Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Neutral-atom quantum computers could reach practical quantum advantage within a decade, if recent scaling trends continue.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:05 UTC pith:PDKWN4OJ

load-bearing objection Useful, well-organized strategic roadmap for neutral atom quantum computing, but the decade-scale timeline claim rests on a fragile exponential fit and an unpublished self-cited milestone. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21554 v1 pith:PDKWN4OJ submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Strategic Plan for Neutral Atom Quantum Computation

Adrian J. Menssen , Tout Wang , Michael Gullans , Tom Manovitz , Jacob M. Taylor , Jason Cong , Josiah Sinclair , Ziv Aqua
show 48 more authors
Daniel J. Blumenthal J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides Johannes Borregaard Antoine Browaeys Paola Cappellaro Soonwon Choi Alexandre Cooper Robin C\^ot\'e Jacob P. Covey Alexandre Dauphin Ivana Dimitrova Matt Eichenfield Dirk Englund Jacob Freedman Akihisa Goban Brandon Grinkemeyer Andi Gu Ruonan Han Dominik Hangleiter Aram W. Harrow Liang Jiang Eun-ah Kim Felix W. Knollmann Aleksander Kubica Thierry Lahaye Lucas Lassabliere Joonho Lee Bingzhao Li Mo Li Wan-Hsuan Lin Mikhail D. Lukin Varun Menon Thomas Propson Akbar Safari Mark Saffman Pascal Scholl Alexander Schuckert Giulia Semeghini Jonathan Simon David Spierings Daniel Bochen Tan Shai Tsesses Vladan Vuletic Hanrui Wang Hanyu Wang Susanne Yelin Johannes Zeiher Hengyun Zhou
This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Pp
keywords neutral atom quantum computingpractical quantum advantagequantum error correctionRydberg gatesqLDPC codesintegrated photonicsquopquantum networking
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 is a field roadmap for neutral-atom quantum computers, and its central claim is that these devices can reach practical quantum advantage within the next decade. It defines practical quantum advantage by four tests: correct output, a task beyond what available classical hardware can solve, an algorithm with a scaling advantage, and relevance to a community outside the hardware builders. It introduces a unit, the quop, to measure a quantum computer's useful size, and it identifies three regimes: early advantage near 10^6–10^9 quops and broad advantage near 10^9–10^12 quops. The plan's feasibility rests on two empirical trends—best-in-class qubit counts rising roughly 1.8x per year and two-qubit gate errors falling roughly 0.62x per year—and on a cited but unpublished below-threshold error-correction demonstration. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper translates those trends into a concrete hardware and theory agenda: 10^5–10^6 physical qubits, qLDPC codes, continuous reloading, fast readout, integrated photonic control, and networking.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that neutral-atom quantum computers can reach what it calls practical quantum advantage within the next decade, provided the field keeps scaling at the rates of the past decade. It defines practical quantum advantage by four criteria: correctness, advantage over available classical hardware, a scaling advantage in the algorithm, and relevance to a community external to the hardware builders. It introduces a unit, the quop—a one- or two-qubit operation executable within one error-correction cycle—and proposes that early practical advantage will come at 10^6–10^9 quops, with broad advantage at 10^9–10^12 quops. The roadmap spans hardware (arrays of 10^5–10^6 atoms,

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two empirical scaling laws—qubit count growing roughly 1.8x per year and two-qubit gate errors falling roughly 0.62x per year—fit to best-in-class neutral-atom results, and the 'quop' unit, defined as a one- or two-qubit operation that fits in one error-correction cycle. The quop links hardware performance to algorithm resource estimates: a processor's maximum quops is roughly the inverse logical error rate per syndrome-extraction cycle. The four-part definition of practical quantum advantage supplies the yardstick that turns the roadmap into a testable claim, while high-rate qLDPC codes and reconfigurable atom transport lower the physical-qubit cost of fault

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the field's recent exponential trends continue for roughly another decade—qubit counts rising about 1.8x per year and two-qubit gate errors falling about 0.62x per year—and that the cited below-threshold error-correction demonstration is valid.

What would settle it

If, over the next three to five years, best-in-class neutral-atom arrays do not keep adding qubits at roughly the historical rate, or if two-qubit gate errors stop falling by about 0.6x per year, the 'within a decade' conclusion loses its empirical basis. A more direct check: the timeline leans on an unpublished below-threshold error-correction demonstration; if that result cannot be independently reproduced, the central projection is unsupported even if the survey of research directions remains useful.

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

If this is right

  • If the scaling trends continue, a neutral-atom device with 10^5–10^6 physical qubits and gate fidelities around 99.9% could run fault-tolerant circuits of 10^6–10^9 quops, entering the early practical advantage regime.
  • High-rate qLDPC codes could shrink the physical-qubit cost of algorithms such as factoring by up to an order of magnitude compared with surface codes, making serious cryptanalytic or simulation problems plausible on tens of thousands of atoms.
  • Continuous reloading and loss-detecting readout let circuits run long enough to reach the megaquop regime; loss detection alone can push surface-code operation more than 2x below threshold.
  • Fast integrated photonic control, with per-channel modulators and on-chip drivers, is proposed as the route to individually address and calibrate 10,000–100,000 qubits.
  • If single-device scaling saturates, networking many modules via atom-photon entanglement offers a second growth path, with logical distillation tolerating inter-module infidelity an order of magnitude worse than local gates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The quop metric could outlive this roadmap as a cross-platform measure of what a quantum computer can actually execute, similar to how classical machines are compared by operations per second.
  • Because the definition of practical advantage requires the task to be unsolvable on current classical hardware, any demonstration is a moving target: a later classical algorithm improvement can retroactively erase a claimed advantage, so advantage claims should be time-stamped.
  • The exponential fits only use best-in-class points at each time and exclude early pioneering results, so a reader should expect field-average progress to be slower; the 'within a decade' timeline is sensitive to which historical points are included.
  • The emphasis on community standards, challenge problems, and competitions implies that the bottleneck to practical quantum advantage may be as much organizational as technical.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a community-led strategic plan for neutral-atom quantum computing. It opens with a definition of "practical quantum advantage" (correctness, advantage, scaling, practicality), proposes a "quop" as a unit of quantum operation, and maps a roadmap across six areas: hardware scaling (tweezer/lattice arrays, atomic species, gates, reloading, readout), integrated photonic control, quantum error correction (qLDPC codes, decoders, modular architectures), circuit compilation, and networking. The central quantitative claim is that, extrapolating Fig. 2's exponential fits to qubit count and gate fidelity, neutral atoms "could reach quantum utility within the next decade." The paper explicitly cautions that the fit is coarse and that the timeline depends on scaling to the ~10^5–10^6 qubit regime, but this projection nonetheless anchors the ordering of the roadmap. Later sections also lean on the authors' own unpublished results ([600], [23]) for below-threshold error correction and continuous reloading.

Significance. If the roadmap is realized, it would constitute a coherent path to fault-tolerant neutral-atom computing with practical advantage. The paper's main organizational value is its four-criterion definition of practical quantum advantage, the quop-oriented framing of computation regimes, and its compilation of current hardware and QEC resource estimates (e.g., qLDPC overhead reductions and the RSA/ECC anchors in Fig. 3). It also makes a falsifiable prediction—the "within the next decade" timeline—which is a strength as long as its inputs are transparent. The survey appears broadly consistent with the cited literature: the cited 99.5%+ fidelities, >3,000-atom arrays, and qLDPC overhead reductions are independently checkable. No machine-checked proofs or code are supplied; the paper's contribution is a roadmap, not a proof. The main weakness is that the roadmap's quantitative center is an unvalidated exponential fit through selected data and unpublished co-authored milestones, so the significance of the projection is currently conditional. The paper would be strengthened by presenting the projection as one scenario among several, with explicit sensitivity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1 (p.8) and Fig. 2] The central claim "Under the scaling rates of the past decade, neutral atoms could reach quantum utility within the next decade" rests on exponential fits that are explicitly "only fit to the best results for each category at each point in time" with early results excluded, without uncertainty bounds or a mechanistic model. The paper's caveats ("coarse estimate", "Whether this timeline can be maintained will depend crucially...") do not remove the load: the roadmap's priority ordering and the 10^5–10^6 target follow from this fit. The target is also inconsistent: §1 says ~10^5–10^6, while §3 (p.39) and §2.1 say 10,000–100,000 physical qubits; at the fitted 1.8x/yr rate this factor of 10 changes the crossing time by several years. Please add a sensitivity analysis over data selection and model form, report fit uncertainty, and reconcile the target or make the decade claim explicitly condi
  2. [Intro, §2.2.3, §2.2.5, Fig. 8] Load-bearing feasibility milestones are attributed to unpublished work by author groups: below-threshold error correction [600]; "surface code operating at >2x below threshold when including detection of atom loss" (Sec. 2.2.3, Fig. 8); and continuous reloading while maintaining coherence of ~3000 atoms (Sec. 2.2.4, [23]). These points sit at the right edge of Fig. 2 and underlie statements such as "all the ingredients are in place" (Sec. 2.2.4). An external reader cannot assess them; the manuscript should either make the results publicly available or clearly separate author-provided data from the peer-reviewed record, excluding them from the extrapolation if not independently verified. As written, the feasibility case is not independently checkable at its most critical points.
  3. [§1 (quop), Fig. 3] The quop unit is defined inconsistently. A quop is first "an operation which can be done on a single or two qubits within one error-correction cycle," but its maximum count is then "the inverse of the logical error rate per syndrome extraction cycle and qubit"—mixing an operation count with a reliability measure and leaving multi-qubit operations outside the definition. Fig. 3 uses quop=10×Toffoli although the text states the overhead is "typically a factor of 10-100" and architecture-dependent; the stated MQuop/GQuop/TQuop regime boundaries are therefore movable by an order of magnitude. Please give a formal definition, or state the regimes directly in terms of Toffoli counts and logical error rates without the extra conversion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The phrase "10.000 - 100.000 physical neutral-atom qubits" uses periods as decimal separators; use commas or spaces consistently with "10,000–100,000" elsewhere.
  2. [Fig. 2(b)] The caption says "Two-qubit gate fidelity" but the text fits "gate errors" (factor 0.62/yr). Clarify whether F or 1-F is plotted/fitted, and state the fitted functional form.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The stated "estimated quop=10×Toffoli" is inconsistent with the text's "10 to 100" range; at minimum, state the sensitivity of the regime labels to this choice.
  4. [§2.2.5] Minor typo: "Stamper-Kurn group" should be "Stamper-Kurn"; use proper diacritics throughout (e.g., Vuletić).
  5. [§1.2.1] The definition's "cannot be solved on available classical hardware at the time" and "scaling advantage" clauses need clarification; as written the former makes the latter hard to interpret.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Timeline claim is an extrapolation of a selected best-results fit, and its below-threshold anchor is an unpublished self-citation.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Introduction / Fig. 2 discussion (p. 8)]
    "In the spirit of Moore’s law, we fit the increase in qubit count (a) and two-qubit fidelity (b) to exponential scaling laws through a set of hallmark experimental demonstrations. We only fit to the best results for each category (size and fidelity) at each point in time. ... Under the scaling rates of the past decade, neutral atoms could reach quantum utility within the next decade."

    The 'prediction' that neutral atoms could reach quantum utility within the next decade is not a separately derived result; it is the same exponential model fitted to selected past 'best results' (with early results excluded) evaluated at a utility target. The crossing time is forced by the fitted exponents (≈1.8x/yr qubits, ≈0.62x/yr gate errors) and by whichever target is chosen—the paper variously says '~10^5–10^6' physical qubits and, in Sec. 3, '10,000 – 100,000 physical qubits.' The paper itself calls the fit 'only a coarse estimate,' so the headline timeline adds no information beyond the fit; it is the fit relabeled as a prediction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Intro (p. 5) and Sec. 2.2.3 (p. 31)]
    "Recent experiments have demonstrated below-threshold error correction in neutral atoms for the first time [600]. ... Recent logical qubit benchmarking from the Lukin group (Harvard) has already demonstrated the surface code operating at >2× below threshold when including detection of atom loss (Fig. 8) [600]."

    The roadmap's central premise that neutral atoms are already in the below-threshold regime rests on reference [600], which is presented as the Lukin group's own result (Fig. 2 lists 'Bluvstein ’26 [600]' as a full-system demonstration; multiple authors of the present paper are in that group). No independent, externally verified implementation is cited for this load-bearing milestone. The same unpublished result is then used to support the 'quantum utility within the next decade' projection and the '>10,000 physical qubits' continuous-reloading claim. Thus the main evidence for the roadmap's feasibility is an unverified self-citation rather than an independent check.

full rationale

The paper is largely a strategic survey; its reviews of QEC theory, compilation, networking, and hardware options are self-contained and frequently cite independent prior work. However, the forward-looking central claim has two circular/self-supporting features. First, the 'within the next decade' timeline is an extrapolation of a fit to best-in-class historical data, with the paper itself cautioning that it is 'only a coarse estimate'; the utility target shifts between sections (10^4–10^5 vs. 10^5–10^6 physical qubits), so the crossing time is construction-dependent rather than derived from independent evidence. Second, the anchor 'below-threshold' demonstration is cited only to unpublished [600] from the authors' own Harvard/Lukin group, making the roadmap's feasibility case partially self-referential. The paper's own caveats ('Whether this timeline can be maintained will depend crucially...') are acknowledged and reduce the claim to a conditional estimate, but they do not remove the construction dependence. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. On balance, the headline timeline reduces to its fitted inputs and an unverified self-citation, while most of the document's substantive content remains independently grounded; hence a moderate circularity score of 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The projections and feasibility claims rest on a small set of author-chosen inputs: two exponential trend fits over selected best-in-class data, an estimated Toffoli-to-quop conversion factor, three author-estimated qubit counts for applications whose papers do not state them, and a utility-scale qubit target stated inconsistently. The domain assumptions (trend continuation, best-in-class-as-representative, validity of unpublished [600], the 0.5%-homogeneity target for 99.9% gates) are reasonable for a roadmap but are not demonstrated. One metric (quop) is invented as an organizing unit.

free parameters (5)
  • Qubit-count growth rate = ~1.8x/yr (1.85/yr in Fig. 2a)
    Exponential fit through selected best-in-class tweezer demonstrations (Fig. 2a); early results and lattice architectures excluded from the trendline. This rate drives the decade-to-utility projection.
  • Gate-error reduction factor = ~0.62/yr
    Exponential fit through selected fidelity milestones (Fig. 2b); early pioneering works excluded from the trendline. Drives the below-threshold scaling projection.
  • Toffoli-to-quop conversion factor = 10 (authors note true overhead is 10–100)
    Fig. 3 caption: 'we estimated quop=10×Toffoli and indicated rough MQuop/GQuop regimes by shaded colored bands.' The factor is architecture-dependent; the paper's regime claims (M/G/T-Quop) depend on this hand-chosen value.
  • Fig. 3 author-estimated qubit counts = 1000 (proofs of quantumness); 2000 (U(1) lattice gauge theory); 150 (single-ancilla FeMoCo)
    Admitted in the Fig. 3 caption: 'Four qubit counts are not stated by their references; the value plotted is an estimate.' These points anchor the roadmap's near-term advantage claims.
  • Utility-scale physical qubit target = 10^5–10^6 (Sec. 1); 10^4–10^5 (Sec. 3)
    Chosen by the authors as the regime requiring scaling; stated inconsistently across Secs. 1 and 3. The decade projection depends on which target is meant.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Recent exponential scaling rates (qubits ~1.8x/yr, gate error ~0.62x/yr) continue for the next decade
    Underpins the central projection 'neutral atoms could reach quantum utility within the next decade' (Sec. 1). The paper itself flags it as contingent on scaling to 10^5–10^6 qubits and on gate-fidelity improvements not slowing.
  • domain assumption Best-in-class demonstrations represent the field trajectory
    Fig. 2 fits 'only the best results for each category at each point in time' and excludes early/lattice data from the trendlines, shaping the extrapolation that supports the decade projection.
  • domain assumption Unpublished below-threshold demonstration [600] is valid
    The Introduction's pivotal feasibility evidence — 'below-threshold error correction in neutral atoms for the first time [600]' — is a Harvard/Lukin-group result involving several co-authors of this paper and is not independently verifiable from this text.
  • domain assumption 99.9% two-qubit gate fidelity reachable via <0.5% light-shift homogeneity
    Sec. 2.2.3: light-shift homogeneity at the '<0.5% level [is] required to reach 99.9% two qubit gate fidelity.' An engineering assumption central to the below-threshold scaling path.
  • domain assumption Classical simulation methods will not erode the advantage claim within the decade
    Implicit in the projection: the roadmap's feasibility case assumes the classical-hardness frontier (e.g., for Fermi-Hubbard dynamics, DQI, proofs of quantumness) roughly holds, though the paper notes classical techniques are 'a moving target.'
invented entities (1)
  • quop (quantum operation) no independent evidence
    purpose: New unit to quantify quantum computer size (an operation executable on one or two qubits within one error-correction cycle) and to define advantage regimes: kQuop/MQuop/GQuop/TQuop (Sec. 1).
    Defined in Sec. 1 as the paper's own metric. It organizes the roadmap's regime claims but is a definition, not a discovered entity with a falsifiable handle outside the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 44761 in / 21271 out tokens · 195875 ms · 2026-08-01T07:05:35.981358+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a strategic plan for neutral atom quantum computation, bringing together hardware development and theory advancements to achieve the goal of practical quantum advantage. The concept of practical quantum advantage is defined, along with how to verify claims of advantage, and approaches to designing quantum algorithms that deliver practical advantage. Future directions for neutral atom quantum processor hardware are described: scaling-up system size, Qubit encodings and atomic platforms, going further below threshold with neutral-atom logical-qubit performance, continuous reloading of qubits, and fast readout. We also explore opportunities for scalable integrated photonic control technologies. Alongside hardware advancements, new developments in quantum error correction and compilation of quantum circuits are proposed. Finally, we examine the opportunity of networking multiple neutral atom quantum processors together to perform distributed quantum computing and overcome possible limitations of a single system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21554 by Adrian J. Menssen, Akbar Safari, Akihisa Goban, Aleksander Kubica, Alexander Schuckert, Alexandre Cooper, Alexandre Dauphin, Andi Gu, Antoine Browaeys, Aram W. Harrow, Bingzhao Li, Brandon Grinkemeyer, Daniel Bochen Tan, Daniel J. Blumenthal, David Spierings, Dirk Englund, Dominik Hangleiter, Eun-Ah Kim, Felix W. Knollmann, Giulia Semeghini, Hanrui Wang, Hanyu Wang, Hengyun Zhou, Ivana Dimitrova, Jacob Freedman, Jacob M. Taylor, Jacob P. Covey, Jason Cong, Johannes Borregaard, Johannes Zeiher, Jonathan Simon, Joonho Lee, Josiah Sinclair, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Liang Jiang, Lucas Lassabliere, Mark Saffman, Matt Eichenfield, Michael Gullans, Mikhail D. Lukin, Mo Li, Paola Cappellaro, Pascal Scholl, Robin C\^ot\'e, Ruonan Han, Shai Tsesses, Soonwon Choi, Susanne Yelin, Thierry Lahaye, Thomas Propson, Tom Manovitz, Tout Wang, Varun Menon, Vladan Vuletic, Wan-Hsuan Lin, Ziv Aqua.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the evolution of neutral atom quantum computation. Neutral-atom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plot of scaling trends, best in class results. (a) Trends for qubit number over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of explicit resource estimates for key applications. Each marker is an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Arrays of thousands of neutral atom qubits: (a) Atom Computing >1200 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lattice arrays for scaling quantum registers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Alkaline earth(-like) atoms (AEAs). The unique level structure due to the divalance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dual-species arrays: new tools for efficient quantum error correction. N-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) State-selective 1D lattice pins qubit state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Continuous reloading architecture consisting of optical lattice reservoir, reload [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Enhanced atomic qubit readout methods. (a) increased collection efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simultaneous state measurement and cooling using a) a narrow line transition in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Wavelength ranges for selected operations on prominent species used in neutral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Modulation bandwidth of photonics platforms (top) compared to characteristic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Atom Control Photonic Integrated Circuit (APIC) architecture. (a) Photograph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Integrated Modulation Capabilities. (a) LiNbO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Integrated Laser Capabilities. (a) Two-stage noise reduction with a coil-stabilized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Neutral Atom Technologies based on Silicon Nitride Photonics. (a) Rubidium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Error-correcting code strategies suitable for a given target logical processor scale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparing logical Bell pair distribution rate rdistributed as a function of networking memory and physical Bell pair rate rbell. The two plots correspond to (top) pbell = 1%, ptarget = 10−12 and (bottom) pbell = 5%, ptarget = 10−6 . The allocated memory is shown both in number of logical (right) and physical (left) qubits assuming the surface code. Rates are expressed in units of the local physical gate r… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Overview of compilation research. Left: four compilation tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Advancing hardware enables higher atom-photon entanglement fidelity: (i) (a) A schematic of the Saffman group’s optical setup for trapping a single Rb atom and characterizing atom-photon entanglement, (b) the relevant level structure and the mapping transition to the qubit basis (↓, ↑ ′ ) with long coherence time, (c) an in-vacuum setup built from pre-aligned mm-scale optics on a Macor platform yielding a… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Comparison of cQED platforms for quantum networking. We define a metric, intrinsic single-atom cooperativity Cint = 4g 2/κscγ. This number indicates the maximum possible cooperativity of a cQED system, limited only by cavity scattering. This sets a fundamental limit on the collection efficiency for a given cQED system. Green and red markers denote the atom-cavity coupling rate g and cavity field decay rat… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Cavity-based quantum networking platforms with multiplexing capa￾bilities. (i) Atom array—nanophotonic chip platform. Schematic of an optical tweezer array manipulating single cesium atoms near a chip hosting nanophotonic devices, integrated into a UHV chamber with optical control and imaging components. Also shown are cav￾ity reflection spectra and a level structure for background-free imaging. (ii) Nano… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Proposed experiment demonstrating entanglement between disparate quantum systems: the polarization-based photonic qubit is emitted from an atom in a fiber cavity while maintaining entanglement with the atom. The photonic qubit undergoes a transformation using a time-delay interferometer with a PBS from polarization-based to time-bin encoding to allow interfacing with the SiV in a nanocavity after frequenc… view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: A modular architecture based on transportable atom arrays: An “array of arrays" is co-located within a single vacuum chamber (e.g. glass cell) via an array of mi￾croscope objectives. A transportable atom array, projected from opposite the static modules but lying on the same plane, carries large atom arrays between the static modules such that parallelized Rydberg-mediated gates can be performed between t… 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. Lowering the implementation barrier of neutral-atom quantum computing with agentic workflows

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    An LLM-agent workflow turned published quantum protocols and a patent into overnight neutral-atom QPU runs, and classified 49% of readable Rydberg-array theory papers as implementable on current hardware.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer”, Nature622, 268–272 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Benchmarking and fidelity response theory of high-fidelity rydberg entangling gates

    R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, and M. Endres, “Benchmarking and fidelity response theory of high-fidelity rydberg entangling gates”, PRX Quantum6, 010331 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    High-fidelity entangling gates and nonlocal circuits with neutral atoms

    S. J. Evered et al., “High-fidelity entangling gates and nonlocal circuits with neutral atoms”, (2026), arXiv:2604.25987 [quant-ph]. 85

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    A quan- tum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “A quan- tum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays”, Nature 2022 604:7906604, 451–456 (2022), arXiv:2112.03923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Constant-overheadfault-tolerantquantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays

    Q. Xu, J. P. B. Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveendran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasić,M.D.Lukin,L.Jiang,andH.Zhou,“Constant-overheadfault-tolerantquantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays”, Nature Physics20, 1084–1090 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    The Pinnacle Architecture: Reducing the cost of breaking RSA-2048to100000physicalqubitsusingquantumLDPCcodes

    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 breaking RSA-2048to100000physicalqubitsusingquantumLDPCcodes”,(2026),arXiv:2602. 11457 [quant-ph]

    2026

  7. [7]

    Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer

    T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinkemeyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Lichtman, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Campbell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers, T. Noel, and M. Saffman, “Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom ...

    2022

  8. [8]

    Observation of a symmetry-protected topological phase of interacting bosons with rydberg atoms

    S. de Léséleuc, V. Lienhard, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, S. Weber, N. Lang, H. P. Büchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “Observation of a symmetry-protected topological phase of interacting bosons with rydberg atoms”, Science365, 775–780 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Probing topological spin liquids on a pro- grammable quantum simulator

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verre- sen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “Probing topological spin liquids on a pro- grammable quantum simulator”, Science374, 1242–1247 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Variational simulation of the Lipkin-Meshkov- Glick model on a neutral atom quantum computer

    R. Chinnarasu, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, A. Noori, T. M. Graham, S. N. Coppersmith, A. B. Balantekin, and M. Saffman, “Variational simulation of the Lipkin-Meshkov- Glick model on a neutral atom quantum computer”, PRX Quantum6, 020350 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Probing the kitaev honeycomb model on a neutral-atom quantum computer

    S. J. Evered, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, T. Manovitz, D. Bluvstein, S. H. Li, N. Maskara, H. Zhou, S. Ebadi, M. Xu, J. Campo, M. Cain, S. Ostermann, S. F. Yelin, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “Probing the kitaev honeycomb model on a neutral-atom quantum computer”, Nature645, 341–347 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Demonstration of a neutral atom controlled-not quantum gate

    L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, “Demonstration of a neutral atom controlled-not quantum gate”, Physical Review Letters104,10.1103/physrevlett.104.010503(2010)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.010503(2010 2010

  13. [13]

    Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using rydberg blockade

    T. Wilk, A. Gaëtan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Miroshnychenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, “Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using rydberg blockade”, Physical Review Letters104,10.1103/physrevlett.104.010502(2010)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.010502(2010 2010

  14. [14]

    Rydberg-blockade controlled-not gate and entanglement in a two-dimensional array of neutral-atom qubits

    K. M. Maller, M. T. Lichtman, T. Xia, Y. Sun, M. J. Piotrowicz, A. W. Carr, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman, “Rydberg-blockade controlled-not gate and entanglement in a two-dimensional array of neutral-atom qubits”, Physical Review A92,10.1103/ physreva.92.022336(2015). 86

    2015

  15. [15]

    Analysis of imperfections in the coherent optical excitation of single atoms to rydberg states

    S. de Léséleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, “Analysis of imperfections in the coherent optical excitation of single atoms to rydberg states”, Phys. Rev. A97, 053803 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, “Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms”, Physical Review Letters123,10. 1103/physrevlett.123.170503(2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Two-dimensional lattice of blue-detuned atom traps using a projected gaus- sian beam array

    M. J. Piotrowicz, M. Lichtman, K. Maller, G. Li, S. Zhang, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman, “Two-dimensional lattice of blue-detuned atom traps using a projected gaus- sian beam array”, Physical Review A88,10.1103/physreva.88.013420(2013)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.88.013420(2013 2013

  18. [18]

    Atom-by-atom assembly of defect- free one-dimensional cold atom arrays

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, “Atom-by-atom assembly of defect- free one-dimensional cold atom arrays”, Science354, 1024–1027 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Synthetic three-dimensional atomic structures assembled atom by atom

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, S. de Léséleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “Synthetic three-dimensional atomic structures assembled atom by atom”, Nature561, 79–82 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator”, Nature595, 227–232 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices

    F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Snigirev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, “Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices”, Physical Review Research6,10.1103/physrevresearch.6.033104(2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.033104(2024 2024

  22. [22]

    A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, “A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits”, Nature647, 60–67 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit system

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, X. Lyu, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit system”, Nature646, 1075–1080 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Scalable photonic integrated circuits for high-fidelity light control

    A. J. Menssen, A. Hermans, I. Christen, T. Propson, C. Li, A. J. Leenheer, M. Zim- mermann, M. Dong, H. Larocque, H. Raniwala, G. Gilbert, M. Eichenfield, and D. R. Englund, “Scalable photonic integrated circuits for high-fidelity light control”, Optica 10, 1366–1372 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    An integrated photonic engine for programmable atomic control

    I. Christen, T. Propson, M. Sutula, H. Sattari, G. Choong, C. Panuski, A. Melville, J. Mallek, C. Brabec, S. Hamilton, P. B. Dixon, A. J. Menssen, D. Braje, A. H. Ghadimi, and D. Englund, “An integrated photonic engine for programmable atomic control”, Nature Communications16, 82 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation”, Physical Review A86, 032324 (2012). 87

    2012

  27. [27]

    Single-atom trapping in holographic 2d arrays of microtraps with arbitrary geometries

    F. Nogrette, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, D. Barredo, L. Béguin, A. Vernier, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “Single-atom trapping in holographic 2d arrays of microtraps with arbitrary geometries”, Physical Review X4,10.1103/physrevx.4.021034(2014)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.4.021034(2014 2014

  28. [28]

    Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator”, Nature551, 579–584 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Simple, passive design for large optical trap arrays for single atoms

    P. Huft, Y. Song, T. M. Graham, K. Jooya, S. Deshpande, C. Fang, M. Kats, and M. Saffman, “Simple, passive design for large optical trap arrays for single atoms”, Physical Review A105,10.1103/physreva.105.063111(2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.063111(2022 2022

  30. [30]

    Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenbühler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Schäffner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, “Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits”, Optica11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    High-fidelity detection of large-scale atom arrays in an optical lattice

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, “High-fidelity detection of large-scale atom arrays in an optical lattice”, Physical Review Letters133, 013401 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Rearrangement of individual atoms in a 2000-site optical-tweezer array at cryogenic temperatures

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, É. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Bourachot, G.-J. Both, G. Mériaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, B. Ximenez, A. Signoles, A. Browaeys, T. Lahaye, and D. Dreon, “Rearrangement of individual atoms in a 2000-site optical-tweezer array at cryogenic temperatures”, Physical Review Applied22,10.1103/physrevapplied. 22.024073(2024)

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied 2000

  33. [33]

    Iterative assembly of atom arrays with cavity-enhanced optical lattices

    M. A. Norcia, H. Kim, W. B. Cairncross, M. Stone, A. Ryou, M. Jaffe, M. O. Brown, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. C. Bohdanowicz, A. Brown, K. Cassella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, J. Epstein, C. Griger, E. Halperin, F. Hummel, A. M. W. Jones, J. M. Kindem, J. King, K. Kotru, J. Lauigan, M. Li, M. Lu, E. Megidish, J. Marjanovic, M. McDonald, T. Mittiga, J....

    2024

  34. [34]

    Ai-enabled parallel assembly of thousands of defect-free neutral atom arrays

    R.Lin,H.-S.Zhong,Y.Li,Z.-R.Zhao,L.-T.Zheng,T.-R.Hu,H.-M.Wu,Z.Wu,W.-J. Ma, Y. Gao, Y.-K. Zhu, Z.-F. Su, W.-L. Ouyang, Y.-C. Zhang, J. Rui, M.-C. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, “Ai-enabled parallel assembly of thousands of defect-free neutral atom arrays”, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 060602 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    High-efficiency loading of 2,400 Ytterbium atoms in optical tweezer arrays

    J. Zhu et al., “High-efficiency loading of 2,400 Ytterbium atoms in optical tweezer arrays”, (2025), arXiv:2512.19795 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Deterministic entanglement of two neutral atoms via rydberg blockade

    X. L. Zhang, L. Isenhower, A. T. Gill, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, “Deterministic entanglement of two neutral atoms via rydberg blockade”, Physical Review A82, 10.1103/physreva.82.030306(2010). 88

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.82.030306(2010 2010

  37. [37]

    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 Letters121,10 . 1103 / physrevlett . 121 . 123603(2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Gidney,How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits, 2025, arXiv:2505.15917 [quant-ph]

    C. Gidney,How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits, 2025, arXiv:2505.15917 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  39. [39]

    How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits

    C. Gidney and M. Ekerå, “How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits”, Quantum5, 433 (2021)

    2048

  40. [40]

    Resource analysis of low-overhead transversal architectures for recon- figurable atom arrays

    H. Zhou, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, D. Bluvstein, M. Cain, A. Kubica, S.-T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, “Resource analysis of low-overhead transversal architectures for recon- figurable atom arrays”, in Proceedings of the 52nd annual international symposium on computer architecture, SIGARCH ’25 (June 2025), pp. 1432–1448

    2025

  41. [41]

    Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays”, Nature626, 58–...

    2023

  42. [42]

    Exploring the many-body localization transition in two dimensions

    J.-y. Choi, S. Hild, J. Zeiher, P. Schauß, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Yefsah, V. Khemani, D. A. Huse, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, “Exploring the many-body localization transition in two dimensions”, Science352, 1547–1552 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Benchmarking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator

    A. L. Shaw, Z. Chen, J. Choi, D. K. Mark, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, A. Elben, S. Choi, and M. Endres, “Benchmarking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator”, Nature628, 71–77 (2024), arXiv:2308.07914

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, K. Boothby, F. Altomare, M. Asad, A. J. Berkley, M. Boschnak, K. Chern, H. Christiani, S. Cibere, J. Connor, M. H. Dehn, R. Deshpande, S. Ejtemaee, P. Farre, K. Hamer, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, M. W. Johnson, S. Kortas, E. Ladizinsky, ...

    2025

  45. [45]

    Thermalization and criticality on an analogue–digital quantum simulator

    T. I. Andersen, N. Astrakhantsev, A. H. Karamlou, J. Berndtsson, J. Motruk, A. Szasz, J. A. Gross, A. Schuckert, T. Westerhout, Y. Zhang, E. Forati, D. Rossi, B. Kobrin, A. D. Paolo, A. R. Klots, I. Drozdov, V. Kurilovich, A. Petukhov, L. B. Ioffe, A. Elben, A. Rath, V. Vitale, B. Vermersch, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Ar...

    2025

  46. [46]

    Spectroscopy of elementary excitations from quench dynamics in a dipolar XY Ryd- berg simulator

    C. Chen, G. Emperauger, G. Bornet, F. Caleca, B. Gély, M. Bintz, S. Chatterjee, V. Liu, D. Barredo, N. Y. Yao, T. Lahaye, F. Mezzacapo, T. Roscilde, and A. Browaeys, “Spectroscopy of elementary excitations from quench dynamics in a dipolar XY Ryd- berg simulator”, Science389, 483–487 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Strong Quantum Computational Advantage Using a Superconducting Quantum Processor

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zh...

    2021

  48. [48]

    Computational power of random quantum circuits in arbitrary geometries

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, J. Cline, J. Colina, D. DelVento, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, C. N. Gilbreth, J. Giles, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, A. Hansen, N. Hewitt, I. Hoffman, C. Holliman, R. B. Hutson, T. Jacobs, J. Johansen, P...

    2025

  49. [49]

    Phase transitions in random circuit sampling

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandrà, A. Bengtsson, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Drozdov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movassagh, A. Asfaw, L. T. a. N. Brandão, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bilmes, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovair...

    2024

  50. [50]

    Establishing a New Benchmark in Quantum Computational Advantage with 105-qubit Zuchongzhi 3.0 Processor

    D. Gao, D. Fan, C. Zha, J. Bei, G. Cai, J. Cai, S. Cao, F. Chen, J. Chen, K. Chen, X. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Chu, H. Deng, Z. Deng, P. Ding, X. Ding, Z. Ding, S. Dong, Y. Dong, B. Fan, Y. Fu, S. Gao, L. Ge, M. Gong, J. Gui, C. Guo, S. Guo, X. Guo, L. Han, T. He, L. Hong, Y. Hu, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, T. Jiang, Z. Jiang, H. Jin, Y. L...

    2025

  51. [51]

    A cryptographic testofquantumnessandcertifiablerandomnessfromasinglequantumdevice

    Z. Brakerski, P. Christiano, U. Mahadev, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, “A cryptographic testofquantumnessandcertifiablerandomnessfromasinglequantumdevice”,Journal of the ACM (JACM)68, 1–47 (2021), arXiv:2018.00038

    arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Certified Randomness from Quantum Supremacy

    S. Aaronson and S.-H. Hung, “Certified Randomness from Quantum Supremacy”, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023 (June 2023), pp. 933–944

    2023

  53. [53]

    Certified randomness using a trapped-ion quantum processor

    M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, M. DeCross, S.-H. Hung, W. Y. Kon, E. Cervero- Martín, K. Chakraborty, O. Amer, S. Aaronson, A. Acharya, Y. Alexeev, K. J. Berg, S. Chakrabarti, F. J. Curchod, J. M. Dreiling, N. Erickson, C. Foltz, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, T. S. Humble, N. Kumar, J. Larson, D. Lykov, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, S. Eloul, P. Siegf...

    2025

  54. [54]

    Digital quantum magnetism at the frontier of classical simulations

    R. Haghshenas, E. Chertkov, M. Mills, W. Kadow, S.-H. Lin, Y.-H. Chen, C. Cade, I. Niesen, T. Begušić, M. S. Rudolph, C. Cirstoiu, K. Hemery, C. M. Keever, M. Lubasch, E. Granet, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, J. Cline, M. DeCross, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, D. Francois, J. P. Gaebler, C. N. Gilbreth, J. Gray, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, A. Ha...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Fermionic dynamics on a trapped-ion quantum computer beyond exact classical simulation

    F. Alam, J. L. Bosse, I. Čepait˙ e, A. Chapman, L. Clinton, M. Crichigno, E. Crosson, T. Cubitt, C. Derby, O. Dowinton, P. K. Faehrmann, S. Flammia, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, R. García-Patrón, M. Hunter-Gordon, G. Jones, A. Khedkar, J. Klassen, M. Kreshchuk, E. H. McMullan, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, C. Mora, J. J. L. Morton, D. Patel, P. Rolph, R. A. Santos...

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Programmable digital quantum simulation of 92 2D Fermi-Hubbard dynamics using 72 superconducting qubits

    F. Alam, J. L. Bosse, I. Čepait˙ e, A. Chapman, L. Clinton, M. Crichigno, E. Crosson, T. Cubitt, C. Derby, O. Dowinton, P. K. Faehrmann, S. Flammia, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, R. García-Patrón, M. Hunter-Gordon, G. Jones, A. Khedkar, J. Klassen, M. Kreshchuk, E. H. McMullan, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, C. Mora, J. J. L. Morton, D. Patel, P. Rolph, R. A. Santos...

    2025

  57. [57]

    Superconductingpairingcorrelationsonatrapped-ionquantum computer

    E. Granet, S.-H. Lin, K. Hémery, R. Hagshenas, P. Andres-Martinez, D. T. Stephen, A. Ransford, J. Arkinstall, M. S. Allman, P. Campora, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, A. Hall, A. Husain, A. Isanaka, C. J. Kennedy, N. Kotibhaskar, M. Mills, A. R. Milne, A. J. Park, A. P. Reed, B. Neyenhuis, J. G....

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Simpler Proofs of Quantum- ness

    Z. Brakerski, V. Koppula, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, “Simpler Proofs of Quantum- ness”, Leibniz Int. Proc. Inf.158, 8:1–8:14 (2020), arXiv:2005.04826 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Classically ver- ifiable quantum advantage from a computational Bell test

    G. D. Kahanamoku-Meyer, S. Choi, U. V. Vazirani, and N. Y. Yao, “Classically ver- ifiable quantum advantage from a computational Bell test”, Nat. Phys.18, 918–924 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Depth-efficient proofs of quantumness

    Z. Liu and A. Gheorghiu, “Depth-efficient proofs of quantumness”, Quantum6, 807 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    Interactive Protocols for Classically-Verifiable Quantum Advantage

    D.Zhu,G.D.Kahanamoku-Meyer,L.Lewis,C.Noel,O.Katz,B.Harraz,Q.Wang,A. Risinger, L. Feng, D. Biswas, L. Egan, A. Gheorghiu, Y. Nam, T. Vidick, U. Vazirani, N. Y. Yao, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, “Interactive Protocols for Classically-Verifiable Quantum Advantage”, (2021), arXiv:2112.05156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    The Jacobi Factoring Circuit: Quantum Factoring with Near-Linear Gates and Sublinear SpaceandDepth

    G. D. Kahanamoku-Meyer, S. Ragavan, V. Vaikuntanathan, and K. V. Kirk, “The Jacobi Factoring Circuit: Quantum Factoring with Near-Linear Gates and Sublinear SpaceandDepth”,10.1145/3717823.3718273(2024),arXiv:2412.12558 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Simulation of many-body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, “Simulation of many-body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer”, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2586–2589 (1997)

    1997

  64. [64]

    Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head-Gordon, “Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies”, Science309, 1704–1707 (2005)

    2005

  65. [65]

    Quantum computational chemistry

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, “Quantum computational chemistry”, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  66. [66]

    Low- depth quantum simulation of materials

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Low- depth quantum simulation of materials”, Phys. Rev. X8, 011044 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science”, Chemical Reviews120, PMID: 33090772, 12685–12717 (2020)

    2020

  68. [68]

    Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Nuclear Effective Field Theories

    J. D. Watson, J. Bringewatt, A. F. Shaw, A. M. Childs, A. V. Gorshkov, and Z. Davoudi, “Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Nuclear Effective Field Theories”, (2023), arXiv:2312.05344 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    How to compute a 256-bit elliptic curve private key with only 50 million Toffoli gates

    D. Litinski, “How to compute a 256-bit elliptic curve private key with only 50 million Toffoli gates”, (2023), arXiv:2306.08585 [quant-ph]. 93

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    A Quan- tum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, “A Quan- tum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem”, Science292, 472–475 (2001)

    2001

  71. [71]

    Optimization by Decoded Quantum Interfer- ometry

    S. P. Jordan, N. Shutty, M. Wootters, A. Zalcman, A. Schmidhuber, R. King, S. V. Isakov, T. Khattar, and R. Babbush, “Optimization by Decoded Quantum Interfer- ometry”, Nature646, 831–836 (2024), arXiv:2408.08292 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Simulating Quantum Computation by Contracting Tensor Networks

    I. L. Markov and Y. Shi, “Simulating Quantum Computation by Contracting Tensor Networks”, SIAM J. Comput.38, 963–981 (2008)

    2008

  73. [73]

    Simulatingquantumcomputerswithprobabilisticmethods

    M.VandenNest,“Simulatingquantumcomputerswithprobabilisticmethods”,Quant. Inf. Comp.11, 784–812 (2011)

    2011

  74. [74]

    Improved Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Dom- inated by Clifford Gates

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, “Improved Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Dom- inated by Clifford Gates”, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250501 (2016), arXiv:1601.07601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  75. [75]

    What Limits the Simulation of Quan- tum Computers?

    Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, “What Limits the Simulation of Quan- tum Computers?”, Phys. Rev. X10, 041038 (2020)

    2020

  76. [76]

    Simulation of Quantum Circuits Using the Big-Batch Tensor Network Method

    F. Pan and P. Zhang, “Simulation of Quantum Circuits Using the Big-Batch Tensor Network Method”, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 030501 (2022), arXiv:2103.03074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Solving the sampling problem of the Sycamore quantum circuits

    F. Pan, K. Chen, and P. Zhang, “Solving the sampling problem of the Sycamore quantum circuits”, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 090502 (2022), arXiv:2111.03011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Classical Sampling of Random Quantum Circuits with Bounded Fidelity

    G. Kalachev, P. Panteleev, P. Zhou, and M.-H. Yung, “Classical Sampling of Random Quantum Circuits with Bounded Fidelity”, (2021), arXiv:2112.15083 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    Recursive Multi-Tensor Contraction for XEB Verification of Quantum Circuits

    G. Kalachev, P. Panteleev, and M.-H. Yung, “Recursive Multi-Tensor Contraction for XEB Verification of Quantum Circuits”, (2021), arXiv:2108.05665 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    Hyperoptimized Approximate Contraction of Tensor Networks with Arbitrary Geometry

    J. Gray and G. K.-L. Chan, “Hyperoptimized Approximate Contraction of Tensor Networks with Arbitrary Geometry”, Phys. Rev. X14, 011009 (2024)

    2024

Showing first 80 references.