lim, G. T. Genov, R. Sailer, A. Fahrurrachman, M. A. Majidi, F. Jelezko, and R. S. Said, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 054064 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Baran, T

    B. Baran, T. Calarco, M. M. M¨ uller, and F. Motzoi, (2026), arXiv:2602.18375 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Marcomini, P

    A. Marcomini, P. J. Vetter, T. Calarco, F. Mot- zoi, F. Jelezko, and M. M. M¨ uller, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08581 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Kraus and J

    B. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review A63, 062309 (2001)

    work page 2001

  61. [61]

    Zeier, H

    R. Zeier, H. Yuan, and N. Khaneja, Phys. Rev. A77, 032332 (2008)

    work page 2008

  62. [62]

    H. Yuan, R. Zeier, N. Pomplun, S. J. Glaser, and N. Khaneja, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics92, 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.053414 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.92.053414 2015

  63. [63]

    M. H. Goerz, F. Motzoi, K. B. Whaley, and C. P. Koch, npj Quantum Information3, 37 (2017)

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Khodjasteh and L

    K. Khodjasteh and L. Viola, Physical Review A80, 032314 (2009)

    work page 2009

  65. [65]

    Van der Sar, Z

    T. Van der Sar, Z. Wang, M. Blok, H. Bernien, T. Taminiau, D. Toyli, D. Lidar, D. Awschalom, R. Han- son, and V. Dobrovitski, Nature484, 82 (2012)

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, A. Su- leymanzade, B. Pingault, M. Sutula, S. W. Ding, C. M. Knaut, D. R. Assumpcao, Y.-C. Wei, M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, D. D. Sukachev, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, D. S. Levonian, and M. D. Lukin, Science378, 557 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.add9771

    work page doi:10.1126/science.add9771 2022

  67. [67]

    Jiang, J

    L. Jiang, J. Hodges, J. Maze, P. Maurer, J. Taylor, D. Cory, P. Hemmer, R. L. Walsworth, A. Yacoby, A. S. Zibrov, et al., Science326, 267 (2009)

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    D. J. Egger and F. K. Wilhelm, Physical Review Letters 112, 240503 (2014)

    work page 2014