Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 34 references

A broadband, individually addressing two- and three-dimensional photonic integrated circuit for trapped-ion qubit control

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A single on-chip planar lens and 3D-printed micromirror can address three trapped ions across 405–880 nm with −27 dB crosstalk at 5 µm pitch.

desk verdict Real broadband hybrid PIC with solid offline optics; ion-side individual-addressing claim is only partly closed and the abstract overreaches a bit. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25062 v1 pith:ZP2TOXXD submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph physics.optics

Daniel Klawson , Yiyang Zhi , Bingran You , Michael Bareian , Elijah Mossman , Chun-Yuan Fan , Arkadev Roy , Ke Sun
show 16 more authors
Jason Lee Sung Cheol Yoon Qiming Wu Lai Jiang Wenjun Ke Weiwei Wu Sirui Tang Zachary Wall Jiaxiang Wang Louis Paul Romero Sam Vizvary Steven Diaz Eric R. Hudson Wesley C. Campbell Hartmut Haeffner Ming C. Wu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords trappedionsphotonicintegratedcircuittwo-photonpolymerizationbroadbandaddressingsurfaceelectrodetrapopticalcrosstalkQCCDmicromirror
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

Trapped-ion quantum computers need many laser wavelengths delivered with micron precision to every qubit, but free-space optics do not scale and on-chip grating couplers are narrowband, so each wavelength needs its own footprint-hungry coupler. This paper shows a hybrid photonic circuit that routes light in a broadband alumina waveguide, expands it with a planar waveguide lens, and focuses it with a wafer-scale two-photon-polymerized micromirror coated as part of the surface-electrode trap. One shared optical path produces three individually addressable foci from 405 to 880 nm with about −27 dB average intensity crosstalk at 5 µm spacing—the pitch of a typical ion chain. The authors trap calcium and barium ions above the devices, measure stray light with barium, and show selective on-chip 866 nm repumping of one calcium ion in a pair. If the approach holds up under full multi-wavelength operation, optical control layers need only scale with the number of ion registers, not with the number of wavelengths.

What carries the argument

The hybrid imaging path: a lithographic planar waveguide lens that expands and collimates the guided mode, paired with a wafer-scale 2PP biconic-aspherical micromirror that redirects and focuses it ~75 µm above the chip, mapping each entrance waveguide to a discrete ion-plane focus.

What would settle it

Load a stable multi-ion crystal directly at the designed focus, deliver several control wavelengths through the same path, and measure per-ion gate or repump fidelity with nearest-neighbor intensity crosstalk remaining at or below −27 dB without dielectric-charging or substrate-photoconductivity failures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A monolithic 2D–3D photonic integrated circuit—planar waveguide lens plus two-photon-polymerized biconic micromirror integrated with a surface Paul trap—delivers individually addressable beams for three ions over λ = 405–880 nm with −27 dB average intensity crosstalk at 5 µm pitch, supports trapping of 40Ca+ and 138Ba+, and demonstrates individual on-chip 866 nm repumping of calcium.

Load-bearing premise

That offline beam maps and a limited single-wavelength ion demo are enough to claim practical multi-wavelength individual control, even though charging blocked full shuttling to the focus and trap instability stopped further wavelength tests on ions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One broadband emitter can replace many wavelength-specific grating couplers per zone, shrinking the photonic footprint of each QCCD interaction region.
  • Optical delivery element count can scale with the number of ion registers rather than with the number of control wavelengths.
  • Fewer transport steps per clock cycle become feasible if a single zone can address more ions with the same optics.
  • Wafer-scale additive manufacturing of 3D micro-optics becomes a practical route to custom free-space beam shaping inside surface-electrode traps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ITO facet coatings and ground planes fix charging as proposed, the same stack could host full Ca+ or Ba+ gate sets without free-space delivery for those wavelengths.
  • Correcting coma with extra printed elements could extend the three-spot field of view, enabling longer chains per zone without new grating banks.
  • The architecture’s value compounds most in multi-species or multi-zone machines where wavelength count multiplies faster than zone count.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a monolithic photonic integrated circuit for trapped-ion light delivery that replaces diffractive grating couplers with a hybrid 2D/3D optical system: a lithographically defined planar waveguide lens (Al2O3/SiO2 platform) feeds a biconic-aspherical micromirror printed by two-photon polymerization (2PP) and metallized with the same Al layer that forms the surface-trap electrodes. The authors demonstrate wafer-scale fabrication on 6-inch wafers, including (to my knowledge novel) lithography and etch post-processing directly on 2PP-printed optics. Offline confocal-profiler characterization shows tight focusing at h = 75 µm across 405–880 nm (axial FWHM 0.67–1.46 µm), simulated and measured nearest-neighbor intensity crosstalk of about −27 dB at 5 µm pitch at two wavelengths (515/730 nm measured; 532/729 nm simulated), simultaneous three-spot illumination, and a full fiber-to-ion loss budget. Ion experiments trap 138Ba+ and 40Ca+ above the devices: dielectric charging prevented shuttling Ba+ to the beam focus, so the on-ion optical measurement is a stray-light scan 120 µm from beam center; with Ca+, selective 866 nm repumping of one ion of a 5 µm-spaced pair is shown qualitatively before trap failure ended further tests. Charging mechanisms are characterized in the Supplementary Information and mitigation strategies (ITO coating, ground plane) are proposed.

Significance. If the device-level results hold, this is a genuine architectural advance for integrated-photonics ion traps: a single shared optical element delivering individually addressable foci over 405–880 nm removes the per-wavelength grating multiplier that currently dominates PIC footprint in QCCD-style architectures. Specific strengths worth naming: (i) the first demonstration of high-resolution lithography and wet etch on top of 2PP micro-optics, enabling monolithic integration of printed optics with trap electrodes; (ii) broadband focal maps at six wavelengths with quantitative FWHM and a complete, packaged-as-trapped fiber-to-ion loss budget (Fig. 3e), which is rare and useful; (iii) measured (not merely simulated) nearest-neighbor crosstalk at two wavelengths and simultaneous three-spot operation; (iv) UHV packaging surviving four bakeouts to 125 °C; and (v) unusually candid reporting and quantitative SI characterization of the dielectric-charging failure mode (Supp. Note 1), which is valuable to the community independent of the headline device. The ion-plane validation is, however, substantially weaker than the abstract implies, and the paper's impact statement should be calibrated

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §6 Discussion] The headline claim — 'address three individual ions from λ = 405–880 nm with −27 dB average intensity crosstalk at 5 µm pitch' — bundles three assertions whose evidential status differs sharply. The −27 dB figure and the three-spot demonstration are offline confocal-profiler measurements at 515/635/730 nm (Fig. 3c,d); crosstalk at the other four wavelengths is inferred only from FWHM retention (Fig. 3b), not measured. On ions, the only addressing datum is a single-wavelength (866 nm), two-ion repump with unquantified contrast (Fig. 4d), and the Ba+ measurement samples the beam 120 µm off focus. The abstract and Discussion should state plainly that individual-addressing crosstalk is a beam-profiler result validated on ions at one wavelength, or the authors should supply additional on-ion data. As written, a reader of the abstract would conclude that multi-wavelength on-ion addressing at −
  2. [§5, Fig. 4d] The selective-repump demonstration is the manuscript's only on-ion test of individual addressing, yet the contrast is reported only qualitatively ('weaker fluorescence', two Gaussian fits without quoted amplitudes). The authors themselves cite three contrast-limiting factors (axial mispositioning, saturation, radial misalignment), each of which decouples fluorescence contrast from the underlying intensity crosstalk. Please report the fitted peak ratio with uncertainties, the estimated on-ion intensity ratio after accounting for saturation, and the integration time/repetitions. Without a number, this figure cannot support or bound the on-ion crosstalk claim at all.
  3. [§5, Fig. 4b (crosstalk scan, mislabeled — see minor comments)] The Ba+ measurement is described as characterizing 'crosstalk from the integrated 455 nm delivery path', but the data span positions ~65–185 µm from the cutout center, with the nearest point ~120 µm from the expected focus — i.e., far-sidelobe falloff, referenced to a peak intensity inferred from offline loss measurements (Fig. 3e) rather than measured on-ion. This is a legitimate and interesting stray-light measurement (relevant to spectator-zone isolation, as in Supp. Note 2), but it does not constrain the 5 µm-pitch nearest-neighbor crosstalk that anchors the abstract. The text should be explicit about which claim this measurement supports. Relatedly, the intensity inference chain (bright-time binning → scattering rate → saturation parameter with a ~50% S1/2 population correction under strong 493 nm saturation) carries model dependence; please quantify the uncertainty on the −57 dB fi
  4. [§4, Fig. 3b,c] Measured axial FWHM is on average 50% larger than the geometric-NA prediction, attributed to non-uniform aperture illumination and spherical aberration. Since crosstalk at 5 µm pitch depends on the full point-spread function — including aberration-driven skirts — the −27 dB value measured at 515/730 nm need not transfer to wavelengths where the aberration balance differs (e.g., 405 nm and 880 nm, the band edges that motivate the 'broadband' claim). Either measured crosstalk at additional wavelengths or full-wave simulated crosstalk versus wavelength (the FDTD capability used for Fig. 3c presumably permits this) is needed to support the band-wide addressing claim.
  5. [Supp. Note 2, Eq. (3)] The spectator-coherence estimate assumes 'the same relative crosstalk profile applies at 493 nm' and arrives at T_coh ≈ 100 µs, which the authors concede is marginal for gate operations. Given that measured crosstalk and FWHM vary across the band (Fig. 3b,c), and that the 455 nm profile was measured far off focus, this extrapolation needs justification or error bars; otherwise the SI's own numbers suggest the device as-built does not yet protect spectator ions, which bears directly on the scalability argument in §6.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption vs. main text] Panel lettering is inconsistent: the caption assigns (b) to Ca+ levels, (c) to the 455 nm crosstalk scan, and (d) to selective repumping, but the main text says 'Figure 4b shows the measured 455 nm intensity' and 'Trapping of 40Ca+ ... (Fig. 4d)'. Please reconcile.
  2. [Methods, UHV packaging] The Methods refer to packaging photographs as 'Fig. 4(a)' and 'Fig. 4(b)', which do not correspond to the Fig. 4 caption (ion data). Presumably a separate packaging figure was intended; please fix the cross-references.
  3. [§4 / Fig. 3c] Please define 'average intensity crosstalk' precisely: is −27.6 dB the ratio of intensity integrated over the neighboring spot's FWHM area to the addressed-spot peak, a peak-to-peak ratio, or an average over the two neighbors? The number's meaning (and comparability with the −36 dB grating result of Ref. 17) depends on this.
  4. [§5] Typos: 'The ions fluorescence contrast' (missing apostrophe); 'florescence' in the Fig. 4d caption. Also 'All scale bars are 5 µm' in the Fig. 4 caption conflicts with the '200 um' scale bar visible in Supp. Fig. 5a.
  5. [Fig. 3e] The 35 dB fiber-to-ion loss at 405 nm deserves one sentence of discussion: for Ba+ this band covers photoionization/shelving transitions, and 35 dB may be prohibitive for some uses even if 'not a limit of the architecture'. A power budget for the most demanding wavelength would strengthen the broadband claim.
  6. [§2] The claim 'Alignment between the substrate and the printed optics is ≤1 µm in all directions' should state how this was measured (alignment marks? confocal metrology?) and give the observed distribution across the 50 mirrors per wafer, since pointing error directly maps to on-ion crosstalk via the 5 µm pitch.
  7. [References] Ref. 24's DOI ('10.1103/l1cn-28kv') appears malformed; please verify. Several arXiv-only references (4, 25, 32, 33) may have since appeared in print.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: experimental device paper whose crosstalk, spot sizes, and ion rates are measured quantities, not definitional or fitted-as-prediction loops.

full rationale

This is a fabrication-and-measurement paper. The central claims (broadband foci 405–880 nm, ~−27 dB average intensity crosstalk at 5 µm pitch, trapping of Ca+/Ba+, selective 866 nm repump) are supported by confocal beam profiles, FDTD/Zemax design checks, and ion fluorescence/rate data. Design parameters (planar-lens geometry, biconic-asphere coefficients, waveguide widths) are optimized in FDTD/Zemax against stated targets and then fabricated and measured; the reported FWHM, crosstalk maps, fiber-to-ion loss, and scattering rates are not recycled fits of the same quantities. Self-citations point to prior process platforms, trap models, and ion methods and are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems that force the result. Completeness gaps (offline vs on-ion crosstalk, charging-limited Ba+ access, single-λ Ca+ demo) are experimental-scope issues, not circular derivation. Score 0; steps empty.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Load-bearing content is experimental process and measurement, not a formal derivation. Background assumptions are standard ion-trap and nanophotonics practice; free parameters are design targets (height, pitch, NA) and process choices rather than fitted physical constants that define the claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Ion height / focus height h ≈ 75 µm = 75 µm
    Design target for trap–optics geometry; optical claims are evaluated at this height.
  • Transverse magnification MT ≈ 0.5 and waveguide pitch mapping to 5 µm ion pitch = MT ≈ 0.5; 5 µm pitch
    Chosen imaging geometry that sets the three-site addressing claim.
  • Biconic + 16-term asphere micromirror coefficients
    Zemax-optimized surface parameters; performance depends on print fidelity (~ppt shape error, ~13 nm RMS roughness).
  • Band-specific waveguide widths (0.55 / 0.8 / 1.6 µm) = NUV 0.55 µm; VIS 0.8 µm; NIR 1.6 µm
    Hand-chosen for single-mode bands in 120 nm Al2O3; affect loss and coupling, not the crosstalk definition.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Surface Paul trap plus standard Doppler cooling/repump level schemes suffice to use Ca+ and Ba+ as probes of delivered intensity and crosstalk.
    Sections 5 and Methods; standard trapped-ion practice.
  • domain assumption Intensity inferred from Ba+ S1/2→P3/2 quantum-jump bright times maps to local 455 nm intensity via known saturation/detuning parameters.
    Fig. 4b analysis; assumes calibrated conversion and stable cooling conditions.
  • domain assumption Al2O3/SiO2 platform supports usable propagation across 405–880 nm with stated loss decomposition.
    Cited prior platform work and Fig. 3e loss budget; short-λ loss is attributed to platform not architecture.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposed ITO facet coating and/or ground plane will restore stable trapping without spoiling optical NA or adding unacceptable scatter.
    Discussion; required for the scaling narrative but not demonstrated on these devices.
invented entities (1)
  • Hybrid 2D planar-waveguide-lens + 3D 2PP biconic-aspherical micromirror emitter under a monolithic surface trap independent evidence
    purpose: Provide one broadband, multi-site focusing aperture replacing many narrowband grating couplers.
    Central device invention; physically fabricated and optically measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A broadband, individually addressing two- and three-dimensional photonic integrated circuit for trapped-ion qubit control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZP2TOXXD

@misc{pith2026260725062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A broadband, individually addressing two- and three-dimensional photonic integrated circuit for trapped-ion qubit control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZP2TOXXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25062}
}
abstract

Trapped ions provide a high-fidelity platform for quantum information processing, yet delivery of multiple, distinct wavelengths across large networks of interaction zones remains a bottleneck. Conventional free-space light delivery lacks scalability, while on-chip grating couplers suffer from narrow operational bandwidth that increases circuit footprint and optical interfacing complexity. Here we show a broadband photonic integrated circuit capable of addressing individual ions. The circuit combines a planar waveguide lens with a micromirror fabricated using two-photon polymerization at wafer scale. This implementation can address three individual ions from $\lambda$ = 405 - 880 nm with -27 dB average intensity crosstalk at $5\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ pitch. We trap $^{40}\mathrm{Ca}^{+}$ and $^{138}\mathrm{Ba}^{+}$ ions above such devices, characterize optical crosstalk with barium ions, and demonstrate individual repumping of calcium ions. This monolithic photonic architecture brings broadband addressing in an on-chip modality to trapped-ion technology. More generally, integrating additive manufacturing into quantum devices is poised to unlock expanded design space for implementing novel quantum architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25062 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the 2D-3D PIC. a, Isometric rendering of the device. The photonic layer is made up of an amorphous Al2O3 core with a symmetric SiO2 cladding, patterned underneath the 200 nm Al surface-electrode layer. In the ion interaction region, a combination of lithographically defined photonics and 2PP-printed optics is used to route and shape the beam delivered to the ion location. b, Side view of the on-chip … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 6-inch wafer-scale fabrication with integrated two-photon polymerized (2PP) optics. a, Pre-2PP process flow. The aluminum oxide waveguide core is grown via ALD for high optical quality. The silicon dioxide cladding is grown via LPCVD at 450◦C. The optical facets are defined through ICP-RIE, with amorphous silicon serving as the hard mask for the vertical sidewalls. b, Post-2PP process flow. We perform novel post-pro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Broadband, micron-level focusing. a, Measured top-down focal-plane images at h = 75 µm for six wavelengths from 405 to 880 nm through the nanophotonic device. The shown color map for each wavelength is the perceived color at each wavelength except λ = 880 nm, which is a pseudo-color. b, Axial (diamonds) and radial (circles) FWHM versus wavelength. The effective NA is different in the axial and radial directions, and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ion trapping and crosstalk results. a, Relevant energy levels and optical transitions of 138Ba+. The inset shows the fluorescence image of two trapped 138Ba+ ions with free space 493 nm and 650 nm light shining onto the ions. b, Relevant energy levels and optical trans…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Axial electrostatic perturbation from a charged dielectric. a, Fluorescence image near the dielectric region. b, Measured axial stray field, Ez, compared with a BEM simulation. c, Axial potential curvature, ∂ 2 zΦ, extracted from secular-frequency measurements using ∂ …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas. High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit.Physical Review Letters, 113:220501, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.220501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.220501 2014

  2. [2]

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas. High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits.Physical Review Letters, 117:060504, 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.060504

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.060504 2016

  3. [3]

    Anthony Ransford, M. S. Allman, Jake Arkinstall, J. P. Campora, Samuel F. Cooper, Robert D. Delaney, Joan M. Dreiling, Brian Estey, Caroline Figgatt, Alex Hall, Ali A. Husain, Akhil Isanaka, Colin J. Kennedy, Nikhil Kotibhaskar, Ivaylo S. Madjarov, Karl Mayer, Alistair R. Milne, An- nie J. Park, Adam P. Reed, Riley Ancona, Molly P. Andersen, Pablo Andres-...

    2026

  4. [4]

    A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. L¨ oschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Mali- nowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland. Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with >99.99% fidelity without ground-state cooling, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17286

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof. Ex- perimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions.Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 103(3):259–328, 1998. doi: 10.6028/jres.103.019

    work page doi:10.6028/jres.103.019 1998

  6. [6]

    Kielpinski, C

    D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland. Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer.Nature, 417(6890):709–711, 2002. doi: 10.1038/nature00784

    doi:10.1038/nature00784 2002

  7. [7]

    Niffenegger, Jules Stuart, Cheryl Sorace-Agaskar, Dave Kharas, Suraj Bramhavar, Colin D

    Robert J. Niffenegger, Jules Stuart, Cheryl Sorace-Agaskar, Dave Kharas, Suraj Bramhavar, Colin D. Bruzewicz, William Loh, Ryan T. Maxson, Robert McConnell, David Reens, Gavin N. West, Jeremy M. Sage, and John Chiaverini. Integrated multi-wavelength control of an ion qubit. Nature, 586(7830):538–542, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2811-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2811-x 2020

  8. [8]

    Setzer, Michael Gehl, Nicholas Karl, Jay Van Der Wall, Ryan Law, Matthew G

    Joonhyuk Kwon, William J. Setzer, Michael Gehl, Nicholas Karl, Jay Van Der Wall, Ryan Law, Matthew G. Blain, Daniel Stick, and Hayden J. McGuinness. Multi-site integrated optical address- ing of trapped ions.Nature Communications, 15:3709, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-47882-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47882-5 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Mehta, Chi Zhang, Maciej Malinowski, Thanh-Long Nguyen, Martin Stadler, and Jonathan P

    Karan K. Mehta, Chi Zhang, Maciej Malinowski, Thanh-Long Nguyen, Martin Stadler, and Jonathan P. Home. Integrated optical multi-ion quantum logic.Nature, 586(7830):533–537, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2823-6

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Mehta, Daniel Kienzler, and Jonathan P

    Carmelo Mordini, Alfredo Ricci Vasquez, Yuto Motohashi, Matthias M¨ uller, Maciej Malinowski, Chi Zhang, Karan K. Mehta, Daniel Kienzler, and Jonathan P. Home. Multizone trapped-ion qubit control in an integrated photonics QCCD device.Physical Review X, 15:011040, 2025. doi: 1...

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Corsetti, Ashton Hattori, Ethan R

    Sabrina M. Corsetti, Ashton Hattori, Ethan R. Clements, Felix W. Knollmann, Milica Notaros, Reuel Swint, Tal Sneh, Patrick T. Callahan, Gavin N. West, Dave Kharas, Thomas Mahony, Colin D. Bruzewicz, Cheryl Sorace-Agaskar, Robert McConnell, Isaac L. Chuang, John Chi- averini, a...

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    Knollmann, Sabrina M

    Felix W. Knollmann, Sabrina M. Corsetti, Ethan R. Clements, Reuel Swint, Aaron D. Leu, May E. Kim, Patrick T. Callahan, Dave Kharas, Thomas Mahony, Cheryl Sorace-Agaskar, Robert McConnell, Colin D. Bruzewicz, Isaac L. Chuang, Jelena Notaros, and John Chiaverini. Collection of ...

    2026 doi

  5. [13]

    Kongnyuy, Benedetto Troia, Sandeep Seema Saseendran, Philippe Soussan, Roelof Jansen, and Xavier Rottenberg

    Jeong Hwan Song, Tangla D. Kongnyuy, Benedetto Troia, Sandeep Seema Saseendran, Philippe Soussan, Roelof Jansen, and Xavier Rottenberg. Grating devices on a silicon nitride technology platform for visible light applications.OSA Continuum, 2(4):1155, March 2019. ISSN 2578-7519....

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Bandwidth analysis of waveguide grating coupler.Optics Express, 21(5):5688, March 2013

    Zhe Xiao, Tsung-Yang Liow, Jing Zhang, Ping Shum, and Feng Luan. Bandwidth analysis of waveguide grating coupler.Optics Express, 21(5):5688, March 2013. ISSN 1094-4087. doi: 10. 1364/oe.21.005688. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.21.005688

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Sapra, Dries Vercruysse, Logan Su, Ki Youl Yang, Jinhie Skarda, Alexander Y

    Neil V. Sapra, Dries Vercruysse, Logan Su, Ki Youl Yang, Jinhie Skarda, Alexander Y. Piggott, and Jelena Vuckovic. Inverse design and demonstration of broadband grating couplers.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 25(3):1–7, May 2019. ISSN 1558-4542. doi: 1...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Khokhar, Xia Chen, Ilaria Cristiani, David J

    Riccardo Marchetti, Cosimo Lacava, Ali Z. Khokhar, Xia Chen, Ilaria Cristiani, David J. Richardson, Graham T. Reed, Periklis Petropoulos, and Paolo Minzioni. High-efficiency grating- couplers: demonstration of a new design strategy.Scientific Reports, 7:16670, 2017. doi: 10.10...

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Mizuki Shirao, Daniel Klawson, Sara Mouradian, and Ming C. Wu. High efficiency focusing double-etched sin grating coupler for trapped ion qubit manipulation.Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 61(SK):SK1002, June 2022. ISSN 1347-4065. doi: 10.35848/1347-4065/ac5b27. URL http:...

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Bald- win, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyenhuis. Demonstra- tion of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture.Nature, 592(7853):209–213, April

  11. [19]

    Lindenfelser, M

    F. Lindenfelser, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevitsky, S. Ragg, and J. P. Home. Cooling atomic ions with visible and infra-red light.New Journal of Physics, 19:063041, 2017. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ aa7150

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Christensen, Eric R

    David Hucul, Justin E. Christensen, Eric R. Hudson, and Wesley C. Campbell. Spectroscopy of a synthetic trapped ion qubit.Physical Review Letters, 119:100501, 2017. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.100501

    2017

  13. [21]

    West, William Loh, Dave Kharas, Cheryl Sorace-Agaskar, Karan K

    Gavin N. West, William Loh, Dave Kharas, Cheryl Sorace-Agaskar, Karan K. Mehta, Jeremy Sage, John Chiaverini, and Rajeev J. Ram. Low-loss integrated photonics for the blue and ultraviolet regime.APL Photonics, 4(2):026101, 2019. doi: 10.1063/1.5052502

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Pruiti, Stuart May, and Marc Sorel

    Elissa McKay, Natale G. Pruiti, Stuart May, and Marc Sorel. High-confinement alumina waveg- uides with sub-db/cm propagation losses at 450 nm.Scientific Reports, 13:19917, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46877-4

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M. G. House. Analytic model for electrostatic fields in surface-electrode ion traps.Physical Review A, 78(3), September 2008. ISSN 1094-1622. doi: 10.1103/physreva.78.033402. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.78.033402

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    Mehlst¨ aubler

    Guochun Du, Elena Jordan, and Tanja E. Mehlst¨ aubler. Electric field distortions in surface ion traps with integrated nanophotonics.Physical Review Applied, 25(6), June 2026. ISSN 2331-7019. doi: 10.1103/l1cn-28kv. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/l1cn-28kv

    2026 doi

  17. [25]

    Wall, Justin D

    Zachary J. Wall, Justin D. Piel, Samuel R. Vizvary, Michael Bareian, Steven Diaz, Elijah Moss- man, Anthony Ransford, Chris H. Greene, Eric R. Hudson, and Wesley C. Campbell. Barium autoionization for efficient ion trap loading, 2025. 12

    2025

  18. [26]

    Mehta and Rajeev J

    Karan K. Mehta and Rajeev J. Ram. Precise and diffraction-limited waveguide-to-free-space focusing gratings.Scientific Reports, 7:2019, 2017. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02169-2

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    K. K. Mehta, A. M. Eltony, C. D. Bruzewicz, I. L. Chuang, R. J. Ram, J. M. Sage, and J. Chi- averini. Ion traps fabricated in a cmos foundry.Applied Physics Letters, 105(4), July 2014. ISSN 1077-3118. doi: 10.1063/1.4892061. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4892061

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Pho- toinduced charge-carrier dynamics in a semiconductor-based ion trap investigated via motion- sensitive qubit transitions.Physical Review A, 109(4), April 2024

    Woojun Lee, Daun Chung, Honggi Jeon, Beomgeun Cho, KwangYeul Choi, SeungWoo Yoo, Changhyun Jung, Junho Jeong, Changsoon Kim, Dong-Il “Dan” Cho, and Taehyun Kim. Pho- toinduced charge-carrier dynamics in a semiconductor-based ion trap investigated via motion- sensitive qubit tr...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    A silicon-based ion trap chip protected from semiconductor charging.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(3):035014, May 2025

    Daun Chung, Kwangyeul Choi, Woojun Lee, Chiyoon Kim, Hosung Shon, Jeonghyun Park, Beomgeun Cho, Kyungmin Lee, Suhan Kim, Seungwoo Yoo, Uihwan Jung, Changhyun Jung, Jiyong Kang, Kyunghye Kim, Roberts Berkis, Tracy Northup, Dong-Il ‘Dan’ Cho, and Taehyun Kim. A silicon-based ion...

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    D. J. Wineland. Nobel lecture: Superposition, entanglement, and raising schr¨ odinger’s cat.Re- views of Modern Physics, 85:1103–1114, 2013. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1103

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M

    Colin D. Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M. Sage. Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges.Applied Physics Reviews, 6(2):021314, 2019. doi: 10.1063/1.5088164

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, D. Main, B. C. Nichol, G. Araneda, R. Srinivas, L. J. Stephenson, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas. Micromotion minimisation by synchronous detection of parametrically excited motion, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00056

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    pseudo-electrode

    William Cody Burton, Brian Estey, Ian M. Hoffman, Abigail R. Perry, Curtis Volin, and Gabriel Price. Transport of multispecies ion crystals through a junction in an rf paul trap, 2022. 10 Methods Guided-mode photonics design Waveguide modes were computed in Ansys Lumerical Fin...

    2022

  26. [2021]

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03318-4

    ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03318-4. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-021-03318-4

    doi

Pith tools

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