Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Scalable Photon-Mediated Two-Qubit Gates with Spectrally Noisy Quantum Emitters

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pulse-train protocol makes two qubits of very different frequencies behave as if resonant in a shared cavity, restoring photon-mediated state-transfer fidelity beyond 99.9%.

desk verdict Genuinely new protocol and a clean ideal-cavity derivation, but the abstract's '>99.9% in both instances' claim is contradicted by the paper's own damped-cavity data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23959 v1 pith:TDYEWJYI submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph physics.optics

Shreekanth S. Yuvarajan , W. A. Coish , David Hucul , Herbert F. Fotso This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 03.67.-a42.50.Pq
keywords two-qubitgatescavityQEDaverageHamiltoniantheoryCarr-Purcellsequencespectralmismatchquantumstatetransfersolid-statequbitsdiffusion
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

The paper introduces POCEG, a protocol that applies Carr-Purcell π-pulse trains to two qubits coupled through a common cavity, while periodically switching off the qubit-cavity coupling. The pulse sequence refocuses the qubits' detunings, so the effective Hamiltonian's leading term is a resonant interaction independent of the frequency mismatch. The result is that state-transfer fidelity, which would otherwise be strongly suppressed by spectral disparity, can be recovered to beyond 99.9% for detunings up to several times the coupling strength. The protocol works for static detunings and for noisy detunings on timescales from fast to quasistatic, and a dispersive variant handles lossy cavities. The authors argue this brings solid-state two-qubit gates closer to the threshold needed for fault-tolerant quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the average Hamiltonian H̄ of the pulse-modulated system, built from a symmetric Carr-Purcell cycle of length 2τ with the qubit-cavity coupling g(t) switched off after odd-numbered π-pulses. Because the cycle is symmetric, all odd-order Magnus terms vanish, and the zeroth-order term is the exact resonant coupling (g/2)(a†σ−1+aσ+1+a†σ−2+aσ+2), with all detuning dependence confined to order-τ² corrections. This effective Hamiltonian turns the detuned qubits into a resonant three-level system, and its perturbative eigenstates provide the analytic infidelity estimate that matches numerics.

What would settle it

Run the POCEG sequence with a 10% asymmetry between g1 and g2 at detunings Δ1=−Δ2=5g; if the fidelity stays above 0.999, the equal-coupling premise is not load-bearing, while a significant drop would show it is. Alternatively, measure state-transfer infidelity versus inter-pulse delay τ for fixed detunings and test the predicted 1−F ∝ τ⁴(Δ1²+Δ2²)² dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central claim is that applying a periodic train of π-pulses at the cavity frequency, with the qubit-cavity coupling turned off after odd pulses, transforms the effective Hamiltonian of the two-qubit-plus-cavity system so that the zeroth-order average is (g/2)(a†σ−1+aσ+1+a†σ−2+aσ+2), independent of the qubit detunings Δ1 and Δ2. Odd-order Magnus terms vanish by symmetry, and the first residual corrections are proportional to (gτ)², so short inter-pulse delays make the detuning dependence arbitrarily small. A perturbative calculation yields the closed-form infidelity 1−F ≈ π²τ⁴(Δ1²+Δ2²)²/4608, which the numerical simulations confirm. For an ideal cavity, about 40 pulses over a tra

Load-bearing premise

The cancellation that removes detuning from the leading-order Hamiltonian requires exactly equal qubit-cavity couplings (g1=g2=g) and instantaneous π-pulses and coupling switch-offs; if those idealizations are violated, the detuning suppression is no longer exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-fidelity two-qubit gates no longer require matching the qubit frequencies to high precision; with POCEG, a modest number of pulses and a short inter-pulse delay suffice for detuning ranges several times larger than typical spectral scatter.
  • For quasistatic noise with bandwidth up to 10g, roughly 30 pulses keep the state-transfer infidelity below 10⁻³ over the transfer time 2t0f.
  • In the dispersive regime with a lossy cavity (κ=0.1g), POCEG-D restores state-transfer fidelity to roughly 94–97% for spectrally mismatched qubits, and the fidelity rises at larger dispersive detunings.
  • The predicted infidelity scales as τ⁴, so halving the inter-pulse delay reduces the infidelity by a factor of 16.
  • The authors conclude that the protocols can bring two-qubit gates in solid-state systems across the fault-tolerance fidelity threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to vary the inter-pulse delay τ for a fixed detuning pair and check the predicted τ⁴ scaling of the infidelity; agreement with Eq. (4) would confirm the refocusing mechanism.
  • The analysis assumes identical couplings g1=g2=g; real devices in a common cavity often have coupling inhomogeneity, so demonstrating robustness to unequal couplings—or adding a compensating pulse sequence—is the most direct stepping stone to experiment.
  • The same average-Hamiltonian design could be adapted to refocus other inhomogeneous parameters, such as residual qubit-qubit direct coupling or variations in cavity frequency, since the mechanism only requires a symmetric pulse cycle with coupling modulation.
  • The dispersive POCEG-D result suggests that the protocol's benefit grows with the dispersive detuning Δd; scanning Δd at fixed κ would provide a clean experimental knob to verify the trend.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes POCEG, a pulse/coupling-modulation protocol for high-fidelity photon-mediated state transfer between two qubits that are detuned from a shared cavity and from each other. For low cavity damping, a Carr-Purcell train of π pulses at the cavity frequency, combined with turning the qubit-cavity coupling off after odd pulses, is shown by average-Hamiltonian theory (SM-I) to produce an effective resonant Tavis-Cummings-like coupling whose leading term is detuning-independent; the analytical infidelity Eq. (4) and exact numerics (Figs. 2–4) support the low-damping arm. For large cavity damping, a dispersive variant POCEG-D applies far-detuned pulses, with numerical master-equation results in Fig. 5(c). The abstract and conclusion claim that 'in both instances' the state-transfer fidelity exceeds 99.9%.

Significance. If fully established, the protocol would be an interesting addition to cavity-QED control of solid-state qubits, particularly because it targets the practical problem of spectral mismatch and spectral diffusion. The paper has clear strengths: the average-Hamiltonian calculation in SM-I is explicitly derived, the cavity-truncation error is checked (SM-V), finite-κ dynamics are treated with a master equation, and the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise study in Fig. 4 directly addresses the 'spectrally noisy' part of the title. The ideal-cavity result—detuning suppression by a pulse train—is plausible and supported by the numerics. However, the high-damping arm of the headline claim is not supported by the data presented, and the analytical support for Eq. (4) is not a complete second-order perturbative derivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. III, Fig. 5(c)] The abstract and conclusion claim that 'in both instances' the state-transfer fidelity is increased beyond 99.9%. This is not supported by the POCEG-D results. Sec. III reports fidelities of only ≈94–97% for κ=0.1g, Δ_d=7.5g (Fig. 5(c)); the >99.9% values come from the ideal-cavity Magnus analysis and the low-κ simulations of Fig. 5(a). The statement that a higher Δ_d would further increase fidelity is an extrapolation: the oscillatory transfer time is t'_f=πΔ_d/(2g²), so the trade-off with κ must be demonstrated with explicit master-equation data. Either narrow the headline claim to the low-damping protocol or provide a finite-κ parameter search showing 1−F<10⁻³ in the POCEG-D regime.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (3), SM-I] The derivation and all numerics assume g1=g2=g. With unequal couplings, the leading average Hamiltonian is (g1/2)(a†σ−1+aσ+1)+(g2/2)(a†σ−2+aσ+2), i.e., an asymmetric three-site chain. In the ideal-resonant limit the maximum transfer probability from qubit 1 to qubit 2 is 4g1²g2²/(g1²+g2²)², which is smaller than unity unless g1=g2. Since inhomogeneous couplings are common for solid-state qubits in a common cavity, the protocol's central claim is not shown to survive this realistic condition. A sensitivity analysis over g2/g1, or a modified protocol that compensates asymmetric couplings, is needed before the 'scalable' claim is justified.
  3. [SM-II, Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) is presented as a perturbative result, but the SM-II derivation keeps only first-order corrections to the eigenstates and energies. Because the perturbation V is O(τ²), a claimed O(τ⁴) infidelity requires a consistent second-order treatment of the eigenstates; the derivation instead retains products of first-order corrections while omitting second-order state corrections. As written, Eq. (4) is an uncontrolled truncation, and the analytic contours in Fig. 3 are based on it. Please either complete the O(V²) calculation or directly compare Eq. (4) with the exact numerical fidelity maps over the full (Δ1,Δ2) range used.
  4. [Title, Abstract, Secs. II–III, SM-IV] The title and conclusion describe 'two-qubit gates,' but the quantitative analysis is a state-transfer fidelity for a single-excitation input, F(t)=|⟨Ψ_target|Ψ(t)⟩|². SM-IV adds the equal-superposition state, but the action on the |11⟩ sector, the entangling capability, and any process-fidelity measure are not characterized. If the authors intend to claim a two-qubit gate, they should compute a gate/process fidelity or demonstrate entanglement generation; otherwise, the gate language should be narrowed to state transfer.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM-II, Eqs. (SM-II-9), (SM-II-10)] The second eigenvector is labeled |E^(0)_2⟩ twice; the second occurrence should be |E^(0)_3⟩.
  2. [Eq. (1), SM-I] The main-text Hamiltonian includes counter-rotating terms, while the average-Hamiltonian derivation immediately passes to the RWA. It would help to state explicitly in Sec. II that all analytical and numerical results use the RWA and that ω_c=600g makes the counter-rotating corrections negligible (as sketched in SM-V).
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 5] The text quotes POCEG-D fidelities of ≈94–97%, but Fig. 5(c) shows only a color scale. Please include the numerical values on the plot or state them in the caption; this would make the discrepancy with the abstract's 99.9% claim immediately visible.
  4. [Sec. II, SM-I] The protocol assumes instantaneous π pulses and instantaneous on/off switching of g(t). No sensitivity to finite pulse duration, pulse-area error, or switching rise time is reported; a brief discussion or a single robustness simulation would be valuable for experimental readers.
  5. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgment appears to contain a typo: 'a DoW initiative' likely should be 'a DoD initiative.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central analytical result is derived from the model Hamiltonian, not fitted or renamed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the POCEG pulse sequence makes spectrally mismatched qubits effectively resonant. This is supported by an explicit derivation: Eq. (3) is obtained from the toggling-frame Hamiltonian via average-Hamiltonian/Magnus expansion in SM-I, and the infidelity formula Eq. (4) is obtained perturbatively in SM-II from the same averaged Hamiltonian. No free parameter is fitted to the numerics; the numerical simulations in SM-III solve the same model Hamiltonian and are used to confirm the analytical expressions, not to define them. The protocol ingredients (Carr-Purcell π-pulse trains and modulation of the qubit-cavity coupling) are justified in the text through the toggling-frame analysis, with ref. [37] cited only as additional support for the coupling-modulation technique; that citation is not the load-bearing derivation. The self-citations [37] and [41] are present but do not carry the central argument. The g1=g2=g assumption is an explicitly stated modeling simplification, not a hidden input that is later relabeled as a prediction. The abstract's 'beyond 99.9% in both instances' claim is inconsistent with the POCEG-D data in Fig. 5(c) (≈94–97%), but this is a correctness or scope concern, not a circularity. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its inputs or to an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol introduces no new physical entities; it uses standard Hamiltonian engineering. The central claim rests on control idealizations (instantaneous pulses/switching, equal couplings) and model choices (RWA, cavity truncation, OU noise). No parameters are fitted to data; the pulse parameters Np and τ are user-chosen controls, and the analytic formula Eq. (4) is derived, not fit.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation for the analytic average Hamiltonian; counter-rotating terms neglected.
    SM-I uses the RWA Hamiltonian (SM-I-4); justified by ω_c=600g >> g in SM-V.
  • domain assumption Cavity Fock space truncated at n_c=3.
    Sec. II and SM-V argue n_c>3 occupations are ≤1e-10 for ω_c=600g.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous π pulses and instantaneous on/off switching of qubit-cavity coupling.
    Sec. II assumes π_x pulses are instantaneous and g(t) is turned off after odd pulses; no error model or finite-width analysis.
  • domain assumption Equal qubit-cavity coupling strengths, g1=g2=g.
    Sec. II: 'we will use g1=g2=g…'; unequal couplings would break the symmetric average-Hamiltonian transfer.
  • domain assumption Spectral noise follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Gaussian process with correlation time τc and variance σ².
    Sec. III and Fig. 4; the robustness claim is tied to this noise model.
  • domain assumption No qubit decoherence other than cavity damping κ; qubits are ideal two-level systems.
    Master equation (SM-III-1) includes only cavity photon loss; qubit T1/T2 are ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Photon-Mediated Two-Qubit Gates with Spectrally Noisy Quantum Emitters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDYEWJYI

@misc{pith2026260723959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Photon-Mediated Two-Qubit Gates with Spectrally Noisy Quantum Emitters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDYEWJYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23959}
}
read the original abstract

When two quantum bits are coupled through a cavity, a two-qubit gate can be realized between them either in the near-resonant regime over a timescale established by the coupling strength of the qubits with the cavity, or in the dispersive regime, over a longer timescale established by the combination of the coupling strength and the frequency detuning between the qubits and the cavity. When the qubits are spectrally noisy or differently detuned from the cavity, the fidelity for the operation can be drastically reduced in either case, precluding scalable realizations. We introduce the protocol for optimal cavity-enabled gates (POCEG) that is shown, through reliable numerical and analytical solutions, to overcome spectral differences between quantum bits and to achieve high fidelity between disparate/noisy quantum emitters. Namely, for a cavity with low damping rate, we apply a sequence of pulses to the qubits at the frequency of the cavity while periodically modulating the coupling of the qubits to the cavity. Alternatively, in the case of a large damping rate, we operate in the dispersive regime and overcome spectral disparities by applying the pulses at a frequency far-detuned from the cavity. In both instances, we find for the quantum state transfer between the two qubits that, with a modest inter-pulse delay, the fidelity that would otherwise be strongly suppressed by the spectral mismatch of the qubits can be increased beyond 99.9%. These protocols have the capacity to bring two-qubit gates between solid state systems across the threshold required for fault-tolerant quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) shows the fidelity F of the state transfer as a function of ∆ with ∆1 = −∆2 = ∆, representing oppositely detuned qubits. The dashed line shows the exponential suppression of F with increasing ∆ for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Performance of the POCEG measured as the infidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Infidelity 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Performance POCEG protocol for the transfer of the equal superposition state measured as the infidelity 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Maximum cavity occupation during time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long- distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics, Nature414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    So, the state of the overall sys- tem lives in an 16-dimensional space

    Each of the states|σ j⟩,|n c⟩, withj= 1,2, lives in a two-dimensional space. So, the state of the overall sys- tem lives in an 16-dimensional space. Thus, even without the control protocol, the dynamics of the system is not broadly tractable analytically, although analytical solu- tions can be obtained for special system parameters and constraints [41]. A...

  4. [4]

    Childress, J

    L. Childress, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Fault-tolerant quantum communication based on solid-state photon emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 070504 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    Aharonovich, D

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, and M. Toth, Solid-state single-photon emitters, Nature Photonics10, 631 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, J. Wrachtrup, and B. B. Zhou, Quantum technologies with optically interfaced solid-state spins, Nature Photonics12, 516 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    R. J. Schoelkopf and S. M. Girvin, Wiring up quantum systems, Nature451, 664 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Haroche and J

    S. Haroche and J. Raimond,Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons(Oxford, England, 2006)

    2006

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Dyckovsky and S

    A. Dyckovsky and S. Olmschenk, Analysis of photon- mediated entanglement between distinguishable matter qubits, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics85, 052322 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Photon-mediated quantum gate between two neutral atoms in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. X8, 011018 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    J. M. Martinis, Saving superconducting quantum pro- cessors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays, npj Quantum Information7, 90 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    A. M. Tyryshkin, J. J. L. Morton, S. C. Benjamin, A. Ar- davan, G. A. D. Briggs, J. W. Ager, and S. A. Lyon, Coherence of spin qubits in silicon, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter18, S783 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    Fujita, T

    T. Fujita, T. A. Baart, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherent shuttle of electron-spin states, npj Quantum Information3, 22 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    H. Qiao, Y. P. Kandel, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, X. Hu, and J. M. Nichol, Long-distance su- perexchange between semiconductor quantum-dot elec- tron spins, Physical Review Letters126, 017701 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediated iswap os- cillations between distant spins, Nature Physics21, 168 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Harvey-Collard, J

    P. Harvey-Collard, J. Dijkema, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherent spin- spin coupling mediated by virtual microwave photons, Phys. Rev. X12, 021026 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Warren, U

    A. Warren, U. G¨ ung¨ ord¨ u, J. P. Kestner, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Robust photon-mediated entangling gates between quantum dot spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115308 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Warren, E

    A. Warren, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Long- distance entangling gates between quantum dot spins mediated by a superconducting resonator, Phys. Rev. B 100, 161303 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Hagley, X

    E. Hagley, X. Ma ˆ ıtre, G. Nogues, C. Wunderlich, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Generation of einstein-podolsky-rosen pairs of atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    T. Frey, P. J. Leek, M. Beck, A. Blais, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, Dipole coupling of a double quantum dot to a microwave resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 046807 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Englund, B

    D. Englund, B. Shields, K. Rivoire, F. Hatami, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Deterministic coupling of a single nitrogen vacancy center to a pho- tonic crystal cavity, Nano Letters10, 3922 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Zheng and G.-C

    S.-B. Zheng and G.-C. Guo, Efficient scheme for two- atom entanglement and quantum information processing in cavity qed, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2392 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Yang, S.-I

    C.-P. Yang, S.-I. Chu, and S. Han, Quantum information transfer and entanglement with squid qubits in cavity qed: A dark-state scheme with tolerance for nonuniform device parameter, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 117902 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Rosseau, Q

    D. Rosseau, Q. Ha, and T. Byrnes, Entanglement gener- ation between two spinor bose-einstein condensates with cavity qed, Phys. Rev. A90, 052315 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    W. Li, H. Sun, Y. Liu, T. Li, and R.-B. Wu, Flying-qubit control: Basics, progress, and outlook, Advanced Devices & Instrumentation5, 0059 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Tissot and G

    B. Tissot and G. Burkard, Efficient high-fidelity fly- ing qubit shaping, Physical Review Research6, 013150 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Nikitchenko and G

    A. Nikitchenko and G. Burkard, Photon-mediated en- tanglement between spin qubits beyond the dispersive regime, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12900 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Unterguggenberger, A

    K. Unterguggenberger, A. Gokhale, A. Tsarapkin, W. Zhang, K. H¨ oflich, H. Fotso, T. Pregnolato, L. Orphal-Kobin, and T. Schr¨ oder, Spectral diffusion mitigation with a laser pulse sequence, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.21659 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    H. F. Fotso, Tuning spectral properties of individual and multiple quantum emitters in noisy environments, Phys. Rev. A107, 023719 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    H. F. Fotso, Pulse-enhanced two-photon interference with solid state quantum emitters, Phys. Rev. B100, 094309 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    H. F. Fotso, Controlling the emission and absorption spectrum of a quantum emitter in a dynamic environ- ment, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics52, 025501 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    H. F. Fotso and V. V. Dobrovitski, Absorption spectrum of a two-level system subjected to a periodic pulse se- quence, Phys. Rev. B95, 214301 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    H. F. Fotso, A. E. Feiguin, D. D. Awschalom, and V. V. Dobrovitski, Suppressing spectral diffusion of emitted photons with optical pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 033603 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    D. M. Lukin, A. D. White, R. Trivedi, M. A. Guidry, N. Morioka, C. Babin, ¨O. O. Soykal, J. Ul-Hassan, N. T. Son, T. Ohshima, P. K. Vasireddy, M. H. Nasr, S. Sun, J.-P. W. MacLean, C. Dory, E. A. Nanni, J. Wrachtrup, F. Kaiser, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Spectrally reconfigurable qu...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Srinivasa, J

    V. Srinivasa, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Cavity- mediated entanglement of parametrically driven spin qubits via sidebands, PRX Quantum5, 020339 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Beaudoin, A

    F. Beaudoin, A. Blais, and W. A. Coish, Hamiltonian engineering for robust quantum state transfer and qubit readout in cavity qed, New Journal of Physics19, 023041 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Hu, Y.-x

    X. Hu, Y.-x. Liu, and F. Nori, Strong coupling of a spin qubit to a superconducting stripline cavity, Phys. Rev. B 86, 035314 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Borjans, X

    F. Borjans, X. G. Croot, X. Mi, M. J. Gullans, and J. R. Petta, Resonant microwave-mediated interactions between distant electron spins, Nature577, 195 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    I. I. Rabi, Space quantization in a gyrating magnetic field, Phys. Rev.51, 652 (1937)

    1937

  34. [42]

    S. S. Yuvarajan, V. Iglesias-Cardinale, D. Hucul, and H. F. Fotso, Cavity mediated two-qubit gate: Tuning to optimal performance with nisq era quantum simulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.12030 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions, Basic Processes and Applica- tions(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    Viola, S

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

    1999

  37. [45]

    Brinkmann, Introduction to average hamiltonian the- ory

    A. Brinkmann, Introduction to average hamiltonian the- ory. i. basics, Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A 45, e21414 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Communications on pure and applied mathematics7, 649 (1954)

    W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Communications on pure and applied mathematics7, 649 (1954)

    1954

  39. [47]

    Mansfield, Symmetrized pulse sequences in high res- olution nmr in solids, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics4, 1444 (1971)

    P. Mansfield, Symmetrized pulse sequences in high res- olution nmr in solids, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics4, 1444 (1971). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL SM-I: Average Hamiltonian of the system under POCEG For a time-dependent Hamiltonian where the Hamiltonian does not ...

    1971

  40. [48]

    (SM-II-13) E(1) 3 =⟨E (0) 3 |V|E (0) 3 ⟩= g2τ 2 48 (∆1 + ∆2) + gτ 2 48 √ 2 (∆2 1 + ∆2

  41. [49]

    (SM-II-14) (SM-II-15) The first order corrections to the energy eigenstates,|E (1) n ⟩= P k̸=n ⟨E(0) k |V|E (0) n ⟩ En −E k |E(0) k ⟩are, |E(1) 1 ⟩= τ 2 48 √ 2 (∆2 1 −∆ 2

  42. [50]

    + gτ 2 48 (∆1 −∆ 2) |E(0) 2 ⟩+ τ 2 48 √ 2 (∆2 1 −∆ 2 2)− gτ 2 48 (∆1 −∆ 2) |E(0) 3 ⟩(SM-II-16) |E(1) 2 ⟩=− τ 2 48 √ 2 (∆2 1 −∆ 2

  43. [51]

    To first order inλ, the unperturbed kets can be expressed purely in terms of the perturbed kets

    + gτ 2 48 (∆1 −∆ 2) |E(0) 1 ⟩ −gτ 2 24 √ 2 (∆1 + ∆2) |E(0) 3 ⟩(SM-II-17) |E(1) 3 ⟩=− τ 2 48 √ 2 (∆2 1 −∆ 2 2)− gτ 2 48 (∆1 −∆ 2) |E(0) 1 ⟩+ gτ 2 24 √ 2 (∆1 + ∆2) |E(0) 2 ⟩(SM-II-18) 13 In the unperturbed eigenbasis, we have, |Ψ(0)⟩=|e 10cg2⟩= 1√ 2 |E(0) 1 ⟩+ 1 2 |E(0) 2 ⟩+ 1 2...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.