Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 95 references

High-fidelity multiqubit gates with Rydberg atoms via level-crossing-free Rapid adiabatic passage

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Level-crossing-free adiabatic pulses prepare high-fidelity multiqubit entangled states in Rydberg atoms from product states.

desk verdict Solid coherent-numerics protocol that reuses a known zero-area RAP waveform for standard Rydberg multipartite states; useful methods paper, not a conceptual leap. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26745 v1 pith:GJIZM45B submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Yichi Zhang , Ximo Wang , Zhenqi Bai , Xu Zhao , Tiecheng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Rydbergatomsrapidadiabaticpassagelevel-crossing-freepulsesblockadeentangledstatesBellstateWGHZ
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that multiqubit entangled states in Rydberg-atom arrays can be prepared deterministically without the usual level-crossing sweeps of rapid adiabatic passage. The authors replace those sweeps with an antisymmetric Rabi drive and an even, strictly non-negative detuning, so the system only touches resonance at the pulse center and never passes through a vanishing energy gap. Two identical such pulses, separated by a fast ground-state flip and assisted by the Rydberg blockade, map a product state into Bell, W, GHZ, or honeycomb W states. Numerical simulations give fidelities above 0.9997 for two- and three-qubit targets, 0.997 for four-qubit GHZ, and 0.9995 for six-qubit W, with fidelity remaining above 0.99 under plus-or-minus 5 percent pulse-parameter errors. A sympathetic reader would care because conventional RAP fidelity is limited by nonadiabatic leakage near crossings, a problem that worsens as atom number and spectral complexity grow; removing that channel offers a simpler pulse recipe that transfers across different array sizes without redesigning the pulse shape.

What carries the argument

Level-crossing-free RAP pulses: an antisymmetric (zero-area) Rabi frequency paired with an even-symmetric detuning that stays non-negative and only touches resonance at the pulse center. The design keeps the instantaneous eigenenergy gap from collapsing through a crossing, supplies first-order suppression of intensity noise via the zero-area condition, and lets one pulse form serve multiple qubit numbers without reshaping.

What would settle it

Implement the two-pulse-plus-ground-flip sequence on a real two- or three-atom Rydberg array with the stated pulse shapes and measure final Bell or W fidelity; if realistic timing, residual double excitation, motion, or laser noise drive the fidelity well below about 0.99, the central claim does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two sequential level-crossing-free RAP pulses—antisymmetric zero-area Rabi frequency and even-symmetric strictly non-negative detuning—separated by a ground-state pi pulse and run under Rydberg blockade, prepare two-qubit Bell, three-qubit W, four-qubit GHZ, and six-qubit honeycomb W states from product states with simulated fidelities above 0.9997 (Bell and 3-qubit W), 0.997 (4-qubit GHZ), and 0.9995 (6-qubit W), remaining above 0.99 under plus-or-minus 5 percent parameter variation.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes a perfect, negligible-duration ground-state flip that leaves Rydberg populations untouched, and a static blockade hierarchy that keeps unwanted multi-excitations frozen out for the entire two-pulse sequence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same pulse architecture applies from two to six qubits without separate pulse-shape redesign.
  • Avoiding level crossings removes the main diabatic-error channel that grows with many-body spectral complexity.
  • Zero-area Rabi pulses supply built-in first-order immunity to laser intensity fluctuations.
  • Square and hexagonal geometries plus hierarchical van der Waals strengths selectively route population into the desired entangled manifold.
  • The protocol is offered as a building block for larger neutral-atom processors, simulators, and networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gap-touching adiabatic path survives realistic Doppler shifts and position disorder, the method could extend to non-uniform arrays without per-site chirp calibration.
  • The four-qubit GHZ fidelity lag relative to W states points to selective double-excitation pathways as the scaling bottleneck; a pure W-type run on four atoms would isolate that effect.
  • Because Cs spontaneous emission is already included in the master-equation checks, further fidelity gains likely require shorter pulses or longer-lived Rydberg levels rather than more pulse-shape tuning alone.
  • Pairing the global zero-area drive with existing optical-tweezer rearrangement could cut the experimental overhead of entangled-resource generation versus gate-by-gate circuits.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a level-crossing-free rapid adiabatic passage (RAP) protocol for deterministic multiqubit entanglement in Rydberg arrays. Using an antisymmetric (zero-area) Rabi frequency and a strictly non-negative even detuning [Eqs. (5a–b)], two identical RAP segments separated by an idealized π_g pulse prepare Bell, three-qubit W, four-qubit GHZ (via spatial-correlation double excitation on a square), and six-qubit honeycomb W states from product states under Rydberg blockade. Full Hilbert-space unitary simulations (9/27/81-level and six-atom models) report F ≥ 0.9997 (Bell, 3W), 0.997 (4GHZ), and 0.9995 (6W), with F > 0.99 under ±5% pulse-parameter variation. The authors argue that avoiding level crossings and using zero-area pulses improves robustness relative to conventional chirped RAP [Eqs. (6)].

Significance. If the numerics hold under the stated model, the work offers a practically useful pulse family for Rydberg entanglement: a single simple waveform architecture that transfers across N = 2–6 without redesign, with high simulated fidelity and clear robustness contours. The zero-area / non-crossing construction is physically well motivated (first-order intensity-noise suppression; avoidance of the minimal-gap region) and is applied systematically to standard target states including a spatially selective GHZ protocol. Strengths include explicit full-space dimensions, stated double-excitation leakage < 10^{-3}, and concrete optimized parameter sets. The result is incremental rather than foundational—building on known RAP and blockade ideas—but is a credible contribution to neutral-atom control if dissipation and a head-to-head conventional-RAP benchmark are clarified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eqs. (3)–(4); Sec. III] Sec. II.A introduces the Lindblad master equation with γ_r = 1/(540 µs) and explicit jump operators for 133Cs, yet Sec. III and the abstract report only unitary fidelities (F = 0.9997, 0.997, 0.9995). For claims at the 10^{-3}–10^{-4} error level this is load-bearing: either add open-system fidelities at the quoted Ω_0/2π = 100 MHz (and a realistic lower Ω_0) or clearly restrict the abstract/claims to coherent evolution and quantify the expected dissipative error budget.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (5)–(6); Sec. III] The central advantage over conventional RAP is asserted repeatedly (Introduction; Sec. II.B; Sec. III.B–D) but never demonstrated by a side-by-side simulation of Eqs. (6) on the same Hamiltonians, geometries, and total times. A single comparative table or overlay for at least the two- and four-qubit cases is needed to substantiate that non-crossing pulses, rather than ordinary parameter optimization, drive the reported fidelity/robustness gains.
  3. [Title; Abstract; Sec. I] The title and opening framing refer to “multiqubit gates,” while the entire protocol and all numerical targets are entangled-state preparation (Bell, W, GHZ, honeycomb W), not computational gates with defined logical truth tables or process fidelities. Retitle and reframe consistently, or add an explicit gate construction (e.g., controlled-phase) if that is intended.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B] The π_g pulse is stated to have negligible duration and no effect on |r⟩ (Sec. II.B; Sec. III.A). A brief estimate of required Raman/microwave duration and residual light shift or |r⟩ crosstalk would help experimental readers.
  2. [Fig. 2] Fig. 2(c–d) Bloch/angular-velocity cartoons are helpful but under-specified (axes u, w; what state is plotted). Add a short caption definition.
  3. [Sec. III.C] Four-qubit target is written (|0101⟩+|1010⟩)/√2, which is a GHZ-equivalent up to local unitaries; state this equivalence explicitly to avoid confusion with the standard |0000⟩+|1111⟩ form.
  4. [Introduction; Sec. II.B] Parameter sets differ across N (e.g., Δ_0/Ω_0 from 1.38 to 0.59); the claim that optimization “can be directly applied… without separate re-optimization” (Introduction) should be softened to “same functional form, modest re-tuning.”
  5. [Sec. III.C; Sec. IV] Minor typos/consistency: “F our-qubit” heading; “GENERALIZA TION”; abstract “pi_g” vs body “π_g”; arXiv date “July 30, 2026” is fine as preprint metadata but check journal submission dating.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: fidelities are ordinary coherent numerics under a stated Hamiltonian and pulse ansatz, not identities of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is self-contained and non-circular. The system Hamiltonian (Eq. 1), Rydberg interaction V̂, and level-crossing-free pulses (antisymmetric Ω_k and even strictly non-negative Δ_k in Eqs. 5a–b, cited to external Rangelov et al.) are stated as inputs. Target states (Bell, W, GHZ, honeycomb W) are prepared by two sequential RAP segments plus an idealized π_g under blockade; performance is defined by the standard fidelity F = |⟨ψ_tar|ρ_f|ψ_tar⟩|² after numerical evolution of the full few-qubit Hilbert space (9/27/81 levels). Optimized parameters (τ_total, τ_R, τ_D, Δ_0, V_0) are ordinary numerical design choices; the reported F values and ±5% robustness contours are outputs of that integration, not algebraic rearrangements of the fit or of a self-citation uniqueness claim. Conventional-RAP comparison pulses (Eqs. 6) are taken from an external reference and used only for qualitative contrast. Mild author-overlapping citations exist but do not underwrite the central numerics. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own definition or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard Rydberg blockade Hamiltonian, the adiabatic theorem applied to a non-crossing instantaneous gap, a cited zero-area pulse family, an idealized instantaneous ground-state π pulse, and per-system numerically optimized pulse parameters. No new particles or forces are postulated. The free parameters are the optimized control knobs that make the reported fidelities appear; the domain assumptions are the usual ones in Rydberg QIP theory.

free parameters (5)
  • Two-qubit pulse set (τ_total, τ_R, τ_D, Δ0/Ω0, V0/Ω0) = 215.7, 20.86, 78.30, 1.38, 4.12
    Jointly optimized for Bell fidelity; values 215.7, 20.86, 78.30, 1.38, 4.12 quoted in Sec. III.A.
  • Three-qubit pulse set (τ_total, τ_R, τ_D, Δ0/Ω0, V0/Ω0) = 200.7, 20.09, 57.81, 0.865, 4.29
    Separately optimized for W fidelity; Sec. III.B.
  • Four-qubit pulse set (τ_total, τ_R, τ_D, Δ0/Ω0, V0/Ω0) = 290.0, 29.5, 40.25, 0.59, 4.036
    Optimized for GHZ under square geometry; Sec. III.C / Fig. 4c.
  • Six-qubit pulse set (τ_total, τ_R, τ_D, Δ0/Ω0) = 221.64, 20.80, 67.28, 1.02
    Optimized for honeycomb W; Sec. III.D. V0 given as 540 MHz absolute in one caption.
  • Peak Rabi scale Ω0/2π = 100 MHz (robustness figures)
    Set to 100 MHz in robustness plots; overall time unit is 1/Ω0 so absolute scale is a free experimental choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rydberg van der Waals blockade: when Vij ≫ Ω, double (and higher) Rydberg excitation is energetically suppressed and dynamics stay in the single-excitation (or geometry-selected double) manifold.
    Invoked throughout Sec. II.A and III; standard in the field but load-bearing for deterministic entanglement from product states.
  • standard math Adiabatic theorem for time-dependent two-/few-level systems: if the evolution is slow relative to the instantaneous gap Ω̃=√(Ω²+Δ²), population follows the instantaneous eigenstate.
    Underpins the entire RAP construction; Sec. II.B and Fig. 2 discussion.
  • domain assumption The antisymmetric zero-area Ω(t) and even non-negative Δ(t) of Eqs. (5a–b) produce no true level crossing and first-order intensity-noise suppression.
    Taken from Rangelov et al. [57] and asserted in Sec. II.B; multi-atom validity is assumed rather than re-derived from a many-body adiabatic theorem.
  • domain assumption A global π_g pulse perfectly swaps |0⟩↔|1⟩ on all atoms in negligible time with no action on |r⟩ and no extra decoherence.
    Stated in Sec. II.B (“time required… is negligible”) and used as the separator between the two RAP segments; experimental non-ideality is not modeled in the main fidelities.
  • domain assumption Atoms are fixed at prescribed geometries (pair; triangle implied; square with V1=V0/8; regular hexagon with V1=V0/27, V2=V0/64) with pure C6/r^6 interactions and identical global drives.
    Sec. III.C–D spatial-correlation strategy; freezes motion, disorder, and laser inhomogeneity.
  • domain assumption Spontaneous emission and dephasing of |r⟩ for 133Cs can be modeled by the three Lindblad operators with γ_r=1/(540 µs).
    Sec. II.A; used to claim environmental robustness but not clearly folded into the headline fidelities.
invented entities (1)
  • Level-crossing-free RAP pulse pair + π_g protocol for multiqubit Rydberg entanglement
    purpose: Deterministic map from product |1…1⟩ to Bell/W/GHZ/honeycomb-W states without traversing a conventional RAP crossing.
    Composite protocol assembled from known pulse shapes and known blockade physics; not a new physical object, but the paper’s operational invention. Independent evidence would be an experiment; none is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-fidelity multiqubit gates with Rydberg atoms via level-crossing-free Rapid adiabatic passage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJIZM45B

@misc{pith2026260726745,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-fidelity multiqubit gates with Rydberg atoms via level-crossing-free Rapid adiabatic passage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJIZM45B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26745}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a rapid adiabatic passage (RAP) scheme based on level-crossing-free pulses for deterministic generation of multiqubit entangled states in Rydberg atom systems. Unlike conventional RAP protocols that rely on level crossings, our approach uses an antisymmetric Rabi frequency and an even-symmetric detuning, enabling robust population transfer without passing through any level crossing. By exploiting the Rydberg blockade effect, the protocol prepares entangled states directly from an initial product state. Specifically, two sequential RAP pulses separated by a pi_g pulse generate two-qubit Bell states, three-qubit W states, four-qubit GHZ states, and six-qubit honeycomb W states. Numerical simulations show that the fidelities exceed 0.9997 for the Bell and three-qubit W states, reach 0.997 for the four-qubit GHZ state, and surpass 0.9995 for the six-qubit honeycomb W state. The scheme demonstrates excellent robustness against pulse parameter fluctuations, with fidelities remaining above 0.99 under +/-5% parameter variations. This work provides a simple, efficient, and robust method for entangled-state preparation in neutral-atom quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26745 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the theoretical model. (a) Schematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic comparison of the level-crossing-free and conventional RAP pulses. (a) and (b) Schematic illustrations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time evolution and gate fidelity of the two- and three-qubit systems. (a) Time evolution of the two-qubit system with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution and robustness analysis for the four- and six-qubit gates. (a) Time evolution of the four-qubit system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references

  1. [1]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara,et al., Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    A fast πg pulse is applied to all atoms, achieving population inversion between the ground states |0⟩ and |1⟩ via stimulated Raman transitions or mi- crowave driving [63–67], while keeping the Rydberg state |r⟩ unchanged. The second level-crossing-free pulse is applied, transferring the single-Rydberg-excitation super- position back to the ground-state en...

  3. [3]

    The optimized pulse parameters are: τtotal = 200.7, τR = 20.09, τD = 57.81, ∆0 = 0.865Ω0, and blockade strength V0 = 4.29Ω0

    Numerical simulations employ the full 27-level model. The optimized pulse parameters are: τtotal = 200.7, τR = 20.09, τD = 57.81, ∆0 = 0.865Ω0, and blockade strength V0 = 4.29Ω0. We show the population dynamics during the three- qubit W-state preparation in Fig. 3(b). Similar to the two- 5 FIG. 3. Time evolution and gate fidelity of the two- and three-qub...

  4. [4]

    This strategy exploits the significant difference in interaction strength between adjacent and diagonal atoms, selectively transferring the population to the target state [ 62, 75–78]. Physically, the strong blockade between adjacent atoms prevents simultaneous excitation of two adjacent atoms to the Rydberg state; however, the weak interaction between di...

  5. [5]

    We show the population dynamics during the six-qubit honeycomb W-state preparation in Fig

    The optimized pulse parameters are: τtotal = 221.64,τ R = 20.80,τ D = 67.28, ∆0 = 1.02Ω0. We show the population dynamics during the six-qubit honeycomb W-state preparation in Fig. 4(b). The system evolves from the initial state |111111⟩ to the six-body single-Rydberg superposition under the first non-level- crossing pulse. Following the πg pulse at τ = τ...

    2023

  6. [6]

    The second level-crossing-free pulse maps this superposition onto the target six-qubit honeycomb W state (|100000⟩+|010000⟩+ · · ·+ |000001⟩)/ √

    A fast πg pulse flips the ground-state populations. The second level-crossing-free pulse maps this superposition onto the target six-qubit honeycomb W state (|100000⟩+|010000⟩+ · · ·+ |000001⟩)/ √

  7. [7]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter,et al., Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. Jandura, J. Claes, A. P. Burgers, G. Pupillo, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Nature622, 279 (2023)

    2023

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Scholl, A

    P. Scholl, A. L. Shaw, R. B.-S. Tsai, R. Finkelstein, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Nature622, 273 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Y. Wu, S. Kolkowitz, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, Nat. Commun.13, 4657 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quan- tum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Singh, C

    K. Singh, C. E. Bradley, S. Anand, V. Ramesh, R. White, and H. Bernien, Science380, 1265 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    W. Huie, S. G. Menon, H. Bernien, and J. P. Covey, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043154 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    C. D. Marciniak, T. Feldker, I. Pogorelov, R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, R. van Bijnen, P. Schindler, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and T. Monz, Nature603, 604 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Bharti, S

    V. Bharti, S. Sugawa, M. Mizoguchi, M. Kunimi, Y. Zhang, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Tomita, T. Franz, M. Wei- dem¨ uller, and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 123201 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    X. F. Shi, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 023002 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, A VS Quantum Sci.3, 023501 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    X. Wu, X. Liang, Y. Tian, F. Yang, C. Chen, Y. C. Liu, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Chin. Phys. B30, 020305 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Nat. Phys.17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Wintersperger, F

    K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, T. Ehmer, A. Hoursanov, J. Klepsch, W. Mauerer, G. Reuber, T. Strohm, M. Yin, and S. Luber, EPJ Quantum Technol.10, 32 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Liang, X.-D

    Y. Liang, X.-D. Tian, L.-N. Ji, and Z.-Y. Xue, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 034025 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    X. Wang, H. Fan, Z. Bai, and Y. Zhang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 128, 094002 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Nat. Phys.5, 110 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    T. Wilk, A. Ga¨ etan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Miroshny- chenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010502 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Isenhower, E

    L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 010503 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    I. S. Madjarov, J. P. Covey, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, A. Kale, A. Cooper, H. Pichler, V. Schkolnik, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, Nat. Phys.16, 857 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    H. Jo, Y. Song, M. Kim, and J. Ahn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 033603 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Direkci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Nature 634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    C. J. Picken, R. Legaie, K. McDonnell, and J. D. Pritchard, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 015011 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, A. L. Shaw, J. P. Covey, V. Schkolnik, T. H. Yoon, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, Phys. Rev. X9, 041052 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semegh- ini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho,et al., Nature595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye,et al., Nature595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Pause, L

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Optica11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, Nature647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zei- her, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 013401 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    M. M. M¨ uller, H. R. Haakh, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, and C. Henkel, Quantum Inf. Process.10, 771 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    B. W. Shore, Adv. Opt. Photon.9, 563 (2017). 9

    2017

  36. [44]

    Gu´ erin and H

    S. Gu´ erin and H. R. Jauslin, Adv. Chem. Phys.125, 147 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    I. I. Beterov, D. B. Tretyakov, V. M. Entin, E. A. Yak- shina, I. I. Ryabtsev, M. Saffman, and S. Bergamini, J. Phys. B53, 182001 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Mitra, M

    A. Mitra, M. J. Martin, G. W. Biedermann, A. M. Marino, P. M. Poggi, and I. H. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A101, 030301 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Saffman, I

    M. Saffman, I. I. Beterov, A. Dalal, E. J. P´ aez, and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A101, 062309 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Y. Sun, P. Xu, P. X. Chen, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. Applied 13, 024059 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Pelegr ´ ı, A

    G. Pelegr ´ ı, A. J. Daley, and J. D. Pritchard, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 045020 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Z. Fu, P. Xu, Y. Sun, Y. Y. Liu, X. D. He, X. Li, M. Liu, R. B. Li, J. Wang, L. Liu,et al., Phys. Rev. A105, 042430 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    T. H. Chang, T. N. Wang, H. H. Jen, and Y.-C. Chen, New J. Phys.25, 123007 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    C. Yang, D. X. Li, and X. Q. Shao, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.62, 110312 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Robicheaux, T

    F. Robicheaux, T. M. Graham, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. A103, 022424 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Pagano, S

    A. Pagano, S. Weber, D. Jaschke, T. Pfau, F. Meinert, S. Montangero, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033019 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Fromonteil, D

    C. Fromonteil, D. Bluvstein, and H. Pichler, PRX Quan- tum4, 020335 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Mohan, R

    M. Mohan, R. de Keijzer, and S. Kokkelmans, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033052 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Jandura, J

    S. Jandura, J. D. Thompson, and G. Pupillo, PRX Quan- tum4, 020336 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Xiong, J

    M. Xiong, J. Han, C. Cao, J. Li, Z. Huang, and M. Xue, Phys. Rev. A114, 013721 (2026)

    2026

  51. [59]

    Singer, J

    K. Singer, J. Stanojevic, M. Weidem¨ uller, and R. Cˆ ot´ e, J. Phys. B38, S295 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Manzano, AIP Adv.10, 025106 (2020)

    D. Manzano, AIP Adv.10, 025106 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    ˇSibali´ c, J

    N. ˇSibali´ c, J. D. Pritchard, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weath- erill, Comput. Phys. Commun.220, 319 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    A. A. Rangelov, N. V. Vitanov, and B. W. Shore, Opt. Commun.283, 1346 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Scott, M. Friesen, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. A107, 042611 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    G¨ ung¨ ord¨ u and J

    U. G¨ ung¨ ord¨ u and J. P. Kestner, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023155 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    G. S. Vasilev and N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A73, 023416 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    J. M. S. Lehto and K.-A. Suominen, Phys. Scr.91, 013005 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    S. Xu, X. Li, X. Li, J. Li, and M. Xue, Phys. Rev. A110, 023108 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Jenkins, J

    A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Phys. Rev. X12, 021027 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    S. Ma, A. P. Burgers, G. Liu, J. Wilson, B. Zhang, and J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. X12, 021028 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, F. R¨ onchen, A. Jenk- ins, and A. M. Kaufman, Phys. Rev. X13, 041035 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    McDonnell, L

    K. McDonnell, L. F. Keary, and J. D. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 200501 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Quantum6, 712 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Dalal and B

    A. Dalal and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A107, 012605 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Khazali and K

    M. Khazali and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. X10, 021054 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    L. S. Yag¨ ue Bosch, T. Ehret, F. Petiziol, E. Arimondo, and S. Wimberger, Ann. Phys.535, 2300275 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    X. Q. Shao, F. Liu, X. W. Xue, W. L. Mu, and W. B. Li, Phys. Rev. Applied20, 014014 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    T. G. Walker and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. A77, 032723 (2008)

    2008

  71. [79]

    Zwierz and P

    M. Zwierz and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A79, 022304 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    T. P. Gujarati and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. A98, 062326 (2018)

    2018

  73. [81]

    T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinkemeyer, et al., Nature604, 457 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner,et al., Nature604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    A. G. Radnaev, W. C. Chung, D. C. Cole, D. Mason, T. G. Ballance, M. J. Bedalov, D. A. Belknap, M. R. Berman, M. Blakely, I. Bloomfield,et al., PRX Quantum 6, 030334 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    X. Q. Shao, D. X. Li, Y. Q. Ji, J. H. Wu, and X. X. Yi, Phys. Rev. A96, 012328 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    D. X. Li, T. Y. Zheng, and X. Q. Shao, Opt. Express27, 20874 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    M. Li, D. Zhirihin, D. Filonov, D. Korobkin, I. Vorobyev, A. H. Slobozhanyuk, M. A. Gorlach, A. B. Khanikaev, and A. Al` u, Nat. Photonics14, 89 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    Kobayashi and G

    R. Kobayashi and G. Zhu, PRX Quantum5, 020360 (2024)

    2024

  80. [88]

    S. J. Evered, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, T. Manovitz, D. Bluvstein, S. H. Li, N. Maskara, H. Zhou, and S. Ebadi, Nature645, 341 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    Gypens, J

    P. Gypens, J. Leliaert, and B. Van Waeyenberge, Phys. Rev. Appl.9, 034004 (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Pereg-Barnea and G

    T. Pereg-Barnea and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. B85, 075127 (2012)

    2012

  83. [91]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar,et al., Science374, 1242 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J. G. Liu, R. Samajdar,et al., Science376, 1209 (2022)

    2022

  85. [93]

    J. T. Wilson, S. Saskin, Y. Meng, S. Ma, R. Dilip, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 033201 (2022)

    2022

  86. [94]

    A. P. Burgers, S. Ma, S. Saskin, J. Wilson, M. A. Alarc´ on, C. H. Greene, and J. D. Thompson, PRX Quantum3, 020326 (2022)

    2022

  87. [95]

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. L. Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jan- dura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. D. Oppong, et al., Nature634, 315 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.