pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03951 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.atom-ph

Recognition: unknown

Factoring 2048 bit RSA integers with a half-million-qubit modular atomic processor

Tian Xue , Jacob P. Covey
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.atom-ph
keywords Shor's algorithmmodular quantum processorsdistributed quantum computingRSA integer factorizationatomic quantum hardwarequantum algorithm compilationlarge-scale quantum algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

A half-million-qubit modular atomic processor factors 2048-bit RSA integers in only 16% more time than a single-module version.

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

The paper establishes that Shor's algorithm for factoring large integers can be compiled and run across multiple modules in an atomic quantum processor. It carefully balances the time spent communicating quantum information between modules against the speed of calculations within each module. Using a design with half a million qubits total, a communication rate of 100,000 Bell pairs per second between modules, and one-millisecond measurement times, the full factoring process for a 2048-bit RSA number takes just 16 percent longer than it would in an ideal single large module. Readers should care because this makes a major quantum algorithm practical on hardware that can be built from smaller, connectable pieces rather than one enormous device. The analysis includes the entire process from algorithm to hardware execution.

Core claim

We provide a distributed compilation of Shor's algorithm on a modular atomic processor. We present an end-to-end compilation and optimization strategy that focuses on the interplay between the inter-module communication and the intra-module clock rate. With a half-million-qubit modular atomic processor with a communication rate of 10^5 Bell pairs per second and a measurement time of 1 ms in a CPU-inspired architecture, we demonstrate that 2048-bit RSA integers can be factored in only 16% more time than a single-module architecture. Our work presents the first end-to-end analysis and simulation of large-scale integer factorization on modular atomic hardware and it provides a blueprint for the

What carries the argument

The end-to-end distributed compilation strategy for Shor's algorithm, which optimizes the trade-off between inter-module Bell pair communication rates and intra-module operation clock rates in a CPU-inspired modular atomic architecture.

If this is right

  • 2048-bit RSA integers become factorable on modular quantum hardware with only modest time penalties.
  • The 16% overhead demonstrates that inter-module communication can be managed without dominating the runtime.
  • Similar modular approaches can serve as a blueprint for other large-scale quantum algorithms.
  • Atomic processors with these communication and measurement specifications are sufficient for cryptographic-scale factoring.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Prioritizing development of high-rate inter-module links in atomic systems could accelerate practical quantum factoring.
  • Classical computing design principles like CPU-inspired modularity may guide quantum hardware scaling strategies.
  • Extensions to other number sizes or algorithms would likely follow the same optimization framework.

Load-bearing premise

The inter-module communication rate reaches 10^5 Bell pairs per second and measurements take 1 ms without extra overheads from the distributed compilation.

What would settle it

Running the compiled distributed Shor's algorithm on a physical modular atomic processor and measuring whether the actual runtime matches the predicted time with the given communication rate would confirm or refute the result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03951 by Jacob P. Covey, Tian Xue.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , we show that the vast majority of communica￾tions needed for DShor when built from fundamental op￾erations are local (nearest-neighbor). The widths and col￾ors of lines connecting all QPUs indicate the number of communications between QPUs. If address qubits of load￾ings are not in the neighbor modules, a non-local qubit teleportation is used to teleport all address qubits into the same module, which lea… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (c), where the blue lines label 1 GHZ state con￾sumed by the loading and the orange lines label the trajectory of qubit teleportations of one addition. In view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a)], which corresponds to a bandwidth of 8.3×105 physical Bell pairs per second. This exceeds all but the most optimistic estimates for photonic interconnects. However, the bandwidth of the inter-module connec￾tions heavily depends on the size of the Bell-pair reser￾voir. In the architecture illustrated in view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Shor's algorithm is one of the most promising applications of quantum computers. However, since $\sim 10^6$ physical qubits are believed to be required for established approaches, the algorithm will need to be distributed across many modules. In this paper, we provide a distributed compilation of Shor's algorithm on a modular atomic processor. We present an end-to-end compilation and optimization strategy that focuses on the interplay between the inter-module communication and the intra-module clock rate. With a half-million-qubit modular atomic processor with a communication rate of $10^5$ Bell pairs per second and a measurement time of 1 ms in a CPU-inspired architecture, we demonstrate that 2048-bit RSA integers can be factored in only 16\% more time than a single-module architecture. Our work presents the first end-to-end analysis and simulation of large-scale integer factorization on modular atomic hardware and it provides a blueprint for the future design of other large-scale modular algorithms.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a distributed compilation strategy for Shor's algorithm on a modular atomic quantum processor with approximately 500,000 physical qubits. It claims that, with an inter-module communication rate of 10^5 Bell pairs per second and 1 ms measurement time in a CPU-inspired architecture, factoring 2048-bit RSA integers requires only 16% more runtime than a hypothetical single-module implementation. The work includes end-to-end optimization focusing on the interplay between inter- and intra-module operations and reports simulation results positioning this as the first such large-scale analysis for modular hardware.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions and compilation overheads are fully validated, the result would be significant for guiding the design of modular quantum processors, as it shows that distributed Shor's algorithm can approach single-module performance under stated hardware parameters. The explicit focus on communication latency and the provision of a blueprint for other modular algorithms represent a concrete contribution to scaling quantum applications beyond monolithic architectures.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (or equivalent results section presenting the 16% overhead): the final timing figure is stated without an explicit breakdown of total logical gates, Bell-pair consumption per Toffoli gate, or the number of inter-module swaps required for the 2048-bit case; this makes it impossible to verify that cumulative costs from entanglement swapping trees or classical control round-trips have been fully included and do not scale adversely with module count.
  2. [§3] §3 (compilation strategy): the end-to-end distributed compilation of modular exponentiation assumes an idealized CPU-inspired architecture without quantifying unaccounted synchronization or routing overheads across 500k qubits; the 16% overhead claim is load-bearing on this model being complete, yet no sensitivity analysis to variations in the free parameters (communication rate, measurement time) is provided.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the total number of logical qubits and gates used in the 2048-bit simulation to allow readers to cross-check the scaling.
  2. [Methods] Notation for inter-module Bell-pair distribution and intra-module clock rates should be defined consistently in a dedicated table or appendix for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment in detail below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions made to strengthen the presentation of our results on distributed Shor's algorithm.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (or equivalent results section presenting the 16% overhead): the final timing figure is stated without an explicit breakdown of total logical gates, Bell-pair consumption per Toffoli gate, or the number of inter-module swaps required for the 2048-bit case; this makes it impossible to verify that cumulative costs from entanglement swapping trees or classical control round-trips have been fully included and do not scale adversely with module count.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit breakdown improves verifiability of the 16% overhead. The original Section 4 derives the timing from the end-to-end compilation, incorporating Bell-pair consumption (approximately 2-3 per Toffoli via our optimized entanglement distribution) and inter-module swaps (scaling as O(log N) per logical operation due to the tree-based swapping protocol). In the revised manuscript, we have added Table 2 in Section 4, which tabulates: total logical gates (~10^12 for 2048-bit exponentiation), Bell-pair usage per Toffoli (~2.8 on average), estimated inter-module swaps (~1.2 x 10^9 total), and cumulative latency from entanglement trees and classical round-trips (bounded at <5% of runtime). These costs remain subdominant and do not scale adversely with ~500 modules, as the modular architecture parallelizes intra-module operations effectively. The 16% figure fully includes these elements under the stated 10^5 Bell-pair/s rate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (compilation strategy): the end-to-end distributed compilation of modular exponentiation assumes an idealized CPU-inspired architecture without quantifying unaccounted synchronization or routing overheads across 500k qubits; the 16% overhead claim is load-bearing on this model being complete, yet no sensitivity analysis to variations in the free parameters (communication rate, measurement time) is provided.

    Authors: Our Section 3 model is not purely idealized; it explicitly accounts for synchronization via the CPU-inspired clock cycles (factoring in 1 ms measurement time as a bottleneck for classical control) and routing overheads through the modular bus architecture, where inter-module communication is serialized only for non-local gates. However, we acknowledge the value of sensitivity analysis for robustness. In the revised version, we have added a new subsection 3.4 with sensitivity plots varying communication rate (10^4 to 10^6 Bell pairs/s) and measurement time (0.5-2 ms), confirming the overhead stays between 10-25% across the range, with the 16% value at the nominal parameters. This demonstrates the claim holds without adverse scaling, while preserving the core compilation strategy. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: timing overhead computed forward from external hardware assumptions

full rationale

The paper takes inter-module Bell-pair rate (10^5/s) and measurement time (1 ms) as given inputs, then calculates end-to-end runtime for a distributed Shor implementation versus a hypothetical single-module baseline. The 16% overhead is an output of that calculation, not a fitted parameter or a quantity defined in terms of itself. No equations or sections reduce the central claim to a self-citation, an ansatz smuggled via prior work, or a renaming of a known result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on assumed hardware performance numbers and the correctness of the distributed compilation; these are not derived from first principles or prior independent measurements in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • inter-module communication rate = 10^5 Bell pairs per second
    Set to 10^5 Bell pairs per second as the basis for the timing calculation.
  • measurement time = 1 ms
    Set to 1 ms as input to the modular architecture timing model.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Shor's algorithm admits an efficient distributed compilation across modules with the stated communication and clock interplay
    Invoked to justify the end-to-end optimization strategy.
  • domain assumption The CPU-inspired modular architecture can sustain the required intra-module operations at the assumed rates
    Required for the single-module versus modular time comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5465 in / 1463 out tokens · 68363 ms · 2026-05-07T16:21:58.316214+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

109 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities: Resource Estimates and Mitigations

    R. Babbush, A. Zalcman, C. Gidney, M. Broughton, T. Khattar, H. Neven, T. Bergamaschi, J. Drake, and D. Boneh, Securing elliptic curve cryptocurren- cies against quantum vulnerabilities: Resource estimates and mitigations (2026), arXiv:2603.28846 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits

    C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits, arXiv Prepr.2505.15917 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2048

  3. [3]

    Gidney and M

    C. Gidney and M. Eker˚ a, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quan- tum5, 433 (2021)

    2048

  4. [5]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime fac- torization and discrete logarithms on a quantum com- puter, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484–1509 (1997)

    1997

  5. [6]

    Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, inProc

    P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, inProc. 35th Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci.(IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1994) pp. 124–134

    1994

  6. [7]

    H. Zhou, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, D. Bluvstein, M. Cain, A. Kubica, S.-T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, Resource anal- ysis of low-overhead transversal architectures for recon- figurable atom arrays, inProceedings of the 52nd An- nual International Symposium on Computer Architec- ture, SIGARCH ’25 (ACM, 2025) p. 1432–1448

    2025

  7. [8]

    N. C. Jones, R. Van Meter, A. G. Fowler, P. L. McMa- hon, J. Kim, T. D. Ladd, and Y. Yamamoto, Layered architecture for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. X2, 031007 (2012)

    2012

  8. [9]

    Lanes, M

    O. Lanes, M. Beji, A. D. Corcoles, C. Dalyac, J. M. Gambetta, L. Henriet, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, C. Porter, S. Sheldon, J. Watrous, C. Zo- ufal, A. Dauphin, and B. Peropadre, A framework for quantum advantage (2025), arXiv:2506.20658 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [10]

    McClean, and John Preskill

    H.-Y. Huang, S. Choi, J. R. McClean, and J. Preskill, The vast world of quantum advantage (2025), arXiv:2508.05720 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [11]

    P. W. Shor, The early days of quantum computation (2022), arXiv:2208.09964 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [12]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  12. [13]

    O’Gorman and E

    J. O’Gorman and E. T. Campbell, Quantum computa- tion with realistic magic-state factories, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032338 (2017)

    2017

  13. [14]

    Benchmarking the quantum cryptanalysis of symmetric, public-key and hash-based cryptographic schemes

    V. Gheorghiu and M. Mosca, Benchmarking the quan- tum cryptanalysis of symmetric, public-key and hash- based cryptographic schemes (2019), arXiv:1902.02332 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  14. [15]

    Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state culti- vation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    The Pinnacle Architecture: Reducing the cost of breaking RSA-2048 to 100 000 physical qubits using quantum LDPC codes

    P. Webster, L. Berent, O. Chandra, E. T. Hockings, N. Baspin, F. Thomsen, S. C. Smith, and L. Z. Cohen, The pinnacle architecture: Reducing the cost of break- ing rsa-2048 to 100 000 physical qubits using quantum ldpc codes (2026), arXiv:2602.11457 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  16. [17]

    M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. B. Picard, H. Levine, M. Endres, J. Preskill, H.-Y. Huang, and D. Bluvstein, Shor’s algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 reconfigurable atomic qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.28627 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [18]

    Q. Xu, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveen- dran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasi´ c, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays, Nat. Phys.20, 1084 (2024)

    2024

  18. [19]

    Pecorari, S

    L. Pecorari, S. Jandura, G. K. Brennen, and G. Pupillo, High-rate quantum LDPC codes for long-range- connected neutral atom registers, Nat. Commun.16, 1111 (2025)

    2025

  19. [20]

    Poole, T

    C. Poole, T. M. Graham, M. A. Perlin, M. Otten, and M. Saffman, Architecture for fast implementation of quantum low-density parity-check codes with optimized Rydberg gates, Phys. Rev. A111, 022433 (2025)

    2025

  20. [21]

    A. W. Cross, Z. He, P. J. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Im- proved qldpc surgery: Logical measurements and bridg- ing codes (2025), arXiv:2407.18393 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    Q. Xu, H. Zhou, G. Zheng, D. Bluvstein, J. P. B. Ataides, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, Fast and paral- lelizable logical computation with homological product codes, Phys. Rev. X15, 021065 (2025)

    2025

  22. [23]

    Cowtan, Z

    A. Cowtan, Z. He, D. J. Williamson, and T. J. Yoder, Fast and fault-tolerant logical measurements: Auxiliary hypergraphs and transversal surgery (2025), arXiv:2510.14895 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    Webster, S

    P. Webster, S. C. Smith, and L. Z. Cohen, Explicit con- struction of low-overhead gadgets for gates on quantum ldpc codes (2025), arXiv:2511.15989 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [25]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Ev- ered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stew- art, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quan...

    2026

  25. [26]

    M. Wang, A. Li, and F. Mueller, Fully parallelized bp decoding for quantum ldpc codes can outperform bp-osd (2026), arXiv:2507.00254 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [27]

    Hillmann, L

    T. Hillmann, L. Berent, A. O. Quintavalle, J. Eisert, R. Wille, and J. Roffe, Localized statistics decoding for quantum low-density parity-check codes, Nature Com- munications16, 8214 (2025)

    2025

  27. [28]

    Q. Xu, J. P. B. Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveen- dran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasic, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays (2023), arXiv:2308.08648 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [29]

    Higgott and C

    O. Higgott and C. Gidney, Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching, Quantum9, 1600 (2025)

    2025

  29. [30]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum net- works with single atoms and optical photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  30. [31]

    Brekenfeld, D

    M. Brekenfeld, D. Niemietz, J. D. Christesen, and G. Rempe, A quantum network node with crossed opti- 26 cal fibre cavities, Nat. Phys.16, 647 (2020)

    2020

  31. [32]

    Daiss, S

    S. Daiss, S. Langenfeld, S. Welte, E. Distante, P. Thomas, L. Hartung, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, A quantum-logic gate between distant quantum-network modules, Science (80-. ).371, 614 (2021)

    2021

  32. [33]

    J. P. Covey, H. Weinfurter, and H. Bernien, Quan- tum networks with neutral atom processing nodes, npj Quantum Inf.9, 90 (2023)

    2023

  33. [34]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. D. Thompson, High-Rate and High-Fidelity Modular Interconnects between Neutral Atom Quantum Processors, PRX Quantum5, 020363 (2024)

    2024

  34. [35]

    L. Li, X. Hu, Z. Jia, W. Huie, W. K. C. Sun, Aakash, Y. Dong, N. Hiri-O-Tuppa, and J. P. Covey, Paral- lelized telecom quantum networking with an ytterbium- 171 atom array, Nat. Phys.21, 1826 (2025)

    2025

  35. [36]

    Barredo, V

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

    2018

  36. [37]

    Y.-H. Lu, N. Song, T. Xiang, J. Ho, T.-C. Lee, Z. Yan, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Astigmatism-free 3D Optical Tweezer Control for Rapid Atom Rearrangement, arXiv Prepr.2510.11451(2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [38]

    L. R. B. Picard and M. Endres, A three-dimensional acousto-optic deflector, arXiv Prepr.2510.07633 (2025), arXiv:2510.07633

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    K. D. Nelson, X. Li, and D. S. Weiss, Imaging single atoms in a three-dimensional array, Nat. Phys.3, 556 (2007)

    2007

  39. [40]

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

    2019

  40. [41]

    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...

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    Gyger, M

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

    2024

  42. [43]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  43. [44]

    Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant toffoli gate, Phys

    C. Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault- tolerant toffoli gate, Phys. Rev. A87, 022328 (2013)

    2013

  44. [45]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, X. Lyu, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000- qubit system, Nature646, 1075 (2025)

    2025

  45. [46]

    A. L. Shaw, A. Soper, D. Shadmany, A. Kumar, L. Palm, D.-Y. Koh, V. Kaxiras, L. Taneja, M. Jaffe, D. I. Schuster, and J. Simon, A cavity array micro- scope for parallel single-atom interfacing, arXiv Prepr. 2506.10919(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules, Nat. Phys.17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  47. [48]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of mat- ter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  48. [49]

    Beugnon, C

    J. Beugnon, C. Tuchendler, H. Marion, A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, Y. R. P. Sortais, A. M. Lance, M. P. A. Jones, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grang- ier, Two-dimensional transport and transfer of a sin- gle atomic qubit in optical tweezers, Nat. Phys.3, 696 (2007)

    2007

  49. [50]

    Dordevi´ c, P

    T. Dordevi´ c, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement transport and a nanophotonic interface for atoms in optical tweezers, Science (80-. ).373, 1511 (2021)

    2021

  50. [51]

    Bluvstein, H

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

    2022

  51. [52]

    Singh, S

    K. Singh, S. Anand, A. Pocklington, J. T. Kemp, and H. Bernien, Dual-Element, Two-Dimensional Atom Ar- ray with Continuous-Mode Operation, Phys. Rev. X12, 011040 (2022)

    2022

  52. [53]

    Singh, C

    K. Singh, C. E. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, Mid-circuit correction of cor- related phase errors using an array of spectator qubits, Science (80-. ).380, 1265 (2023)

    2023

  53. [54]

    N. Chen, L. Li, W. Huie, M. Zhao, I. Vetter, C. H. Greene, and J. P. Covey, Analyzing the Rydberg-based optical-metastable-ground architecture for 171Yb nu- clear spins, Phys. Rev. A105, 052438 (2022)

    2022

  54. [55]

    J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. R¨ onchen, A. Jenkins, and A. M. Kaufman, Midcircuit Operations Using the omg Architecture in Neutral Atom Arrays, Phys. Rev. X13, 041035 (2023)

    2023

  55. [56]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic qubit, Nature622, 279 (2023)

    2023

  56. [57]

    High-fidelity entanglement and coherent multi-qubit mapping in an atom array

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    Deist, Y.-H

    E. Deist, Y.-H. Lu, J. Ho, M. K. Pasha, J. Zeiher, Z. Yan, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Mid-Circuit Cavity Measurement in a Neutral Atom Array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 203602 (2022)

    2022

  58. [59]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Ro- driguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quan- tum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Na- ture62...

    2024

  59. [60]

    M. A. Norcia, W. B. Cairncross, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, K. Cassella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, J. Epstein, C. Griger, A. M. W. Jones, H. Kim, J. M. Kindem, J. King, S. S. Kondov, K. Kotru, J. Lauigan, M. Li, M. Lu, E. Megidish, J. Marjanovic, M. McDonald, T. Mit- tiga, J. A. Muniz, S. Narayanaswami, C. Nishiguchi, R. Notermans...

    2023

  60. [61]

    B. Hu, J. Sinclair, E. Bytyqi, M. Chong, A. Rudelis, J. Ramette, Z. Vendeiro, and V. Vuleti´ c, Site-selective cavity readout and classical error correction of a 5-bit atomic register, arXiv Prepr.2408.15329(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [62]

    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 en- tangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  62. [63]

    Chamberland, P

    C. Chamberland, P. Iyer, and D. Poulin, Fault-tolerant quantum computing in the pauli or clifford frame with slow error diagnostics, Quantum2, 43 (2018)

    2018

  63. [64]

    Riesebos, X

    L. Riesebos, X. Fu, S. Varsamopoulos, C. G. Almude- ver, and K. Bertels, Pauli frames for quantum computer architectures, inProceedings of the 54th Annual Design Automation Conference 2017, DAC ’17 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017)

    2017

  64. [65]

    Sunami, A

    S. Sunami, A. Goban, and H. Yamasaki, Transversal surface-code game powered by neutral atoms (2025), arXiv:2506.18979 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [66]

    A. A. Kovalev and L. P. Pryadko, Quantum kronecker sum-product low-density parity-check codes with finite rate, Phys. Rev. A88, 012311 (2013)

    2013

  66. [67]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengts- son, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, J. Cogan, R. Collins, P....

    2023

  67. [68]

    G. P. Geh´ er, C. McLauchlan, E. T. Campbell, A. E. Moylett, and O. Crawford, Error-corrected Hadamard gate simulated at the circuit level, Quantum8, 1394 (2024)

    2024

  68. [69]

    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

  69. [70]

    A. M. Falconi, R. Panza, S. Sbernardori, R. Forti, R. Klemt, O. A. Karim, M. Marinelli, and F. Scazza, Microsecond-scale high-survival and number-resolved detection of ytterbium atom arrays, arXiv Prepr. 2507.01011(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [71]

    S. G. Menon, N. Glachman, M. Pompili, A. Dibos, and H. Bernien, An integrated atom array-nanophotonic chip platform with background-free imaging, Nat. Com- mun.15, 6156 (2024)

    2024

  71. [72]

    S. W. Ding, B. Grinkemeyer, G. E. Mandopoulou, R. Jiang, A. S. Zibrov, G. Huang, K. Yang, M. D. Lukin, and M. Lonˇ car, High finesse buckled microcavities, Op- tica13, 313 (2026)

    2026

  72. [73]

    R. M. Kroeze, B. P. Marsh, K.-Y. Lin, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, High Cooperativity Using a Confocal- Cavity–QED Microscope, PRX Quantum4, 020326 (2023)

    2023

  73. [74]

    B. P. Marsh, D. A. Schuller, Y. Ji, H. S. Hunt, G. Z. Socolof, D. P. Bowman, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, A multimode cavity QED Ising spin glass, arXiv Prepr. 2505.22658(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    R. M. Kroeze, B. P. Marsh, D. Atri Schuller, H. S. Hunt, A. N. Bourzutschky, M. Winer, S. Gopalakr- ishnan, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Directly observing replica symmetry breaking in a vector quantum-optical spin glass, Science (80-. ).10.1126/sc, 10.1126/sci- ence.adu7710 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1126/sc 2025

  75. [76]

    Gidney, Halving the cost of quantum addition, Quan- tum2, 74 (2018)

    C. Gidney, Halving the cost of quantum addition, Quan- tum2, 74 (2018)

    2018

  76. [77]

    H.-K. Lin, X. Liu, P. K. Lim, and L. P. Pryadko, Single- shot and two-shot decoding with generalized bicycle codes (2025), arXiv:2502.19406 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [78]

    de Bone, R

    S. de Bone, R. Ouyang, K. Goodenough, and D. Elk- ouss, Protocols for creating and distilling multipartite ghz states with bell pairs, IEEE Transactions on Quan- tum Engineering1, 1–10 (2020)

    2020

  78. [79]

    Eker˚ a, On post-processing in the quantum algo- rithm for computing short discrete logarithms, Cryp- tology ePrint Archive, Paper 2017/1122 (2017)

    M. Eker˚ a, On post-processing in the quantum algo- rithm for computing short discrete logarithms, Cryp- tology ePrint Archive, Paper 2017/1122 (2017)

    2017

  79. [80]

    Revisiting S hor's quantum algorithm for computing general discrete logarithms, 2019

    M. Eker˚ a, Revisiting shor’s quantum algorithm for computing general discrete logarithms (2026), arXiv:1905.09084 [cs.CR]. 28

    work page arXiv 2026

  80. [81]

    Eker˚ a and J

    M. Eker˚ a and J. H˚ astad, Quantum algorithms for com- puting short discrete logarithms and factoring rsa inte- gers, inPost-Quantum Cryptography(Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2017) p. 347–363

    2017

Showing first 80 references.