Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Motional Kerr-Cat States of an Atom in an Optical Tweezer

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The intrinsic self-Kerr nonlinearity of an optical tweezer is sufficient to generate and control Schrödinger cat states in the motion of a single trapped atom.

desk verdict A genuine first demonstration of motional Kerr-cat states in a single tweezered atom, with a defensible robustness claim—but the headline fidelities are computed against a best-fit cat, not a pre-specified target, so the quantitative claims overstate what was actually prepared. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18579 v1 pith:ATFZKI6M submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Steven K. Pampel , Gur Lubin , Dawson P. Hewatt , Conall McCabe , Jaeyong Hwang , Sean R. Muleady , Tianrui Xu , Ana Maria Rey
show 1 more author
Cindy A. Regal
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords SchrödingercatstatesopticaltweezersKerrnonlinearitymotionalcontinuous-variablequantuminformationtime-of-flighttomographyFockcontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that the intrinsic self-Kerr nonlinearity of a tightly focused optical tweezer—the slight anharmonicity that makes a trapped atom's motional energy levels unevenly spaced—can serve as the sole nonlinear resource for creating Schrödinger cat states in the atom's motion. By modulating the trap depth (a quadratic drive) and position (a linear drive), and by painting the potential to tune the anharmonicity, the authors prepare even- and odd-parity cat states |C±α⟩ and characterize them with time-of-flight tomography, finding fidelities up to 94.4% (even) and 74.8% (odd) for cat size |α|=1.8. The key claim beyond state preparation is that the cat encoding is intrinsically protected against trap-frequency fluctuations: the parity-rotation resonance is set by the quadratic drive rather than the trap frequency, so frequency noise that seriously degrades direct Fock-state transitions barely perturbs the cat states. This matters because it turns ordinary tweezers into a platform for bosonic quantum information and non-Gaussian state engineering, with an obvious route to grid states and quantum-enhanced sensing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective Kerr-cat Hamiltonian (Eq. 5): H/ℏ = −δ a†a + K a†²a² + (ω ε_q/8)(a†² + a²) + (ω ε_l/4)(a† + a). Here K is the self-Kerr nonlinearity of the Gaussian trap, ε_q and ε_l are the dimensionless amplitudes of the quadratic (trap-depth) and linear (trap-position) drives, and δ is the detuning. The Kerr term makes adjacent energy spacings differ, enabling selective addressing; the quadratic drive at ~2ω creates the double-well quasienergy landscape whose two minima are ±α; the linear drive at ~ω rotates between even and odd cat states. A second key mechanism is potential painting: sinusoidally modulating the trap position at frequency ω_p ≫ ω time-averages the Gau

What would settle it

Measure |α| for effective drive amplitudes ε̃_q from 0.1 to 0.6 at fixed η and compare with Eq. 6 plus the anti-squeezing correction (Eq. 13); if |α| at ε̃_q = 0.5 falls more than ~20% below the prediction (as the Fig. 3e trend suggests), the quartic Kerr model is insufficient and the states are not ideal Kerr-cat eigenstates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the quantized motion of a single atom in an optical tweezer can be coherently controlled by the trap's own self-Kerr nonlinearity K, without any auxiliary spin or external nonlinear element. The effective Hamiltonian in a frame rotating at half the quadratic-drive frequency is H/ℏ = −δ a†a + K a†²a² + (ω ε_q/8)(a†² + a²) + (ω ε_l/4)(a† + a). Adiabatically ramping the quadratic drive ε_q from a Fock state |0⟩ or |1⟩ maps it onto the even or odd cat state |C±α⟩ ∝ |α⟩ ± |−α⟩, with |α| = sqrt((ω ε_q/8 − δ/2)/|K|). Painting the trap (modulating its position at a frequency much faster than the trap frequency) tunes K continuously, giving access to cat sizes from |α| = 0.9 to

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the painted tweezer potential is accurately described by the quartic Kerr Hamiltonian of Eq. 5 (with the anti-squeezing term treated perturbatively), and this approximation is strained at the strong drives used for large cats—measured cat sizes already fall below the first-order prediction for ε̃_q ≳ 0.25.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adiabatic ramping of the quadratic drive followed by a linear drive provides a spin-free, species-free protocol for preparing and controlling motional superposition states in any optical tweezer, including molecules and levitated nanoparticles.
  • Because the cat-state parity-rotation resonance is tied to the quadratic drive frequency rather than the trap frequency, motional cats are largely immune to the shot-to-shot trap-frequency noise that limits direct Fock-state preparation; the paper quantifies this by showing that the fidelity of |1⟩ drops sharply under a 1–2% trap-frequency shift while |C−_1.2⟩ barely moves.
  • The measured scaling |α| ∝ sqrt(ε̃_q/η) means that painting the potential to reduce the Kerr nonlinearity is a practical knob for reaching larger cat sizes at a fixed trap frequency, which is useful for metrology since the quantum Fisher information scales as |α|².
  • Mapping an odd cat state back onto a Fock state yields |1⟩ with 95.4% fidelity, showing that cat-based preparation can outperform direct resonant excitation for high-fidelity motional-state engineering.
  • The same Hamiltonian structure underlies superconducting Kerr-cat qubits, so the tweezer implementation provides a new physical platform for continuous-variable quantum error correction and grid-state encodings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Kerr model holds at larger drives, the same two-tone control could synthesize superpositions of more than two coherent states by driving at higher harmonics of the trap frequency, yielding non-Gaussian states beyond cats without additional hardware.
  • The observed deviation of |α| from Eq. 6 at ε̃_q ≳ 0.25 could be harnessed as a calibrated probe of higher-order terms in the painted potential (e.g., the sextic coefficient K6); a systematic scan of |α| versus drive would map the breakdown of the pure Kerr description and could guide a corrected control Hamiltonian.
  • Since the painting technique lifts the radial-mode degeneracy, the same scheme could be used to create cat states in a preferred spatial direction, and the demonstrated noise resistance suggests motional cat states would be natural memory elements in large reconfigurable arrays where site-to-site trap frequencies vary.
  • If the fidelity of odd cats is limited by displacement noise in the linear drive, as the paper suggests, then an echo or refocusing sequence on the linear drive—or replacing it with a two-tone Raman-type coupling—could recover most of the lost fidelity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the generation of Schrödinger-cat states in the quantized motional degree of freedom of a single 87Rb atom in an optical tweezer, using the intrinsic self-Kerr nonlinearity of the Gaussian trapping potential. The authors show that painting the tweezer potential tunes the Kerr nonlinearity, implement adiabatic quadratic-drive preparation of even-parity cats and linear-drive parity rotations to odd-parity cats, prepare Fock states and Fock-state superpositions with the same drives, and demonstrate that cat-state parity rotations are less sensitive to trap-frequency noise than direct Fock-state transitions. Tomographic reconstruction via time-of-flight imaging yields Wigner functions with interference fringes; headline numbers are F+1.8 = 94.4%, F−1.8 = 74.8%, and a parity-inversion fidelity of 79.2%.

Significance. If substantiated, this would be a significant advance: it establishes an intrinsic and tunable self-Kerr nonlinearity in an atom-tweezer platform as a resource for bosonic state engineering, with independent calibration of ω, K, and η from spectroscopy rather than from the cat-state data. The reconstructed Wigner functions and the interference fringes in the quadrature distributions (Fig. 3b,d) provide credible, model-independent evidence of non-Gaussian cat-like states. The manuscript is also refreshingly transparent: Fig. 3e honestly shows the breakdown of the first-order Kerr model for strong drives, and the Methods include explicit simulations of tomography resolution limits. However, the quantitative fidelity claims are weakened by a circularity in the target definition, and the effective-Hamiltonian approximation is strained precisely in the regime used for the largest cats. The central physical demonstration is defensible, but the headline numbers need to be re-derived against fixed, pre-specified targets before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods: Tomography analysis; Table 2] The headline fidelities F+1.8=94.4% and F−1.8=74.8% (Table 2) are computed against an ideal cat state whose amplitude |α| is determined from the reconstructed state itself: 'ρt is taken to be an ideal cat state with coherent-state amplitude |α| determined via ⟨a^2⟩=tr(a^2 ρrec)=|α|^2' (Methods, Tomography analysis; Eq. 20). This is a best-fit target, not a pre-specified state. A state with the correct second moment and parity can score well even if it is not a Kerr-cat eigenstate. The subspace-confinement numbers use the same fitted α. Since Fig. 3e shows that the first-order model (Eq. 6) overpredicts |α| for ε̃q ≳ 0.25, the model cannot fix α a priori in the strong-drive regime where the largest cats are produced; the fitted α absorbs both model error and calibration uncertainty. I request a reanalysis with a fixed target amplitude (e.g., from Eq. 6 using measured K, ω, ε_q, δ) or, at
  2. [Methods: Kerr-Cat Hamiltonian; Fig. 3e] The effective Hamiltonian Eq. 5 is obtained by truncating the painted potential at quartic order (Eq. 9), applying the RWA, and treating the anti-squeezing term Eq. 12 perturbatively (Eq. 13). For the strongest drives used here (ε_q up to 50%), the anti-squeezing correction alone changes |α| by 7–20%, and Fig. 3e shows that measured |α| falls below the first-order model for ε̃q ≳ 0.25, attributed to higher-order nonlinearities. Consequently, in exactly the regime where the largest cats (|α|≳2) are made, the prepared states are not demonstrated to be ideal Kerr-cat eigenstates |C±α⟩ of Eq. 5. The fidelity and robustness claims built on that identification are therefore not quantitatively reliable across the full reported range. Please provide a numerical simulation of the full painted potential (including K6 and non-RWA terms) or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims to the paramete
  3. [Kerr-based control of atomic motion; Methods: Tomography analysis] The 'parity-inversion fidelity' F^C_X = F−1.8/F+1.8 = 79.2% is a ratio of two state fidelities, each evaluated against a different post-hoc fitted cat target; it is not a process fidelity of the X-rotation. Similarly, the target states for the Fock-state superpositions in Fig. 4b,d are defined by extracting populations and relative phase from ρrec (Methods, Tomography analysis), so the same post-hoc fitting issue applies. For these states, please report at least one fixed-target figure of merit, such as overlap with a fixed (|0⟩+e^{iφ}|n⟩)/√2 for a chosen φ, or a model-free metric like fringe visibility and Wigner negativity. This would make the quantitative claims independently testable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] In the |2⟩ row, the pulse time is written as '𝜏=△2ms'; the '△' appears to be a typographical artifact and should read '2 ms'.
  2. [Tuning Anharmonicity in Tweezers] The sentence 'we paint along the y-dimension when preparing motional states in potentials that are unpainted along x' is confusing in light of Fig. 2c, where painting along x is used to tune η. Please clarify how painting along y relates to the x-axis anharmonicity tuning and whether both axes are painted simultaneously in the cat-state runs.
  3. [Fig. 3e] The color gradient representing the theoretical prediction (Eq. 6) is said to span 'the approximate range of effective drives ε̃q explored in this work,' but no color scale or numerical ε̃q values are shown. Please add a color bar or annotate the drive amplitudes for each data point.
  4. [Methods: Statistical errors through bootstrapping] The 'confinement to the subspace' trace, tr(ρ_sub_rec), reported in Table 2 is not defined in the main text or Methods. Please define which subspace is meant (e.g., span{|C+α⟩,|C−α⟩}) and how it is computed from the reconstructed density matrix.
  5. [Data and Code Availability] The statement 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is weaker than the reproducibility standard of most journals. Please consider depositing the tomography reconstruction code and the raw quadrature data sets in a public repository.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline fidelities use a best-fit cat target (|α| from ⟨a^2⟩ of the reconstructed state); the Hamiltonian/cat-size derivation itself is independent.

  1. self definitional [Methods, 'Statistical errors through bootstrapping' (after Eq. 20)]
    "For cat states, ρt is taken to be an ideal cat state with coherent-state amplitude |α| determined via ⟨a^2⟩=tr(a^2 ρrec)=|α|^2."

    The target state against which fidelity is computed is not fixed a priori; its defining parameter |α| is extracted from the very state being characterized. The reported fidelities F+1.8=94.4% and F−1.8=74.8% are therefore overlaps with the best-fitting cat in the one-parameter family |C±α>, not with a target set by the drive model. Any reconstructed state with matching ⟨a^2⟩ and parity will score well, so these numbers are compatibility measures rather than tests of a pre-specified prediction. The independent content comes from the Wigner-function negativity and from Fig. 3e, where measured α is compared with Eq. 6 using independently measured ω, K, and drive settings.

  2. self definitional [Methods, 'Statistical errors through bootstrapping' (same paragraph as Eq. 20)]
    "As we did not target a specific rotation angle, ρt for the Fock-state superpositions is taken to be an ideal pure state whose populations and relative phase are extracted from ρrec."

    The same self-consistency is applied to the superposition Fock states: the target pure state is reconstructed from the measured density matrix's own populations and relative phase. The reported fidelities (e.g., 83.5% for ∝|0>+|1> and 75.0% for ∝|0>+|2>) are thus best-fit overlaps, not fidelities to a predetermined superposition. This is a secondary effect because the main Fock-state claims also rest on independently verified |1> and |2> populations and on the robustness comparison.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular: the effective Kerr Hamiltonian (Eq. 5), the cat-size scaling |α|≈sqrt((ωεq/8−δ/2)/|K|) (Eq. 6), the painting tuning η≈−3(x0/W)^2(1−2κ^2), and the trap-frequency robustness argument are all derived from the Gaussian/painted potential with parameters (ω, K, η) measured by independent frequency-spectroscopy and displaced-state fits, not by fitting the model to the observed cat states. Deviations from the first-order model at ε̃q≳0.25 are reported honestly in Fig. 3e. Self-citations (TOF tomography [44], Raman cooling [63]) are standard methods, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The only substantive circularity is in the fidelity metric: the target cat amplitude is defined from ⟨a^2⟩ of the reconstructed density matrix, and the target Fock-superposition states are extracted from ρrec. This makes the headline quantitative fidelities self-consistency measures, so they should not be read as testing a pre-specified prepared state. However, this does not invalidate the independent Wigner-function negativity, the parity control, or the model comparison of cat size, and it does not infect the Hamiltonian derivation. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in the headline numbers with the core derivation remaining independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses the painted-potential expansion (Eq. 9) truncated at quartic order and the RWA to obtain Eq. 5; these are stated approximations. The fidelity analysis introduces a fitted target amplitude |α| and a noise amplitude inferred from the decay envelope. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • cat amplitude |α| for fidelity target = 1.8 (and others 0.9-2.7) from ⟨a^2⟩
    Methods: 'For cat states, ρt is taken to be an ideal cat state with coherent-state amplitude |α| determined via ⟨a^2⟩=tr(a^2 ρ_rec)=|α|^2.' This parameter is derived post-hoc from the reconstructed density matrix, so fidelity to it is maximized.
  • fractional trap-frequency noise σ_ω/ω = 0.35% (0.7% intensity)
    Inferred from the decay envelope of the displaced-state time-domain signal (Methods, Displaced ground-state measurements): 'it can be explained by assuming static shot-to-shot tweezer intensity fluctuations with a fractional amplitude of 0.7%, corresponding to a 0.35% fractional change in ω.' Used as input to fidelity simulations in Fig 4e.
  • tomography threshold ζ = chosen by self-consistency bootstrap
    Lucy–Richardson deconvolution thresholding parameter in tomography pipeline (Methods, Tomography analysis), chosen by a self-consistency bootstrap; affects reconstructed density matrix and hence all reported fidelities.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation: all rapidly oscillating terms in the interaction picture are neglected in deriving Eq. 5.
    Standard in driven quantum systems; valid when drive amplitudes are small compared to ω. The paper uses ε_q up to 50%, which strains the assumption; the discrepancy in Fig 3e at large drives suggests RWA/higher-order corrections.
  • domain assumption The painted potential is truncated at quartic order; sextic term K6 is neglected.
    K6 is neglected because |K6| << |K4| for 2K/2π ≲ -100 Hz; but at large cat sizes and strong drives the state samples anharmonic regions where this is less accurate (admitted in Fig 3e discussion).
  • domain assumption Effective 1D dynamics in x after painting along y; cross-mode coupling is suppressed.
    Used to justify focusing on x motion; the paper paints along y to lift degeneracy, but 3D effects are still present, and the simulations for Fock states include 3D models while cat simulations neglect them.
  • domain assumption Time-of-flight tomography maps momentum at a given phase angle θ = t_e ω_eff to spatial distribution without distortion from interactions during expansion.
    Standard assumption; in practice limited by imaging PSF and finite expansion time, which the paper characterizes via simulation.
  • domain assumption The initial thermal distribution after cooling is {n̄_x,n̄_y,n̄_z} = {0.035,0.035,0.087} and remains constant; state fidelity simulations assume fully adiabatic ramps.
    Used to compute expected fidelities; deviations from adiabaticity would reduce actual fidelities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Motional Kerr-Cat States of an Atom in an Optical Tweezer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATFZKI6M

@misc{pith2026260718579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Motional Kerr-Cat States of an Atom in an Optical Tweezer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATFZKI6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18579}
}
read the original abstract

Schr\"odinger cat states - quantum superpositions of classically or macroscopically distinct states - constitute a powerful resource for quantum computing, enhanced metrology, and probing coherence on large scales. Encoding such states in the phase space of an oscillator requires a nonlinearity, typically inherited from an auxiliary degree of freedom such as atomic spin or a Josephson junction. Neutral atoms trapped in reconfigurable optical tweezer arrays - a leading platform for quantum science and computing - provide an intrinsic nonlinearity via the motion of a single atom in a tightly focused trap. However, this self-Kerr mechanism has not previously been exploited for cat-state generation, and remains largely unexplored as a resource for motional-state control. Here we realize Schr\"odinger cat states in the quantized motion of a single neutral atom trapped in an optical tweezer. By modulating the depth and position, we demonstrate parity control of both Kerr-cat and Fock states alongside tunable nonlinearity, establishing a spin- and species-independent framework for controlling motion. We further show that the cat-state encoding is intrinsically robust against trap-frequency fluctuations that otherwise limit the fidelity of direct Fock-state transitions. These results establish Kerr-based control of neutral-atom motion as a new paradigm for cat-state and bosonic-state engineering in optical tweezers, providing a route toward quantum-error-correcting codes such as grid states, and toward quantum-enhanced sensing with arrays of non-Gaussian states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motional Kerr-cat state preparation and tomography in optical tweezers. a, Kerr nonlinearity 𝐾 versus painting amplitude 𝜅 in a tweezer with trap frequency 𝜔. All parameters are defined along the 𝑥-dimension of the tweezer, where (𝑥, 𝑦) and 𝑧 denote the radial and axial dimensions, respectively. Modulation of the trap position at a frequency 𝜔𝑝 ≫ 𝜔 (painting) and amplitude 𝜅 enables dynamic tuning of the anharmonici… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tuning and measuring Kerr nonlinearity in an optical √︁ tweezer. a, Momentum expectation value ⟨𝑝˜⟩/𝑝0, where 𝑝0 = 𝑚ℏ𝜔/2 is the zero-point momentum, as a function of evolution time 𝑡𝑒 for an atom in a displaced motional ground-state of an oscillator with Kerr nonlinearity 𝐾. Grey lines and shading represent a fit to the sum of two sinusoids with an exponentially decaying envelope (see Methods). b, Fourier spectrum o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. | Motional Kerr-cat states of a single atom. a,c, Pulse sequences for preparing even- and odd-parity cat states |C± 𝛼 ⟩. An adiabatic, frequency-chirped modulation of the trap depth 𝑉(𝑡) transfers an atom from its motional ground state |0⟩ to |C+ 𝛼 ⟩ (a). Subsequent modulation of the trap position 𝑥(𝑡) rotates |C+ 𝛼 ⟩ to |C− 𝛼 ⟩ (c). b,d, Tomographic reconstruction of |C+ 1.8 ⟩ (b) and |C− 1.8 ⟩ (d) indicate state f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fock-state control with tweezer depth and position modulation. a,b,c,d, Wigner functions, Hinton plots, and TOF quadrature measurements for motional Fock states |2⟩ (a), ∝ |0⟩ + |2⟩ (b), |1⟩ (c), and ∝ |0⟩+|1⟩ (d), prepared via modulation of the tweezer depth (a,b) or …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tunable Kerr nonlinearity in the painted trap. a, Coefficients 𝑐2, 𝑐4, 𝑐6 of the painted potential (Eq. 8) as functions of the painting amplitude 𝜅. As 𝜅 increases, the original Gaussian potential becomes nearly harmonic around 𝜅 ≈ 0.6 and evolves toward a double-well …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Adiabatic preparation of cat states: a, Adiabatic frequency gap magnitude |𝜔gap | as a function of quadratic drive amplitude 𝜀𝑞 and detuning 𝛿. To prepare the cat states, 𝜀𝑞 can be increased either on resonance (𝛿 = 0, dashed line) or by starting from an initial blue d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy level diagrams of 3D motional states. Energy splittings between the Fock levels and cat-state levels (all specified in kHz) in relation to motional population in orthogonal tweezer dimensions 𝑛𝑦, 𝑛𝑧 (indicated by different shades). When the quadratic drive is ad…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic experimental and timing diagram a, Simplified experimental diagram. An arbitrary waveform generator (AWG) drives a pair of orthogonal acousto-optic deflectors (AODs) that control position and relative power of the main and auxiliary tweezers. After passing th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Protocols of coherent motion control for an interaction-driven Rydberg gate

    physics.atom-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Lattice pinning plus a motion-echo sequence suppresses position-induced errors in interaction-driven Rydberg CZ gates to the 10^-4 level at ~10 ns Rydberg dwell times.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fault-tolerantquantumcompu- tation against biased noise,

    P.AliferisandJ.Preskill,“Fault-tolerantquantumcompu- tation against biased noise,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular,andOpticalPhysics,vol.78,no.5,p.052331, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    Stabilization and operation of a Kerr-cat qubit,

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, “Stabilization and operation of a Kerr-cat qubit,”Nature, vol. 584, no. 7820, pp. 205–209, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Preserving phase coherence and linearity in cat qubits with exponential bit-flip sup- pression,

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, R. N. Patel, G. A. Peairs, G. S. MacCabe, M. Lee, S. Aghaeimeibodi, C. T. Hann, I. Jar- rige, G. Marcaud,et al., “Preserving phase coherence and linearity in cat qubits with exponential bit-flip sup- pression,”Physical Review X, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 011070, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits,

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H.Moradinejad,R.Rodriguez,etal.,“Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits,”Nature, vol. 638, no. 8052, pp. 927–934, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Quantum benchmarking of high-fidelity noise-biased operations on a detuned Kerr-cat qubit,

    B. Qing, A. Hajr, K. Wang, G. Koolstra, L. B. Nguyen, J. Hines, I. Huang, B. Bhandari, L. Chen, Z. Kang,et al., “Quantum benchmarking of high-fidelity noise-biased operations on a detuned Kerr-cat qubit,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 123, no. 5, p. e2520479123, 2026

    2026

  6. [6]

    A sensitive electrometer based on a Rydberg atom in a Schrödinger- cat state,

    A. Facon, E.-K. Dietsche, D. Grosso, S. Haroche, J.- M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, “A sensitive electrometer based on a Rydberg atom in a Schrödinger- cat state,”Nature, vol. 535, no. 7611, pp. 262–265, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Multi-qubit gates and Schrödinger cat states in an optical clock,

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. Dark- wah Oppong,et al., “Multi-qubit gates and Schrödinger cat states in an optical clock,”Nature, vol. 634, no. 8033, pp. 315–320, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Minute-scale Schrödinger-cat state of spin-5/2 atoms,

    Y. Yang, W.-T. Luo, J.-L. Zhang, S.-Z. Wang, C.-L. Zou, T. Xia, and Z.-T. Lu, “Minute-scale Schrödinger-cat state of spin-5/2 atoms,”Nature Photonics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 89–94, 2025

    2025

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Atomic interferometry using stimulated raman transitions,

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, “Atomic interferometry using stimulated raman transitions,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 181–184, 1991

    1991

  2. [10]

    Entanglement-enhancedmatter-waveinterferometryina high-finesse cavity,

    G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thompson, “Entanglement-enhancedmatter-waveinterferometryina high-finesse cavity,”Nature, vol. 610, no. 7932, pp. 472– 477, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Entanglement-enhanced atomic gravimeter,

    C. Cassens, B. Meyer-Hoppe, E. Rasel, and C. Klempt, “Entanglement-enhanced atomic gravimeter,”Physical Review X, vol. 15, p. 011029, Feb 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Ob- serving the progressive decoherence of the “meter

    M. Brune, E. Hagley, J. Dreyer, X. Maitre, A. Maali, C. Wunderlich, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, “Ob- serving the progressive decoherence of the “meter” in a quantummeasurement,”PhysicalReviewLetters,vol.77, pp. 4887–4890, 1996

    1996

  5. [13]

    Quantum super- position of molecules beyond 25 kDa,

    Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kiałka, S. Pedalino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, “Quantum super- position of molecules beyond 25 kDa,”Nature Physics, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1242–1245, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Probing quantum mechanicswithnanoparticlematter-waveinterferometry,

    S. Pedalino, B. E. Ramírez-Galindo, R. Ferstl, K. Horn- berger, M. Arndt, and S. Gerlich, “Probing quantum mechanicswithnanoparticlematter-waveinterferometry,” Nature, vol. 649, no. 8098, pp. 866–870, 2026

    2026

  7. [15]

    Generating quantum mechan- ical superpositions of macroscopically distinguishable states viaamplitude dispersion,

    B. Yurke and D. Stoler, “Generating quantum mechan- ical superpositions of macroscopically distinguishable states viaamplitude dispersion,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 57, no. 1, p. 13, 1986

    1986

  8. [16]

    QuantumandclassicalLiouvilledynamics oftheanharmonicoscillator,

    G.J.Milburn,“QuantumandclassicalLiouvilledynamics oftheanharmonicoscillator,”PhysicalReviewA,vol.33, no. 1, pp. 674–685, 1986

    1986

  9. [17]

    A “Schrödinger cat

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, and D. J. Wineland, “A “Schrödinger cat” superposition state of an atom,”Science, vol. 272, no. 5265, pp. 1131–1136, 1996

    1996

  10. [18]

    Spin–motion entanglement and state diagnosis with squeezed oscillator wavepackets,

    H.-Y.Lo,D.Kienzler,B.Keitch,L.deClercq,F.Leupold, F. Lindenfelser, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevitsky, and J. P. Home, “Spin–motion entanglement and state diagnosis with squeezed oscillator wavepackets,”Nature, vol. 521, pp. 336–339, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Ultrafast creation of large Schrödinger cat states of an atom,

    K. Johnson, J. Wong-Campos, B. Neyenhuis, J. Mizrahi, and C. Monroe, “Ultrafast creation of large Schrödinger cat states of an atom,”Nature Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 697, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Quantumsuperpositionofdistinctmacroscopic states,

    J.R.Friedman,V.Patel,W.Chen,S.K.Tolpygo,andJ.E. Lukens, “Quantumsuperpositionofdistinctmacroscopic states,”Nature, vol. 406, pp. 43–46, 2000

    2000

  13. [21]

    Deterministically encoding quan- tuminformationusing100-photonSchrödingercatstates,

    B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Deterministically encoding quan- tuminformationusing100-photonSchrödingercatstates,” Science, vol. 342, no. 6158, pp. 607–610, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Confining the state of light to a quan- tum manifold by engineered two-photon loss,

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge,et al., “Confining the state of light to a quan- tum manifold by engineered two-photon loss,”Science, vol. 347, no. 6224, pp. 853–857, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Stabilizedcatinadrivennon- linear cavity: A fault-tolerant error syndrome detector,

    S. Puri, A. Grimm, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, K. Noh, G. Roberts, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret,andS.M.Girvin,“Stabilizedcatinadrivennon- linear cavity: A fault-tolerant error syndrome detector,” Physical Review X, vol. 9, p. 041009, Oct 2019. 6

    2019

  16. [24]

    Schrödinger cat states of a 16- microgram mechanical oscillator,

    M. Bild, M. Fadel, Y. Yang, U. Von Lüpke, P. Martin, A. Bruno, and Y. Chu, “Schrödinger cat states of a 16- microgram mechanical oscillator,”Science, vol. 380, no. 6642, pp. 274–278, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules,

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, “Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules,” Nature Physics, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1324–1333, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Quantum computing with neutral atoms,

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A.Browaeys,G.-O.Reymond,andC.Jurczak,“Quantum computing with neutral atoms,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 327, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Encodingaqubitinatrapped- ion mechanical oscillator,

    C.Flühmann,T.L.Nguyen,M.Marinelli,V.Negnevitsky, K.Mehta,andJ.P.Home,“Encodingaqubitinatrapped- ion mechanical oscillator,”Nature, vol. 566, no. 7745, pp. 513–517, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Quantum error correctionofaqubitencodedingridstatesofanoscillator,

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf,et al., “Quantum error correctionofaqubitencodedingridstatesofanoscillator,” Nature, vol. 584, no. 7821, pp. 368–372, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Quantum-enhanced sensing of a mechanical oscillator,

    K. C. McCormick, J. Keller, S. C. Burd, D. J. Wineland, A. C. Wilson, and D. Leibfried, “Quantum-enhanced sensing of a mechanical oscillator,”Nature, vol. 572, pp. 86–90, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Motional Fock states for quantum-enhanced amplitude and phase measurements with trapped ions,

    F. Wolf, C. Shi, J. C. Heip, M. Gessner, L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. O. Schmidt, “Motional Fock states for quantum-enhanced amplitude and phase measurements with trapped ions,”Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2929, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Observation of free-space single-atom matter wave in- terference,

    L. P. Parazzoli, A. M. Hankin, and G. W. Biedermann, “Observation of free-space single-atom matter wave in- terference,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 109, no. 23, p. 230401, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    Digital atom interferometer with single particle control on a discretized space-time geometry,

    A. Steffen, A. Alberti, W. Alt, N. Belmechri, S. Hild, M. Karski, A. Widera, and D. Meschede, “Digital atom interferometer with single particle control on a discretized space-time geometry,”Proceedings of the NationalAcademyofSciences,vol.109,no.25,pp.9770– 9774, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Generation and manipulation of Schrödinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays,

    A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi,et al., “Generation and manipulation of Schrödinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays,”Science, vol. 365, no. 6453, pp. 570–574, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Quantum-enhanced dark matter search using cat states,

    P. Zheng, Y. Cai, B. Xu, S. Wen, L. Zhang, Z. Ni, J. Mai, Y. Zeng, L. Lin, L. Hu,et al., “Quantum-enhanced dark matter search using cat states,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 136, no. 17, p. 171002, 2026

    2026

  27. [35]

    Macro- scopically distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping,

    P. T. Cochrane, G. J. Milburn, and W. J. Munro, “Macro- scopically distinct quantum-superposition states as a bosonic code for amplitude damping,”Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 4, p. 2631, 1999

    1999

  28. [36]

    Sub-Planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence,

    W. H. Zurek, “Sub-Planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence,”Nature, vol. 412, no. 6848, pp. 712–717, 2001

    2001

  29. [37]

    Sub-Planck phase-space structures and Heisenberg- limited measurements,

    F.Toscano,D.A.Dalvit,L.Davidovich,andW.H.Zurek, “Sub-Planck phase-space structures and Heisenberg- limited measurements,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular,andOpticalPhysics,vol.73,no.2,p.023803, 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    Towards the generation of mechanical Kerr-cats: awakening the perturbative quantum moyal corrections to classical motion,

    R. G. Cortinas, “Towards the generation of mechanical Kerr-cats: awakening the perturbative quantum moyal corrections to classical motion,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 023022, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Quantumcontrolofcontinuoussystemsvianonhar- monic potential modulation,

    P.T.Grochowski,H.Pichler,C.A.Regal,andO.Romero- Isart,“Quantumcontrolofcontinuoussystemsvianonhar- monic potential modulation,”Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1824, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    RealizationofaLaughlinstateoftworapidly rotating fermions,

    P. Lunt, P. Hill, J. Reiter, P. M. Preiss, M. Gałka, and S.Jochim,“RealizationofaLaughlinstateoftworapidly rotating fermions,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 133, no. 25, p. 253401, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Serwane,Deterministic preparation of a tunable few- fermion system

    F. Serwane,Deterministic preparation of a tunable few- fermion system. PhD thesis, Ruperto-Carola-University of Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    Entanglingtwotransportableneutralatoms via local spin exchange,

    A. Kaufman, B. Lester, M. Foss-Feig, M. Wall, A. Rey, andC.Regal,“Entanglingtwotransportableneutralatoms via local spin exchange,”Nature, vol. 527, no. 7577, pp. 208–211, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neu- tral atom arrays,

    D. González-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler,et al., “Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neu- tral atom arrays,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Time-of-flight quantum tomography of an atom in an optical tweezer,

    M. Brown, S. Muleady, W. Dworschack, R. Lewis-Swan, A. Rey, O. Romero-Isart, and C. Regal, “Time-of-flight quantum tomography of an atom in an optical tweezer,” Nature Physics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 569–573, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Quantum simulations with ultra- coldatomsinopticallattices,

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, “Quantum simulations with ultra- coldatomsinopticallattices,”Science,vol.357,no.6355, pp. 995–1001, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Quantum register of fermion pairs,

    T. Hartke, B. Oreg, N. Jia, and M. Zwierlein, “Quantum register of fermion pairs,”Nature, vol. 601, no. 7894, pp. 537–541, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Erasurecooling,control,andhy- perentanglement of motion in optical tweezers,

    A. L. Shaw, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, J.Choi,andM.Endres,“Erasurecooling,control,andhy- perentanglement of motion in optical tweezers,”Science, vol. 388, no. 6749, pp. 845–849, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Bosonic quantum error correction with neutral atoms in optical dipole traps,

    L. H. Bohnmann, D. F. Locher, J. Zeiher, and M. Müller, “Bosonic quantum error correction with neutral atoms in optical dipole traps,”Physical Review A, vol. 111, no. 2, p. 022432, 2025. 7

    2025

  41. [49]

    High-fidelity control and entanglement of Rydberg-atom qubits,

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “High-fidelity control and entanglement of Rydberg-atom qubits,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 121, no. 12, p. 123603, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Generation of motional squeezed states for neutral atoms in optical tweezers,

    V.Lienhard,R.Martin,Y.T.Chew,T.Tomita,K.Ohmori, and S. de Léséleuc, “Generation of motional squeezed states for neutral atoms in optical tweezers,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 135, no. 25, p. 253404, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Two fermions in a double well: Exploring a fundamental building block of the Hubbard model,

    S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, G. Zürn, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, “Two fermions in a double well: Exploring a fundamental building block of the Hubbard model,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 114, no. 8, p. 080402, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Realization of a Fermi-Hubbard optical tweezer array,

    B. M. Spar, E. Guardado-Sanchez, S. Chi, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, “Realization of a Fermi-Hubbard optical tweezer array,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 128, no. 22, p. 223202, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state,

    U. Delić, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuletić, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state,”Sci- ence, vol. 367, no. 6480, pp. 892–895, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    A mechanical qubit,

    Y. Yang, I. Kladarić, M. Drimmer, U. von Lüpke, D.Lenterman, J.Bus, S.Marti, M.Fadel, andY.Chu, “A mechanical qubit,”Science, vol. 386, no. 6723, pp. 783– 788, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Evidence fororbitalsuperfluidityinthep-bandofabipartiteoptical squarelattice,

    G. Wirth, M. Ölschläger, and A. Hemmerich, “Evidence fororbitalsuperfluidityinthep-bandofabipartiteoptical squarelattice,”NaturePhysics,vol.7,no.2,pp.147–153, 2011

    2011

  48. [56]

    Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in periodically driven optical lattices,

    A. Eckardt, “Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in periodically driven optical lattices,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 89, no. 1, p. 011004, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Floquet engineering of individualbandgapsinanopticallatticeusingatwo-tone drive,

    K. Sandholzer, A.-S. Walter, J. Minguzzi, Z. Zhu, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, “Floquet engineering of individualbandgapsinanopticallatticeusingatwo-tone drive,”PhysicalReviewResearch,vol.4,no.1,p.013056, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Quantummetrology with a continuous-variable system,

    M.Fadel,N.Roux,andM.Gessner,“Quantummetrology with a continuous-variable system,”Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 88, no. 10, p. 106001, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    N. E. Frattini,Three-wave mixing in superconducting circuits: stabilizing cats with SNAILs. PhD thesis, Yale University, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    Deter- ministic generation of highly squeezed GKP states in ultracold atoms,

    H. C. Kendell, G. Ferranti, and C. A. Weidner, “Deter- ministic generation of highly squeezed GKP states in ultracold atoms,”APL Quantum, vol. 1, no. 2, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Experimental demonstration of painting arbitrary and dynamic potentials for Bose–Einstein condensates,

    K. Henderson, C. Ryu, C. MacCormick, and M. Boshier, “Experimental demonstration of painting arbitrary and dynamic potentials for Bose–Einstein condensates,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 043030, 2009

    2009

  54. [62]

    M. O. Brown,Light-Assisted Collisions and Quantum State Tomography of Single-Atom Motion in Optical Tweezers. PhD thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Cooling asingleatominanopticaltweezertoitsquantumground state,

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, and C. A. Regal, “Cooling asingleatominanopticaltweezertoitsquantumground state,”Physical Review X, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 041014, 2012

    2012

  56. [64]

    Informational completeness of continuous- variable measurements,

    D.Sych,J.Řeháček,Z.Hradil,G.Leuchs,andL.Sánchez- Soto, “Informational completeness of continuous- variable measurements,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular,andOpticalPhysics,vol.86,no.5,p.052123, 2012

    2012

  57. [65]

    Experimental characterization of two-particle entangle- ment through position and momentum correlations,

    A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, J. H. Becher, R. Klemt, L. Palm, G. Zürn, S. Jochim, and P. M. Preiss, “Experimental characterization of two-particle entangle- ment through position and momentum correlations,”Na- ture Physics, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 640–644, 2019. Methods Pot...

    2019

  58. [66]

    Photons are distributed among pixels according to the PSF and converted to counts using the calibrated conversion factor 𝐶ph. Each pixel is then assigned a background count sampled from the same camera column of a randomly selected image from an ensemble of approximately1.3×10...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.