Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Scheduling-induced timing jitter degrades dynamical decoupling by adding a low-frequency noise shelf that grows with each added pulse; on a trapped-ion QCCD the optimum is a modest ~2 Hz pulse rate, and a real-time protocol can cancel the a

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

2026-08-02 02:04 UTC pith:33UYTQDC

load-bearing objection Worth engaging: the analytic filter-function result for timing jitter is solid and the robust protocol is useful, but the quantitative 2 Hz optimum rests on an untested i.i.d. scheduling-error assumption. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14441 v1 pith:33UYTQDC submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph

Improving Dynamical Decoupling for Trapped-Ion QCCD Quantum Computers

William M. Watkins , Leigh M. Norris , Ross Hutson , Maxwell Urmey , Peter Siegfried , Charles H. Baldwin This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords dynamical decouplingscheduling errortrapped-ion QCCDfilter functionmemory errortiming jitterdephasingpulse-sequence optimization
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.

The paper claims that the timing jitter from transporting trapped ions and sharing gate zones makes each dynamical-decoupling (DD) pulse add a small amount of dephasing, and this effect accumulates with the number of pulses. In the filter-function picture, each pulse contributes a positive term 4σ² to the zero-frequency response, so a sequence with more pulses becomes more sensitive to the very low-frequency magnetic-field noise that DD is meant to cancel. As a result, increasing the pulse rate eventually makes memory errors worse, and for typical trapped-ion memory noise the best average rate is about 2 Hz. The paper introduces a scheduling-error-robust DD protocol that updates each pulse's target time based on the displacement of the previous pulse, cancelling the accumulation so the dephasing rate no longer grows with pulse count. Ramsey experiments on a 56-qubit trapped-ion QCCD show that N=4 pulses do not outperform N=2, consistent with the model.

Core claim

The central result is an analytic expression for the filter function averaged over scheduling errors: even for an ideal DD sequence, the DC (zero-frequency) component contains an additive 4Nσ² term, where σ is the standard deviation of the timing jitter and N is the pulse count. Because memory-error noise in trapped-ion QCCDs is concentrated at low frequencies, the overlap between this noise and the filter function is dominated by the DC shelf, so the dephasing rate grows linearly with N. For the measured jitter σ≈5 ms and a 1/f² noise spectrum, the numerical optimum is N=2 for a 1 s idle time (about 2 Hz), and experiments on a 56-qubit device confirm that increasing to N=4 gives no statisti

What carries the argument

The filter-function formalism, which reduces the performance of a DD sequence to a frequency-domain overlap between the noise power spectral density and the control filter function F(ω,T). The paper augments this with a second cumulant expansion that averages F over the Gaussian scheduling-error distribution, giving the DC component ⟨F(0,T)⟩_sch = F_ideal(0,T)+...+4Nσ². The companion mechanism is the scheduling-error-robust update rule, in which the target time of pulse j is shifted by the measured displacement of pulse j−1, so that the only remaining timing error is that of the final pulse. This turns the N-scaling of the dephasing rate from 4Nσ²m² into a constant 4σ²m².

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the timing error of every pulse is an independent, identically distributed Gaussian variable with the same variance, and that these errors are uncorrelated with the magnetic-field noise; this is supported only by a single-pulse histogram from a 28-qubit device, so correlated or state-dependent timing errors would change the 4Nσ² scaling and the robust protocol's benefit.

What would settle it

Measure the timing of every pulse in a multi-pulse CPMG sequence on the same 56-qubit machine used for the experiments and compute the joint distribution of the errors; significant correlation between adjacent pulses would break the 4Nσ² scaling. A simpler experiment: Ramsey memory test at T=1 s with CPMG N=8; the paper's claim predicts N=8 is worse than N=2, so a result where higher N improves survival would falsify it.

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

If this is right

  • Compile-time DD schedules on QCCD machines should use a modest pulse rate (≈2 Hz for current hardware) rather than the maximum possible, because extra pulses add more low-frequency sensitivity than they remove.
  • Real-time DD has a similar tradeoff: the threshold time Δt must balance remainder-time memory error (growing as Δt²) against scheduling error (growing as 1/Δt); the measured optimum lies near 0.1 s.
  • Scheduling-error-robust DD removes the N-dependence of the scheduling-error contribution, so more pulses can be added without the low-frequency penalty, making higher-order sequences viable if high-frequency noise matters.
  • The Ramsey experiments confirm that the noise is dominantly longitudinal dephasing, since CPMG and XY4 give the same survival probabilities.
  • The analytic filter-function model provides a design rule: given the jitter σ and the noise PSD, one can compute the optimal pulse number and threshold for any idle time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The 4Nσ² scaling is derived from an i.i.d. Gaussian model; measuring the joint distribution of timing errors across a real pulse sequence would reveal whether the next-order corrections (from correlations or non-Gaussian tails) matter in practice.
  • The same error-compensation rule—shift the next pulse by the previous pulse's realized error—could be applied to any control sequence with measurable timing jitter, including other qubit platforms, as long as displacements can be tracked in real time.
  • The model suggests a hardware guideline: reducing scheduling jitter σ has a direct, linear payoff in allowing higher DD pulse rates, which sets a concrete engineering target for transport and compilation latency.
  • For noise spectra that are not strictly 1/f², one can use the same machinery to locate the optimum: the best N is where the added 4Nσ² DC shelf exactly balances the suppression of the remaining spectrum; this could be tested on hardware with different magnetic-field shielding.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes how scheduling-induced pulse-timing errors degrade dynamical decoupling (DD) in trapped-ion QCCD quantum computers. Using the filter-function formalism and a cumulant expansion, it models scheduling errors as independent Gaussian timing jitter, derives the scheduling-error-averaged filter function, and shows that the DC component acquires a term 4Nσ² that grows with the number of pulses. For a 1/f² memory-error spectrum, this predicts an optimum at a low DD pulse rate (about 2 Hz for the parameters used), so that adding more pulses becomes counterproductive. The authors also introduce real-time DD (RTDD) and a scheduling-error-robust protocol that uses the measured displacement of earlier pulses to adjust later pulse timings. Analytic predictions are compared with Monte Carlo simulations, and compile-time CPMG sequences are tested on Quantinuum H2-1 in Ramsey-type experiments.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a practically important and somewhat counterintuitive design rule for trapped-ion QCCD memories: for low-frequency dephasing noise, scheduling errors can make a small number of DD pulses preferable to a larger number. The analytic averaged-filter-function expressions are a useful contribution, and I verified that the main derivations are internally consistent: Eq. (32) follows from the stated model, Eq. (33) gives the 4Nσ² DC shelf for ideal sequences, and the Monte Carlo results in Figs. 3, 4, and 6 match the analytic formulas. The proposed scheduling-error-robust protocol is elegant and, if implementable, would remove the linear-N penalty. The experimental data are from a real 56-qubit QCCD and include a useful null check of XY4 versus CPMG, supporting the longitudinal-noise assumption. The principal weaknesses are that the key i.i.d. assumption on scheduling errors is not directly validated, the robust protocol is not demonstrated experimentally, and the experimental results do not actually show that larger N is counterproductive, only that N=4 does not improve over N=2.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (33)] The central prediction that the DC filter-function shelf grows as 4Nσ² relies on the assumption that scheduling errors are i.i.d. Gaussian. For an ideal DD sequence, the DC shelf is more generally 4 Σ_{j,k} (-1)^{j+k} cov(ε_j, ε_k); it reduces to 4Nσ² only when cov(ε_j, ε_k)=σ²δ_{j,k}. Positive correlations between pulses of opposite sign can substantially reduce or even cancel this term. Fig. 2 provides evidence only for the marginal distribution of the first pulse, measured on the 28-qubit H2, not on the 56-qubit H2-1 used in the experiments, and it does not test independence or correlations across pulses in a sequence. Because the optimal-N conclusion and the benefit of the robust protocol both depend on this structure, please provide multi-pulse joint timing measurements on the relevant hardware, or alternatively present a sensitivity analysis showing that the qualitative conclusions
  2. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (44)] The 'robust compile-time DD' protocol defines target times u_j = t_j + ε_{j-1} for j>1, where ε_{j-1} is the realized scheduling error of the previous pulse. At compile time, ε_{j-1} is not known; it can only be known after the previous pulse has actually been scheduled/executed. If the intended implementation is real-time feedback, the text should say so explicitly and discuss the feedback latency and how it is incorporated into the error budget. As written, the phrase 'implemented at compile time' in the opening of Sec. V is inconsistent with the equations. This is not merely a wording issue: it determines whether the proposed cancellation is actually realizable for the claimed compile-time scenario.
  3. [Sec. VI, Fig. 8] The experimental data do not support the abstract's statement that 'increasing the DD pulse frequency beyond 2 Hz is generally counterproductive.' The measurements compare N=0, 2, and 4 and find that N=4 does not significantly improve over N=2. This is consistent with the model, but it is also consistent with saturation or with a very weak dependence; it does not show that N=4 is worse. To substantiate the counterproductivity claim, the authors need either data at larger N (e.g., N=6 or 8) showing a statistically significant decrease in survival probability, or a softened claim such as 'no further improvement' rather than 'counterproductive.'
  4. [Sec. VI, Abstract] The abstract says 'We demonstrate our methods on Quantinuum H2-1,' but the experimental section only demonstrates compile-time CPMG (N=0,2,4). The RTDD and scheduling-error-robust protocols are not tested on hardware; their support is purely analytic and numerical. Either clarify that only the compile-time standard method was experimentally demonstrated, or add experimental data for RTDD/robust DD. As it stands, the claim of experimental demonstration exceeds what Sec. VI reports.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several OCR/typographical issues: 'IMP ACT OF SCHEDULING ERRORS' in the section header, 'to to' in Sec. III.C, and garbled characters in Fig. 8 (e.g., '□0:2'). These should be cleaned before publication.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption should state explicitly that only the first-pulse offset ε₁ is histogrammed and that no multi-pulse joint statistics are shown. This is important because the i.i.d. assumption of Sec. III.A is a modeling input rather than an empirical finding.
  3. [Eq. (16)] The notation ⟨⟨·⟩_mem⟩_sch and the subsequent approximation signs are a little compressed. It would help readers to spell out that C^(1)(T) and C^(2)(T) are functions of the random pulse times and that the second line is a cumulant expansion in those random variables.
  4. [Fig. 4] Please clarify the noise PSD convention: whether S(ω) is one-sided or two-sided and how the 'Detuning noise (Hz²/Hz)' vertical axis relates to the S(2πf) used in Eq. (15). This will prevent unit confusion in the overlap integral.
  5. [Sec. VI, Eq. (57)-(60)] The estimation of the cumulants via four readout phases is described briefly. It would be helpful to state explicitly that the four phases are measured on the same physical qubits in separate experimental runs and how statistical uncertainties are propagated to the error bars in Fig. 8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the scheduling-error model inputs are measured independently of the predicted DD outcomes.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that scheduling errors create a low-frequency shelf in the DD filter function that grows with pulse number—is derived analytically from an explicitly stated i.i.d. Gaussian timing-error model (Sec. III.A). The model parameters μ=2e-4 s and σ=4.8e-3 s are obtained from the empirical pulse-offset histogram in Fig. 2, not from the survival-probability or infidelity data that the paper later predicts. Equation (33) follows by substituting the characteristic functions of the assumed pulse-time distribution into the filter-function expansion; it is a mathematical consequence of the model, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The numerical optimum at N=2 is obtained by evaluating the overlap of this model filter function with an independently measured noise PSD, and the H2-1 experiments serve as a validation of that prediction rather than as a source of fitted constants. The citations to prior Quantinuum hardware papers [1,2] provide hardware context and are corroborated by the in-paper XY4 comparison, so they are not load-bearing self-citations that force the result. The main weakness—that the i.i.d. assumption is supported only by single-pulse data on a different machine—is a modeling/validity concern, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained relative to its stated inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model relies on two fitted inputs (scheduling-error μ,σ and the memory-error PSD) plus the standard DD filter-function formalism. There are no newly invented physical entities. The central derived prediction (2 Hz optimum) is a function of these platform-specific fitted parameters, so the ledger transparency is important for interpreting the generality of the claim.

free parameters (3)
  • scheduling error mean μ = 2(1)×10⁻⁴ s
    Fitted to the empirical histogram of pulse-timing offsets in Fig. 2 (Quantinuum H2, 28 qubits). Appears in all analytic and numerical results (Eqs. 22, 33, 36, 50).
  • scheduling error standard deviation σ = 4.8(1)×10⁻³ s
    Fitted to the same empirical histogram as μ. The central scaling 4Nσ² and the 2 Hz optimum in Fig. 5 depend directly on this value.
  • memory-error noise PSD amplitude A (S(2πf)=A/f² for f≳10⁻³ Hz) = not stated numerically (taken from prior H2-1 characterization, Fig. 1b)
    The infidelity numbers and the optimal N depend on the absolute amplitude of the 1/f² noise PSD. The paper imports it from prior Quantinuum work [1,2] rather than fitting it here, but it is still a fitted platform parameter.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption β(t) is a wide-sense stationary Gaussian classical stochastic process
    Sec. II.A.1 and Sec. II.B.2. Used to truncate the cumulant expansion exactly at second order. Non-Gaussian noise would add higher-order corrections; the paper cites [24] for weak-noise protection.
  • domain assumption Scheduling errors ε_j are i.i.d. Gaussian with mean μ and variance σ², and are independent of β(t)
    Sec. III.A. Supported only by a single-pulse histogram (Fig. 2); joint independence and transferability to H2-1 are unverified. This is the weakest load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption π-pulses are perfect and instantaneous; control Hamiltonian is ideal (Eq. 4)
    Sec. II.A.2. Justified by single-qubit gate infidelity ∼10⁻⁵ and pulse duration (∼10 μs) much shorter than pulse spacing (∼50 ms). Reasonable but not exact.
  • domain assumption Transverse magnetic-field noise is negligible; memory error is pure longitudinal dephasing along σ_z
    Sec. II.A.1. Used to restrict the model to a single-axis dephasing interaction; experimentally supported by the null comparison between CPMG and XY4 in Sec. VI.
  • domain assumption For RTDD, the remainder time r is uniformly distributed on [0,Δt] and independent of scheduling error
    Sec. IV, Eq. (34). Holds when the idling-time distribution p(T) is approximately flat on the scale Δt; a known approximation, not exactly true on real hardware.
  • standard math The filter-function/cumulant formalism (Eqs. 7-15) correctly captures the ensemble-averaged dynamics
    Background results from the DD and filter-function literature (Biercuk, Cywiński, Paz-Silva, etc.); standard within quantum control.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22992 in / 21712 out tokens · 195137 ms · 2026-08-02T02:04:44.299711+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We examine the impact of scheduling errors on dynamical decoupling (DD) in trapped-ion quantum charge-coupled devices (QCCDs) and develop better strategies for reducing memory errors. In the QCCD architecture, qubit transport and control introduce stochastic pulse delays that impact the efficiency of DD. Using the filter-function formalism, we analyze the performance of DD in the presence of scheduling-induced timing errors, showing that they increase the sensitivity of standard DD to low-frequency fluctuations. For typical memory errors in trapped-ion platforms, we numerically demonstrate that increasing the DD pulse frequency beyond 2 Hz is generally counterproductive due to scheduling-induced timing errors. Furthermore, we introduce a real-time DD protocol that inserts refocusing pulses opportunistically during idle periods. We demonstrate our methods on Quantinuum H2-1 with Ramsey delay-type experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14441 by Charles H. Baldwin, Leigh M. Norris, Maxwell Urmey, Peter Siegfried, Ross Hutson, William M. Watkins.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Structure-Preserving Quantum Simulation of Wave Equations on a Trapped-Ion Processor

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    On Quantinuum H2-2, Fourier-based structure-preserving circuits resolve subdomain kinetic-energy dynamics for structured 1D/2D acoustic and Dirac wave problems up to 4096 encoded degrees of freedom with MAE ~0.006–0.024.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In our open quantum systems model,β(t) is a classical, temporally correlated, stochastic process

    Memory Error Model The interaction between the ion and low-frequency magnetic field fluctuations alongzproduces the error Hamiltonian HE(t) = 1 2 β(t)σ z,(2) whereβ(t)∝Bb z(t) represents the noise that generates memory error. In our open quantum systems model,β(t) is a classical, temporally correlated, stochastic process. Similar open quantum systems mode...

  2. [2]

    Because the noise re- sponsible for memory error is predominantly single-axis dephasing alongσ z, it is sufficient for us to consider rota- tions alongx

    Control Model In Quantinuum H2-1, stimulated Raman transitions are capable of generating single-qubit rotations about arbitrary axes in thexy-plane. Because the noise re- sponsible for memory error is predominantly single-axis dephasing alongσ z, it is sufficient for us to consider rota- tions alongx. The control Hamiltonian, therefore, takes the form H0(...

  3. [3]

    Dynamical Decoupling Sequences Our analysis considers two paradigmatic DD se- quences, Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) [16, 17] and periodic dynamical decoupling (PDD), also known as spin-echo [18]. A CPMG sequence of durationTcon- sists ofNpulses equally spaced byT /Nwith the first pulse occurring atT /2N, meaning that thejth pulse oc- curs at timet j =...

  4. [4]

    stop-band

    Control Filter Functions The effectiveness of a DD sequence in suppressing noise at frequencyωis determined by the control FF,F(ω, T). The control FF, which is the frequency domain repre- sentation of a time-domain control sequence, depends on the finite-time Fourier transform of the control matrix element, F(ω, T) = Z T 0 dt e−iωtRz z(t) 2 .(7) The decoh...

  5. [5]

    scheduling error cumulants

    Cumulant Expansion Because ˜HE(t) is purely dephasing, the coupling of the qubit to the noise causes decoherence while leaving popu- lations invariant. Ensemble-averaged over realizations of β(t), the qubit density matrix at timeTtakes the form ⟨ρ(T)⟩ mem =⟨ ˜UE(T,0)ρ(0) ˜U † E(T,0)⟩ mem (9) = ρ00(0)⟨e −iϕ(T) ⟩mem ρ01(0) ⟨eiϕ(T) ⟩mem ρ10(0)ρ 11(0) , where...

  6. [6]

    remainder time

    For three different values ofσ,µ= 0 s, and a fixed idle timeT= 1 s, the infidelity of the trapped-ion qubit is plotted for CPMG with 1≤N≤10 and free evolution with N= 0 (no pulses). Whenσ= 0 ms (cyan), the infidelity decreases with increasingNsince no scheduling error accompanies the pulses. Whenσ= 5 ms (purple) and σ= 10 ms (pink), infidelity is minimize...

  7. [7]

    S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. An- cona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn, J. G. Bohnet, N. C. Brown, 18 N. Q. Burdick, W. C. Burton, S. L. Campbell, J. P. Campora, C. Carron, J. Chambers, J. W. Chan, Y. H. Chen, A. Chernoguzov, E. Chertkov, J. Colina, J. P. Curtis, R. Daniel, M. DeCross, D. Deen, C. De...

    2023

  8. [8]

    Ransford, M

    A. Ransford, M. S. Allman, J. Arkinstall, J. P. C. III, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, A. Hall, A. A. Husain, A. Isanaka, C. J. Kennedy, N. Kotibhaskar, I. S. Madjarov, K. Mayer, A. R. Milne, A. J. Park, A. P. Reed, R. Ancona, M. P. Andersen, P. Andres-Martinez, W. Angenent, L. Ar- gueta, B. Arkin, L. Ascarrunz, W. Bake...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of deco- herence in two-state quantum systems, Physical Review A58, 2733–2744 (1998)

    1998

  10. [10]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  11. [11]

    Viola, S

    L. Viola, S. Lloyd, and E. Knill, Universal control of decoupled quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 4888 (1999)

    1999

  12. [12]

    Viola and E

    L. Viola and E. Knill, Robust dynamical decoupling of quantum systems with bounded controls, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 037901 (2003)

    2003

  13. [13]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory, Nature458, 996 (2009)

    2009

  14. [14]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, S.-W. Lee, T. J. Green, and L. Viola, Dy- namical decoupling sequences for multi-qubit dephasing suppression and long-time quantum memory, New Jour- nal of Physics18, 073020 (2016), publisher: IOP Pub- lishing

    2016

  15. [15]

    Nagies, C

    S. Nagies, C. Capecci, M. S. Benkner, J. Akram, S. Rub- bert, D. Bantounas, M. Moeller, M. Johanning, and P. Hauke, Practical noise mitigation for quantum anneal- ing via dynamical decoupling: Toward industry-relevant optimization using trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A113, 012621 (2026)

    2026

  16. [16]

    M. J. Biercuk, A. C. Doherty, and H. Uys, Dynamical decoupling sequence construction as a filter-design prob- lem, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics44, 154002 (2011)

    2011

  17. [17]

    T. J. Green, J. Sastrawan, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk, Ar- bitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of uni- versal noise, New Journal of Physics15, 095004 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    Hangleiter, P

    T. Hangleiter, P. Cerfontaine, and H. Bluhm, Filter- function formalism and software package to compute quantum processes of gate sequences for classical non- markovian noise, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043047 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Cerfontaine, T

    P. Cerfontaine, T. Hangleiter, and H. Bluhm, Filter func- tions for quantum processes under correlated noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 170403 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Soare, H

    A. Soare, H. Ball, D. Hayes, J. Sastrawan, M. C. Jar- ratt, J. J. McLoughlin, X. Zhen, T. J. Green, and M. J. Biercuk, Experimental noise filtering by quantum con- trol, Nature Physics10, 825–829 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    V. Frey, L. M. Norris, L. Viola, and M. J. Biercuk, Simul- taneous spectral estimation of dephasing and amplitude noise on a qubit sensor via optimally band-limited con- trol, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024021 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Effects of diffusion on free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments, Phys. Rev.94, 630 (1954)

    1954

  23. [23]

    Meiboom and D

    S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Modified spin- echo method for measuring nuclear relaxation times, Review of Scientific Instruments29, 688 (1958), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/29/8/688/19287064/688 1 online.pdf

    1958

  24. [24]

    E. L. Hahn, Spin echoes, Phys. Rev.80, 580 (1950)

    1950

  25. [25]

    Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan17, 1100 (1962)

    R. Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan17, 1100 (1962)

    1962

  26. [26]

    Cywi´ nski, R

    L. Cywi´ nski, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma, How to enhance dephasing time in su- perconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B77, 174509 (2008). 19

    2008

  27. [27]

    G. A. Paz-Silva and L. Viola, General transfer-function approach to noise filtering in open-loop quantum control, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 250501 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, L. M. Norris, F. Beaudoin, and L. Viola, Extending comb-based spectral estimation to multiaxis quantum noise, Phys. Rev. A100, 042334 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory, Nature458, 996–1000 (2009)

    2009

  30. [30]

    L. M. Norris, G. A. Paz-Silva, and L. Viola, Qubit noise spectroscopy for non-gaussian dephasing environments, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 150503 (2016)

    2016

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.