Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 109 references

This paper projects that a modular trapped-ion quantum computer can generate remote Bell pairs at 99.9% fidelity and 10^5 s−1 cm−2, making the intermodule link no longer the bottleneck.

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

2026-08-01 15:31 UTC pith:3SH6Q7KP

load-bearing objection A credible, transparent architecture projection for modular trapped-ion links that deserves peer review, but its headline all-to-all rate/fidelity claim hinges on a 408 nm switch that does not exist yet. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18387 v2 pith:3SH6Q7KP submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Remote entanglement need not be the bottleneck for modular trapped-ion quantum computing

Felix W. Knollmann , David P. Nadlinger , John Blue , Sabrina M. Corsetti , Sam J. Bishop , Adam R. Martinez , Jelena Notaros , Colin D. Bruzewicz
show 2 more authors
Robert McConnell Isaac L. Chuang
This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.atom-ph
keywords modular quantum computingtrapped ionsremote entanglementsingle-photon heraldingentanglement distillationintegrated photonicsQCCD architectureBell pairs
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.

This paper argues that the intermodule link in a modular trapped-ion quantum computer—historically two orders of magnitude slower and less faithful than local gates—can be made good enough to disappear as the bottleneck. The route is to herald entanglement with a single photon instead of a two-photon coincidence, which makes the success rate scale linearly with collection efficiency and allows compact integrated optics to replace bulky lenses. The authors combine this with coherent recoil correction, leakage detection, and one round of projective distillation, then assemble the pieces into a pipelined architecture that they project delivers distilled Bell pairs at 858 s−1 per channel, 99.9%+ fidelity, and 10^5 s−1 cm−2 with all-to-all module connectivity. If right, modular trapped-ion systems could reach the rate, density, and fidelity that fault-tolerant architectures require; the remaining limit would be local operations that must improve anyway.

Core claim

The central claim is that single-photon heralding, coherent recoil correction, a single projective-distillation round, and trap-integrated photonics compound to decouple entanglement rate, density, and fidelity in a way no previous trapped-ion interconnect achieves. With 88Sr+ ions and parameters drawn from demonstrated components, the paper projects a raw herald probability of 0.18% per 237 ns attempt, a distilled rate of 858 s−1 per channel after buffer-starvation corrections, and a delivered Bell-pair fidelity of about 99.96%, limited mostly by a 0.024% false-herald contribution. The architecture tiles six 375 µm QCCD zones per channel into a Bell-factory density of about 10^5 s−1 cm−2, a

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is single-photon heralding on a two-step excitation: each ion is weakly driven on a narrow quadrupole transition to a metastable state and then to a short-lived state that decays by emitting a single photon; interfering the two emitted photons and detecting one photon heralds a Bell pair. Because the success probability scales linearly with detection efficiency (rather than quadratically), compact integrated optics suffice, and the architecture can be pipelined through dedicated QCCD zones whose slowest block—Bell generation, CNOT, or detection—sets the rate. Fidelity is restored by a spin-dependent displacement that undoes photon recoil, leakage checks, and one round of lo

Load-bearing premise

The whole rate-and-density projection rests on assembling several individually demonstrated components—225 µs local CNOTs, 100 µs detection windows, 100 µs shuttles, 375 µm zones, and a 408 nm high-extinction optical switch that has not yet reached the required performance—into one parallel pipeline where they operate together without degrading each other, while phase noise between consecutive Bell pairs stays below 0.02 radians.

What would settle it

Build a single-channel Bell factory using the paper's parameters (end-to-end detection efficiency ≈0.5%, excitation probability ≈0.198, 225 µs CNOT, 100 µs detection, 100 µs shuttle, four-ion buffer) and measure the delivered distilled Bell-pair rate and fidelity; if the rate falls well below 858 s−1 at 99.9% fidelity, or if the 408 nm switch cannot reach the assumed extinction and crosstalk levels, the central 10^5 s−1 cm−2 projection fails.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the projection holds, a single Bell-factory channel delivers roughly 858 distilled pairs per second at above 99.9% fidelity, sitting near the local-operation plateau where further collection improvements buy at most 1.8×.
  • The 10^5 s−1 cm−2 density means a few hundred channels fit within cm2-scale module footprints, meeting the per-module Bell-pair counts assumed by surface-code and qLDPC fault-tolerant architectures.
  • Distillation's insensitivity to slow phase drifts removes the need for global interferometric stabilization; only phase stability across consecutive heralds matters.
  • The scheme transfers to other trapped-ion species, and in principle to neutral atoms, though recoil heating makes the latter considerably less practical.
  • The remaining bottleneck shifts to local gates, detection, and shuttling, so improving those raises the performance of the whole system rather than just the link.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next experiment is a two-module prototype with integrated grating couplers and a single channel; confirming a distilled rate near 10^3 s−1 at roughly 99.9% fidelity would validate the linear-scaling premise before building the dense multi-channel array.
  • Because the rate saturates at the local-operation limit, architectures that invest in faster shuttling and readout—rather than in higher collection efficiency—would see nearly proportional gains in delivered Bell pairs.
  • The false-herald contribution is the largest residual infidelity, so detector technology with lower dark counts, such as superconducting nanowire detectors, could push the delivered fidelity closer to 99.99%.
  • The distillation stage converts most imperfections (double excitation, asymmetry, slow phase drift) into rate loss rather than error, suggesting that the link fidelity requirement could be relaxed further if raw-pair rate is plentiful.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Perspective proposes a modular trapped-ion quantum computing interconnect based on single-photon heralded entanglement between 88Sr+ ions in surface-electrode traps with integrated photonics. The scheme combines weak two-step excitation, coherent recoil correction, projective distillation, and leakage detection. The central projection is a distilled Bell-pair rate of 858 s^-1 per channel at fidelity ~99.96%, tiling to a remote Bell-pair rate density of ~10^5 s^-1 cm^-2, which the authors argue is sufficient for fault-tolerant operations and supports parallel all-to-all module connectivity via an active butterfly switch network. The paper emphasizes that single-photon heralding's linear scaling with detection efficiency removes the need for high-NA collection optics and allows dense integrated photonic channels, shifting the bottleneck to local operations.

Significance. If the projection holds, the paper would represent a substantial advance in modular trapped-ion quantum computing, potentially closing the rate/fidelity gap between remote and local entangling operations and providing a concrete architectural path toward fault-tolerant modular processors. The work is valuable for its explicit end-to-end rate model (Eqs. 2-5), a transparent fidelity budget (Table II) with derivations in App. A2, quantitative comparisons with time-bin and two-photon schemes, a novel routing proof for a rearrangeable butterfly network (App. C), and a power-requirement analysis (App. D). The authors are candid about the main open component, the fast high-extinction 408 nm switch, and about the fact that many parameters are drawn from separate state-of-the-art demonstrations rather than an integrated system. The paper makes falsifiable projections and identifies clear technical milestones, which are strengths for a Perspective.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V-B, App. C, Table II] The headline 'parallel all-to-all' claim at 99.9% fidelity depends on an active butterfly switch network with high extinction at 408 nm. With p_e=0.198, the 0.024% false-herald row in Table II requires p_false ≈ 2×10^-4 (since the residual infidelity is ≈6 p_e p_false ≈ 1.19 p_false). In the butterfly network, each crossing of a live line contributes leakage equal to the switch extinction ratio. The best demonstrated fast switch achieves 30 dB, but at 737 nm [46]; the closest 408-nm device has only >10 dB [71]. At 30 dB, p_false ≈ 10^-3 per crossing, already giving ~0.12% infidelity — above the 99.9% target; at 10 dB the infidelity is ~1-10%. The paper's own Sec. VI.C concedes that this switch 'exceeds demonstrated performances.' Therefore the specific numerical claim of simultaneous all-to-all entanglement at 99.9% fidelity is not supported by current components. Please either provide a
  2. [Sec. V-B, Table III] The 10^5 s^-1 cm^-2 rate density rests on the simultaneous realization of a full local-operation stack: 225 µs CNOT, 100 µs detection, 100 µs shuttling, a four-ion buffer, 375-µm zones, and an integrated collection/detection efficiency of 0.5% taken from the authors' own integrated-optics work. These have not been demonstrated together. The working point already sits at the edge of the local-operation plateau (the Bell-pair block is 359 µs vs the 325 µs CNOT block); any degradation in t_CNOT, t_detect, t_shuttle, or buffer capacity directly reduces the per-channel rate and hence the density. The claim that remote entanglement 'need not be the bottleneck' would be strengthened by a sensitivity analysis showing how the headline density depends on each Table III parameter and by discussing which combinations are plausibly co-realizable.
  3. [Sec. V-B, Fig. 2] The statement that the scheme is 'local-operation-limited' and 'robust' to collection efficiency is only true under the assumed balance of the pipelined blocks. The paper's own parameters give a Bell-pair generation block (359 µs) slower than the CNOT block (325 µs); achieving the plateau requires the Bell block to be no slower than local operations. If t_CNOT or t_detect increases by even a modest factor, the rate becomes sensitive to collection efficiency again, undermining the 'need not be the bottleneck' narrative. A robustness plot with t_CNOT/t_detect variations would clarify this.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The preprint has several OCR/formatting errors, including 'distance<8m' (should be 'distance < 8 m'), 'M 2 log2 M' formatting in Table V, the axis label '±Á = ¼' in Fig. 10, and garbled sub/superscripts throughout. These should be corrected in the final version.
  2. [Fig. 2] The legend 'pd = 0:5% / pd /p2 d' is difficult to read; please relabel the curves clearly (e.g., 'SE, raw', 'SE, distilled', 'SE, distilled, finite local ops').
  3. [App. A2c / Sec. V-B] The 'Monte-Carlo-modeled 13.3% buffer-starvation skip fraction' is quoted as a number but the underlying simulation is not described. A brief definition of the model and its assumptions would aid reproducibility.
  4. [App. B] The notation 're E[e^{iδφ}|δt]' should be 'Re E[...]', and the definition of S_φ(f) as a 'white-frequency-noise' Wiener process is slightly confusing; please clarify the noise-model terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No construction-level circularity: the rate/fidelity numbers are a parameterized engineering projection, not a derivation from its own outputs; the main caveats are the acknowledged undemonstrated 408 nm switch and load-bearing self-cited photonics inputs, which are feasibility risks rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The central claim is a projection built from independent component parameters (Table III), not a definitional tautology. Per-channel rate 858 s^-1 follows from p_herald = 0.18%, p_distill = 0.32, and the pipelined cycle time in Eq. (4); the 10^5 s^-1 cm^-2 density is that rate divided by the 0.84 mm^2 per-channel area. Fidelity Table II is a sum of separately estimated error terms: phase 0.007% from an assumed link phase noise sigma_delta_phi < 0.02 rad, motional 0.002% from a recoil-correction calculation, polarization 0.006% from an assumed epsilon_2 <= 0.05%, and false herald 0.024% from two detectors with R_dc = 7 s^-1 (p_false ~ 2e-4, infidelity ~ 6 p_e p_false). No term is inverted from the 0.1% target, so the 99.96% result is not a fitted-input-called-prediction. The most serious caveat is explicit in Sec. VI C: the parallel all-to-all version requires 'the high-extinction ratio, fast switch at 408 nm', whose closest demonstrated device has '>10 dB extinction ratio at 420 nm'; the fidelity budget for the active network assumes 'high-extinction switches' rather than deriving the required extinction from measured devices. That is a genuine feasibility/validity gap for the headline parallel-connectivity claim, but it is a missing-component assumption, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the switch extinction in terms of the target fidelity, and it flags the limitation. Self-citations [30,43,31] provide the -19 dB collection budget and recoil-correction analysis; these are load-bearing inputs, but they are prior technical results with stated assumptions, not definitions of the current output, so they do not make the derivation circular. Overall, no step of the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its inputs; score 2 reflects the reliance on self-cited designs and the acknowledged switch gap, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

13 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper does not invent new physics or entities, but its central projection rests on approximately 13 free/adopted parameters (Table III), several of which come from the authors' own device work. The most influential axioms are that the NA=0.4 first-order recoil correction suffices to <10^-4, that the local operations are error-free in the fidelity budget, and that the 408 nm switch network can be built to the assumed crosstalk/extinction specs. The result is a model-based projection, not a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (13)
  • pe (SE excitation probability) = 0.198
    Optimized within the paper's own rate model at pd=0.5%, Nbuf=4. The headline rate depends on this optimum.
  • pd (end-to-end photon detection probability) = 0.005
    Derived from Table IV losses including the authors' own grating-coupler collection estimate of -19 dB [30,43]. Not experimentally demonstrated end-to-end in a full system.
  • σδϕ (link phase uncertainty) = 0.02 rad
    Chosen from the upper end of literature phase-noise values for 10 m patch cords (App. B); directly sets the dominant phase infidelity term.
  • tπ (narrow-line pi time) = 75 ns
    Chosen to trade rate vs. optical power; affects tcycle and the rate plateau.
  • ε2 (sigma-/pi intensity ratio) = 0.05%
    Chosen as 'less than that already achieved at 674 nm using an integrated grating emitter' [36]; sets the polarization infidelity.
  • ν (trap frequency) = 2π×2 MHz
    Assumed in Fig. 4; sets the recoil correction residual error.
  • Nbuf (buffer capacity) = 4
    Assumed finite buffer; affects the 13.3% starvation skip fraction and net rate.
  • tdetect (fluorescence detection time) = 100 µs
    Taken from [57]; enters the pipeline maximum in Eq. 4.
  • tCNOT (local CNOT duration) = 225 µs
    Taken from [18]; enters Eq. 4 and limits the rate.
  • tshuttle (per-handoff shuttle time) = 100 µs
    Taken from [49]; enters Eq. 4.
  • dzone (QCCD zone side length) = 375 µm
    Taken from [49]; sets the area and rate density.
  • Rdc (dark-count rate) = 7 s^-1
    Sets the false-herald infidelity of 0.024%, the dominant final error term.
  • nbar (thermal motional occupation) = 10
    Assumed Doppler-cooled state after herald; sets recoil-correction residual.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Single-photon Cabrillo-Cirac scheme produces the density matrix (1) with a spin-dependent kick structure.
    Background scheme [29] is assumed; the paper extends it to a two-step excitation.
  • domain assumption The post-herald spin-dependent displacement exactly reverses the photon-recoil displacement for impulsive plane-wave emission, and approximately for NA=0.4.
    Resting on [31]; the paper acknowledges the NA=0.4 first-order correction is approximate.
  • standard math The Bennett/Campbell-Benjamin distillation circuit projects a raw pair into |Ψ+> with probability (1/2)(1-chi^2)(1-pe)^2.
    Established circuit result [26,32,42]; used in Eq. 5.
  • domain assumption Phase noise on 10 m fiber patch cords has the reported laboratory spectral density and is Gaussian/Wiener.
    Used to convert σδϕ to infidelity; no measurement in this paper.
  • domain assumption The entanglement attempts and heralds are not commensurate with motional mode frequencies, so recoil heating is incoherent and bounded by ~1 quantum.
    App. A2a; if coherent buildup occurs, the motional error could exceed Fig. 4.
  • domain assumption All local operations (CNOT, shuttle, readout, buffer swap) are error-free in the fidelity budget; the remaining error sources are only those listed in Table II.
    Sec. IV explicitly brackets 'general issues such as qubit dephasing and two-qubit gate or readout imperfections' as outside the analysis. For the projected 99.9%, the underlying QPU must already have <0.1% local errors.
  • domain assumption Polarization impurity ε2 on the second excitation is the dominant 'return to |0>' pathway; pulse shaping and ~20 G field suppress off-resonant excitation.
    App. A2b; used to compute the 0.006% polarization infidelity.
  • domain assumption The photonic switch network (or passive multiport) achieves the assumed crosstalk/dark-count properties; for the active network, the required fast high-extinction 408 nm switch exceeds demonstrated performance.
    App. C: 'the only component whose architecture requirements exceed demonstrated performances is the high-extinction ratio, fast switch at 408 nm.'
invented entities (1)
  • None no independent evidence
    purpose: No new physical entities are introduced.
    The scheme uses established ions (88Sr+), photons, and known error-correction tools.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Remote entanglement need not be the bottleneck for modular trapped-ion quantum computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3SH6Q7KP

@misc{pith2026260718387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Remote entanglement need not be the bottleneck for modular trapped-ion quantum computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3SH6Q7KP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18387}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Modularity underpins classical computing; as quantum processors encounter limits on fabrication yield, reliability, and size, they will also need it acutely. The bottleneck to linking modules is producing shared entanglement at sufficient rate, density, and fidelity. Trapped ions hold the best demonstrated photonic links, yet they rely on bulky collection optics that cap how densely links can be packed, and remote entanglement operations trail local gates by two orders of magnitude in rate and fidelity. We synthesize several enabling results $\unicode{x2014}$ single-photon heralding, coherent recoil correction, projective distillation, and trap-integrated photonics $\unicode{x2014}$ into one comprehensive architecture that substantially narrows this gap. Single-photon heralding leads to linear scaling of success probability with detection efficiency, allowing compact integrated photonics to saturate the entanglement rate at a local-operation limit in dense, easy-to-parallelize channels. Addressing its inherent error mechanisms at their source, we project a Bell-pair fidelity of 99.9% at rates and densities compatible with fault-tolerant operations. Remote entanglement then need not remain the bottleneck for modular trapped-ion computing; the limit shifts to the local operations that must improve regardless.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18387 by Adam R. Martinez, Colin D. Bruzewicz, David P. Nadlinger, Felix W. Knollmann, Isaac L. Chuang, Jelena Notaros, John Blue, Robert McConnell, Sabrina M. Corsetti, Sam J. Bishop.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Energy level diagrams of commonly used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Heralded entanglement rate as a function of the pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The Bell-state error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Pipeline for entanglement generation separated into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Remote entanglement generation architecture. Each quantum processing unit (QPU) is a module consisting of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Pulse timing of the 237 ns entanglement generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Control flow of the nested entanglement protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. This entanglement and correction pulse sequence is applied simultaneously to ions in two different modules to herald [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Distillation circuit. For two input Bell pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. A comparison of the active and passive photonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Single-excitation distilled Bell-pair rate vs. per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗

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 · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cooling in buffer Classical control lines Bell measurement Photon routing Heralding and feedforward Photonic switch Trapped ion Diffraction grating Single-mode waveguide Surface-electrode ion trap

  2. [2]

    Bell pair buffer Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 4 Channel 3

  3. [3]

    Webster, L

    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 100000 physical qubits using quantum LDPC codes (2026), arXiv:2602.11457 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  4. [4]

    Figure 7 shows a graphical representation of the loop timing

    Inner entanglement generation loop Eachentanglementattemptconsistsofafixedsequence of state preparation, excitation of|0 g⟩with probability pe, and decision branching. Figure 7 shows a graphical representation of the loop timing. a. State preparation At the start – when an ion first enters the entangle- ment loop, or after a previous unsuccessful iteratio...

  5. [5]

    Decision/ transport FIG. 5. Remote entanglement generation architecture. Each quantum processing unit (QPU) is a module consisting of a microfabricated surface-electrode trap with integrated optics. The Bell factory produces and distills remote Bell pairs for intermodule operations. The photonic links consist of single-mode waveguides and fibers. A switch...

  6. [6]

    2 = I¾ ¡ =I¼ 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 Distilled-pair infidelity 1 ¡ F F = 99.9% F = 99.99% 1 ¡F /

    Outer correction loop In the correction loop, we apply error mitigation tech- niques outside the latency-critical entanglement attempt path, merge the two raw Bell pairs to suppress errors through distillation, and deliver successfully entangled qubits to the rest of the processor while re-using the rest of the ions for subsequent rounds. To optimize thro...

    2048

  7. [7]

    Ransfordet al., Nature655, 81 (2026)

    A. Ransfordet al., Nature655, 81 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with lessthanamillionnoisyqubits(2025),arXiv:2505.15917 [quant-ph]

    C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with lessthanamillionnoisyqubits(2025),arXiv:2505.15917 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Tripier, W

    F. Tripier, W. C. Chung, J. Young, S. Alam, B. Bjork, A. Brodutch, F. L. Buessen, N. J. Coble, T. Del- laert, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, E. Tham, M. Webster, M. Ye, J. Gamble, A. Maksymov, J. P. Marceaux, and N. Delfosse, Fault-tolerant quantum computing with trapped ions: The walking cat architecture (2026), arXiv:2604.19481 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    H. Zhou, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, D. Bluvstein, M. Cain, A. Kubica, S.-T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, inProceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium on Com- puter Architecture (ISCA ’25)(ACM, Tokyo, Japan, 2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Schwab, and C

    D.Stick, W.K.Hensinger, S.Olmschenk, M.J.Madsen, K. Schwab, and C. Monroe, Nat. Phys.2, 36 (2006)

    2006

  13. [13]

    K. R. Brown, J. Chiaverini, J. M. Sage, and H. Häffner, Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 892 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Malinowski, D

    M. Malinowski, D. T. C. Allcock, and C. J. Ballance, PRX Quantum4, 040313 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Lekitsch, S

    B. Lekitsch, S. Weidt, A. G. Fowler, K. Mølmer, S. J. Devitt, C. Wunderlich, and W. K. Hensinger, Science Advances3, e1601540 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Bermudez, X

    A. Bermudez, X. Xu, R. Nigmatullin, J. O’Gorman, V. Negnevitsky, P. Schindler, T. Monz, U. G. Poschinger, C. Hempel, J. Home, F. Schmidt-Kaler, M.Biercuk, R.Blatt, S.Benjamin,andM.Müller,Phys. Rev. X7, 041061 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    E. Tham, M. Ye, I. Khait, J. Gamble, and N. Delfosse, Distributedfault-tolerantquantummemoriesovera2×l array of qubit modules (2025), arXiv:2508.01879 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    D.L.Moehring, P.Maunz, S.Olmschenk, K.C.Younge, D. N. Matsukevich, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Nature 449, 68 (2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    Hucul, I

    D. Hucul, I. V. Inlek, G. Vittorini, C. Crocker, S. Deb- nath, S. M. Clark, and C. Monroe, Nat. Phys.11, 37 (2015)

    2015

  20. [20]

    S. Saha, M. Shalaev, J. O’Reilly, I. Goetting, G. Toh, A. Kalakuntla, Y. Yu, and C. Monroe, Nature Commu- nications16, 2533 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas, Nature638, 383 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    O’Reilly, G

    J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, I. Goetting, S. Saha, M. Sha- laev, A. L. Carter, A. Risinger, A. Kalakuntla, T. Li, A. Verma, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 090802 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. Löschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland, Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with>99.99%fidelity without ground-state cool- ing (2025), arXiv:2510.17286 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A71, 060310(R) (2005)

    2005

  25. [25]

    Simon and W

    C. Simon and W. T. M. Irvine, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 110405 (2003)

    2003

  26. [26]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. A. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Teller, J. Schupp, J. Bate, M. Meraner, N. San- gouard, B. P. Lanyon, and T. E. Northup, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 050803 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Novakoski and J

    E. Novakoski and J. Kim, Design tradeoffs in photon- ically linked qubit networks (2025), arXiv:2506.06268 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Sutcliffe, B

    E. Sutcliffe, B. Jonnadula, C. Le Gall, A. E. Moylett, and C. M. Westoby, in2025 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    A. L. Carter, J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, S. Saha, M. Sha- laev, I. Goetting, and C. Monroe, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 95, 033201 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Kikura, K

    S. Kikura, K. Tanji, A. Goban, and S. Sunami, Passive quantum interconnects: multiplexed remote entangle- ment generation with cavity-assisted photon scattering (2026), arXiv:2507.01229 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  32. [32]

    Reichle, D

    R. Reichle, D. Leibfried, E. Knill, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Nature443, 838 (2006)

    2006

  33. [33]

    Nigmatullin, C

    R. Nigmatullin, C. J. Ballance, N. de Beaudrap, and S. C. Benjamin, New J. Phys.18, 103028 (2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    Cabrillo, J

    C. Cabrillo, J. I. Cirac, P. García-Fernández, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A59, 1025 (1999)

    1999

  35. [35]

    F. W. Knollmann, E. Clements, P. T. Callahan, M. Gehl, J. D. Hunker, T. Mahony, R. McConnell, R. Swint, C. Sorace-Agaskar, I. L. Chuang, J. Chi- averini, and D. Stick, Optica Quantum2, 230 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Apolín and D

    J. Apolín and D. P. Nadlinger, PRX Quantum7, 010326 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    E. T. Campbell and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130502 (2008)

    2008

  38. [38]

    Swaroop, T

    E. Swaroop, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and T. J. Yoder, PRX Quantum7, 010324 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    Kielpinski, C

    D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Nature 417, 709 (2002)

    2002

  40. [40]

    Chiaverini, R

    J. Chiaverini, R. B. Blakestad, J. Britton, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, D. Leibfried, R. Ozeri, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum Inf. Comput.5, 419 (2005)

    2005

  41. [41]

    K. K. Mehta and R. J. Ram, Scientific Reports7, 2019 (2017)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Monroe, R

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A89, 022317 (2014)

    2014

  43. [43]

    Duan and C

    L.-M. Duan and C. Monroe, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1209 (2010)

    2010

  44. [44]

    Monroe and J

    C. Monroe and J. Kim, Science339, 1164 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    Liu, Y.-B

    W.-Z. Liu, Y.-B. Zhou, J.-P. Chen, B. Wang, A. Teng, 19 X.-W. Han, G.-C. Liu, Z.-J. Zhang, Y. Yang, F.-G. Liu, C.-H. Xue, B.-W. Yang, J. Yang, C. Zeng, D.-R. Pan, M.-Y. Zheng, X. Zhang, S. Cao, Y.-Z. Zhen, Y. Xiao, H.Li, L.You, X.Ma, Q.Zhao, F.Xu, Y.Wang, Y.Wan, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Nature652, 51 (2026)

    2026

  46. [46]

    Slodička, G

    L. Slodička, G. Hétet, N. Röck, P. Schindler, M. Hen- nrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 083603 (2013)

    2013

  47. [47]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. W. Bak- ermans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Ben- jamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Science356, 928 (2017)

    2017

  48. [48]

    F. W. Knollmann, S. M. Corsetti, E. R. Clements, R. Swint, A. D. Leu, M. E. Kim, P. T. Callahan, D. Kharas, T. Mahony, C. Sorace-Agaskar, R. Mc- Connell, C. D. Bruzewicz, I. L. Chuang, J. Notaros, and J. Chiaverini, Light: Science & Applications15, 95 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, and G. Araneda, Multipartite entanglement for multi-node quantum net- works (2024), arXiv:2408.00149 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    D.Assumpcao, D.Renaud, A.Baradari, B.Zeng, C.De- Eknamkul, C. J. Xin, A. Shams-Ansari, D. Barton, B. Machielse, and M. Lončar, Nature Communications 15, 10459 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    M. Dong, G. Clark, A. J. Leenheer, M. Zimmermann, D. Dominguez, A. J. Menssen, D. Heim, G. Gilbert, D. Englund, and M. Eichenfield, Nature Photonics16, 59 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

    Momenzadeh, K

    M. Momenzadeh, K. Sun, Q. Wu, B. You, Y.-L. Tang, H. Häffner, and M. R. Shcherbakov, Scalable trapped ion addressing with adjoint-optimized multimode pho- tonic circuits (2025), arXiv:2505.08997 [physics.optics]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    L. J. Stephenson, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, S. An, P. Drmota, T. G. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, J. F. Good- win, D. M. Lucas, and C. J. Ballance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110501 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    R. D. Delaney, L. R. Sletten, M. J. Cich, B. Estey, M. I. Fabrikant, D. Hayes, I. M. Hoffman, J. Hostetter, C. Langer, S. A. Moses, A. R. Perry, T. A. Peterson, A. Schaffer, C. Volin, G. Vittorini, and W. C. Burton, Phys. Rev. X14, 041028 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    Liu, C.-H

    G.-C. Liu, C.-H. Xue, F.-X. Chen, M.-Y. Zheng, Y. Yang, L.-B. Li, B. Wang, B.-W. Yang, H.-F. Jiang, Y. Wan, Y. Wang, J.-P. Chen, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Bayesian phase stabilization at the shot-noise limit for scalable quantum networks (2026), arXiv:2604.21388 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Minář, H

    J. Minář, H. de Riedmatten, C. Simon, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A77, 052325 (2008)

    2008

  57. [57]

    Grosche, O

    G. Grosche, O. Terra, K. Predehl, R. Holzwarth, B. Lip- phardt, F. Vogt, U. Sterr, and H. Schnatz, Opt. Lett. 34, 2270 (2009)

    2009

  58. [58]

    Crocker, M

    C. Crocker, M. Lichtman, K. Sosnova, A. Carter, S. Scarano, and C. Monroe, Optics Express27, 28143 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    E. E. Wollman, V. B. Verma, A. D. Beyer, R. M. Briggs, B. Korzh, J. P. Allmaras, F. Marsili, A. E. Lita, R. P. Mirin, S. W. Nam, and M. D. Shaw, Optics Express25, 26792 (2017)

    2017

  60. [60]

    E. H. Pinnington, R. W. Berends, and M. Lumsden, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.28, 2095 (1995)

    2095

  61. [61]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Gutierrez, G. H. Low, R. Rines, J. Stuart, T. Wu, and I. Chuang, New J. Phys.18, 123021 (2016)

    2016

  62. [62]

    J. P. Gaebler, C. H. Baldwin, S. A. Moses, J. M. Dreil- ing, C. Figgatt, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, and J. M. Pino, Phys. Rev. A104, 062440 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  64. [64]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Levo- nian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. Englund, M. Lončar, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 580, 60 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    H. Lim, J. E. Fröch, C. M. Pluchar, A. Majumdar, and S. L. Mouradian, ACS Photonics13, 2052 (2026)

    2052

  66. [66]

    I. V. Inlek, C. Crocker, M. Lichtman, K. Sosnova, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 250502 (2017)

    2017

  67. [67]

    C. N. Gilbreth, D. Filin, M. S. Safronova, G. Lao, and E.R.Hudson,Yttriumionasaplatformforquantumin- formation processing (2026), arXiv:2604.16274 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Petrosyan, F

    D. Petrosyan, F. Motzoi, M. Saffman, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A96, 042306 (2017)

    2017

  69. [69]

    Pagano, S

    A. Pagano, S. Weber, D. Jaschke, T. Pfau, F. Meinert, S. Montangero, and H. P. Büchler, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 033019 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    Hölzl, A

    C. Hölzl, A. Götzelmann, E. Pultinevicius, M. Wirth, and F. Meinert, Phys. Rev. X14, 021024 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. D. Thompson, PRX Quantum5, 020363 (2024)

    2024

  72. [72]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021314 (2019)

    2019

  73. [73]

    Moodyet al., J

    G. Moodyet al., J. Phys. Photonics4, 012501 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    S. A. Tabatabaei Mashayekh,Visible wavelength pho- tonic integrated circuits for life science applications, Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2023)

    2023

  75. [75]

    C. W. Hogle, D. Dominguez, M. Dong, A. Leenheer, H. J. McGuinness, B. P. Ruzic, M. Eichenfield, and D. Stick, npj Quantum Information9, 74 (2023)

    2023

  76. [76]

    Z. A. Castillo, R. Shugayev, D. Dominguez, M. Gehl, N. Karl, A. Leenheer, B. Little, Y.-Y. Jau, and M. Eichenfield, Optica Quantum4, 114 (2026)

    2026

  77. [77]

    J. Kwon, W. J. Setzer, M. Gehl, N. Karl, J. Van Der Wall, R. Law, M. G. Blain, D. Stick, and H. J. McGuinness, Nature Communications15, 3709 (2024)

    2024

  78. [78]

    C. Lin, M. Kiewiet, R. R. Petit, J. Dendooven, N. Le Thomas, C. Detavernier, and B. Kuyken, Journal of Lightwave Technology43, 7265 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    Y. Du, X. Ji, W. Xie, Y. He, Y. Zhang, M. Tian, and Y. Su, Advanced Materials Technologies9, 2400196 (2024)

    2024

  80. [80]

    Munoz, P

    R. Munoz, P. Nuschke, T. Meiners, B. Kaune, and C. Ospelkaus, A framework for the benchmark- ing of transport-induced excitations in shuttling-based ion-trap quantum processors (2026), arXiv:2605.25118 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.