Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 75 references

Qutrit entanglement and joint multi-parameter estimation in an optical clock platform

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports an experimental demonstration of genuine three-level (qutrit) entanglement between pairs of strontium-88 atoms in an optical-clock array, together with a joint two-phase estimation protocol that achieves a variance…

desk verdict A genuine first: neutral-atom internal-level qutrit entanglement with a credible joint two-phase estimation result, but the uncharacterized loss postselection keeps the central claims conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05426 v1 pith:5XJMWRDN submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Ohad Lib , Shuheng Liu , Maximilian Ammenwerth , Hendrik Timme , Shijia Sun , Qiongyi He , Marcus Huber , Giuseppe Vitagliano
show 2 more authors
Immanuel Bloch Johannes Zeiher
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P4581P50
keywords qutritentanglementmultiparameterquantummetrologyopticalclockstrontium-88Rydbergtriple-magictweezersFisherinformationjointphaseestimation
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 claims to have created genuine three-level (qutrit) entanglement between pairs of strontium-88 atoms inside an optical-clock platform, and to have used that entanglement to estimate two optical-clock phases simultaneously with a precision that beats what perfect two-level (qubit) probes could achieve. The authors report a loss-postselected state fidelity $F = 0.85(1)$, which exceeds the $2/3$ threshold that proves the state cannot be explained by qubit-level entanglement, and a joint estimation cost $\nu[(\Delta\theta_1)^2+(\Delta\theta_2)^2] = 0.82(3)$, below the ideal qubit bound of $1$. If these results hold, they establish the internal energy levels of neutral atoms as a workable high-dimensional resource for both entanglement-based quantum information and multi-parameter metrology, and they identify an optimal, deliberately unbalanced entangled state that yields a fixed $\sim0.48\times$ advantage over individual qubit estimation regardless of atom number. A sympathetic reader should care because this is the first demonstration of genuine high-dimensional internal-state entanglement between individually controlled neutral atoms, and it turns an actual clock platform into a multi-parameter sensor.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is a triple-magic all-optical qutrit in $^{88}$Sr: the ground state and two fine-structure clock states are all trapped at a common magic wavelength by angle-tuning a magnetic field, giving coherence among three levels, while global Raman and three-photon pulses provide arbitrary single-qutrit rotations $R_{01}$ and $R_{12}$, a Rydberg-excitation controlled-$Z$ gate entangles atom pairs, and a three-step imaging sequence reads out each of the three levels while flagging lost atoms. The metrological key is an unbalanced GHZ-like probe state $\sqrt{p_0}|0\rangle^{\otimes N}+\sqrt{p_1}|1\rangle^{\otimes N}+\sqrt{p_2}|2\rangle^{\otimes N}$ with populations $p_0=p_2=(10-\sqrt{10})/18$ and $p_1=(\sqrt{10}-1)/9$, which is proven optimal for the two commuting generators, plus a readout sequence that saturates the quantum Cram\'er\,Rao bound locally while remaining robust to the experimentally asymmetric errors of the $R_{01}$ and $R_{12}$ gates. The fidelity certification uses the Schmidt-number bound: any state whose Schmidt number is at most two has overlap at most $2/3$ with a maximally entangled two-qutrit state, so the measured $F=0.85(1)$ witnesses genuine qutrit entanglement.

What would settle it

Measure the loss probability per experimental cycle separately for atoms prepared in $|0\rangle$, $|1\rangle$, and $|2\rangle$; if these probabilities differ by more than the statistical uncertainty, re-analyse the postselected data without assuming state-independent loss and check whether $F>2/3$ and $\nu[(\Delta\theta_1)^2+(\Delta\theta_2)^2]<1$ survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central experimental discovery is that a pair of $^{88}$Sr atoms, each encoded in the three internal levels $|0\rangle={}^1S_0$, $|1\rangle={}^3P_0$ and $|2\rangle={}^3P_2(m_J=0)$, can be entangled into a state with fidelity $F = 0.85(1)$ to the maximally entangled two-qutrit state $(|00\rangle+|11\rangle+|22\rangle)/\sqrt{3}$, certifying genuine Schmidt-number-3 entanglement. The central theoretical discovery is that for estimating two commuting phases generated by $g_1=(|0\rangle\langle0|-|1\rangle\langle1|)/\sqrt2$ and $g_2=(|1\rangle\langle1|-|2\rangle\langle2|)/\sqrt2$, the optimal $N$-qutrit probe is an unbalanced GHZ-like state with populations $p_0=p_2=(10-\sqrt{10})/18$, $p_1=(\sqrt{10}-1)/9$, achieving joint variance $Y_{\rm joint}=(11+2\sqrt{10})/(9N^2)\approx0.4812/N^2$, about half the ideal individual two-qubit bound $4/N^2$. The authors verify the two-qutrit case with the noise-robust readout $V_{\rm ro}=R_{01}(v_3,\phi_3)R_{12}(v_2,\phi_2)CZ R_{12}(v_1,\phi_1)$ and maximum-likelihood estimation on a postselected 29,594-shot dataset, obtaining $\nu[(\Delta\theta_1)^2+(\Delta\theta_2)^2]=0.82(3)<1$. They further show numerically that the joint strategy remains favourable for large atom numbers under per-gate depolarizing and dephasing noise, provided gate infidelities are at the $10^{-4}$ level or better.

Load-bearing premise

Atom loss during the experiment is independent of the internal state of each atom, so that discarding pairs with lost atoms does not bias the certified fidelity or the joint-estimation variance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Joint estimation with the optimal qutrit state beats splitting an array into two qubit subensembles by a constant factor $0.4812$ for any atom number in the noiseless case.
  • The demonstrated variance $0.82(3)<1$ shows that even with experimental imperfections and loss postselection, the joint qutrit strategy outperforms ideal individual two-level sensing for pairs of atoms.
  • Under circuit-level depolarizing and dephasing noise, the advantage of joint estimation persists for state-of-the-art numbers of entangled atoms (dozens) when gate infidelities are at the $10^{-4}$ level, guiding scalable future demonstrations.
  • The same triple-magic, Rydberg-entangling, and state-resolved readout building blocks provide the toolkit for higher-dimensional quantum information processing in neutral atoms, including qudit error correction and simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our extension: because the optimal probe concentrates probability on the two outer states $|0\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$, the protocol is naturally suited to clock configurations where the $|1\rangle$ level is short-lived or noisier; one could test whether engineering the levels to put the noisiest transition in the middle improves robustness.
  • Our extension: the same covariance-based optimality argument should generalise to $d$-level atoms estimating $d-1$ adjacent phase differences; a natural next test is whether the $\approx2\times$ resource advantage persists for estimation of three or more non-commuting phases, where the quantum Cram\'er\,Rao bound is not always saturable.
  • Our extension: the 15\,--\,20\% loss postselection could be turned into a feature if loss is partially state-dependent, since the discarded fraction itself would carry metrological information; one could test a loss-tolerant estimator that includes the loss channel in the likelihood.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experiment with 88Sr atoms in optical tweezers implementing a two-qutrit system using the ground state and two fine-structure clock states. A controlled-Z gate and global single-qutrit rotations are used to prepare a maximally entangled two-qutrit state, with a loss-postselected fidelity F = 0.85(1) > 2/3, certifying Schmidt number three. For metrology, the authors design an unbalanced GHZ-like two-qutrit probe and a noise-robust readout circuit, and estimate two injected phases jointly via maximum likelihood. They report ν[(Δθ1)^2 + (Δθ2)^2] = 0.82(3) < 1, below the ideal individual two-level sensing threshold, and provide theoretical scaling to larger atom numbers under circuit-level noise. The Supplementary Information contains the derivation of the optimal probe, the readout optimization, the likelihood model, and the bootstrap procedure.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first demonstration of genuine internal-level qutrit entanglement between neutral atoms and the first use of such states for joint multi-parameter estimation in an optical clock platform. The theoretical framework is solid: the optimal probe state is derived from the quantum Fisher information matrix, the saturation of the quantum Cramér–Rao bound is demonstrated for the chosen readout, and the scaling analysis is clearly specified. The paper also provides public data and code. The main caveat is that both quantitative claims are computed on a loss-postselected ensemble without characterizing state-dependent loss, which could bias the fidelity and the variance. This issue is addressable but currently leaves the central claims conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text (Fig. 2 and 'Joint parameter estimation') and SI ('Maximum likelihood estimator and bootstrapping')] The two central claims rest on a loss-postselected ensemble, but the dependence of loss on the qutrit level is not characterized. The main text reports discarding 15–20% of atom pairs, and the SI reports N_shot = 29,594 with 14.5% discarded. The detection protocol gives an atom in |2> an extra repump-and-image cycle, so its loss probability need not equal that of |0> or |1>. State-dependent loss factors A_m transform the true no-loss outcome distribution p_mn into the postselected distribution proportional to p_mn A_m A_n. Consequently, the fidelity F = (P00+P11+P22+C01+C02+C12)/3 and the likelihood in Eqs. (S36)–(S38) are computed from a biased distribution, and the bootstrap variance in Eq. (S39) can lie below the Cramér–Rao bound for a biased estimator. The Schmidt-number certification and the claim νY = 0.82(3) < 1 therefore require either a measurement of A_0, A_1, A_2 or an explicit error model bounding the resulting bias. Please provide state-resolved loss data or a quantitative robustness analysis.
  2. [SI ('Maximum likelihood estimator and bootstrapping')] The reported figure of merit is a bootstrap variance, not a mean squared error, and the Cramér–Rao bound used as the threshold applies to unbiased estimators. Equation (S39) computes the sample covariance of the bootstrap MLE but does not report the bootstrap bias relative to the injected phases. If the likelihood model in Eq. (S38) is misspecified—for example because of state-dependent loss or the additive phase-scan model in Eq. (S37)—the estimator can be biased and its variance can fall below the bound even when the mean squared error does not. Please report the bias of the MLE at the operating point and either use mean squared error or explicitly justify unbiasedness.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Main text, 'Joint parameter estimation'] The symbol ν is used first as the number of repetitions and later as the factor multiplying the experimental variance; the text should explicitly state that ν = N_shot for the reported result.
  2. [Fig. 3(d,e)] The horizontal axes are labeled θ1 and θ2 but the vertical axis is only labeled 'Normalized variance'; the caption should spell out the meaning of the shaded regions, the green curves, and the 'Individual est. bound' line.
  3. [Abstract and main text, 'Joint parameter estimation'] The claim of a variance 'below the ideal individual two-level sensing threshold' should specify that this is for a two-atom pair, not for the full 12-pair array, to avoid ambiguity in the resource accounting.
  4. [SI, Eq. (S42)] The standard inequality F_ρ ≤ 4Γ_ρ for mixed states is stated as an equality chain; explicitly marking it as an inequality with a citation would prevent a reader from assuming equality holds for all states.
  5. [SI, 'Maximum likelihood estimator and bootstrapping'] The main text says 15–20% of pairs are discarded while the SI says 14.5% for the metrology dataset; please clarify that these are dataset-specific postselection fractions.
  6. [Fig. 3(c)] The green-curve agreement is reported visually; adding a quantitative goodness-of-fit or residual plot would strengthen the claim that the two-phase-offset model captures the data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimal-probe and precision-bound derivations are first-principles, and the reported variance is an independently measured MLE result.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claims are derived from the quantum Cramer-Rao bound: the optimal probe state is obtained by minimizing Tr[F^{-1}] over covariance matrices of the commuting generators (Eqs. S11-S46), and the ideal individual-estimation benchmark is computed from the Fisher information of split GHZ states (Eqs. S47, S59). Neither optimization assumes the experimentally reported variance. The experimental variance is obtained by maximum-likelihood estimation on a separate fixed-phase dataset, using a probability model calibrated from phase scans (Eq. S37), with statistical uncertainty from a nonparametric bootstrap; this does not fit the reported value. The green validation curves in Fig. 3 use gate-damping parameters characterized in independent repeated-pulse benchmarks (Eq. S5) and only two phase offsets as free parameters, so they are not fitted to the claimed sub-threshold variance. Fidelity certification uses the external Schmidt-number bound of Terhal-Horodecki (Ref. [53]), not a self-citation. The paper's self-citations to Refs. [8,37,51] concern apparatus, trapping, and gate control, and are not load-bearing for the metrological or entanglement claims. The disclosed loss postselection (14.5% discarded in the metrology dataset) is an experimental limitation that could bias estimates if loss is state-dependent, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper explicitly labels the fidelity as 'loss-postselected' and does not fit a state-dependent loss model that would force the result. The proof-of-principle limitations stated in the conclusion (zero dark time, uncharacterized systematics) are acknowledged scope restrictions, not circular steps. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental result depends on calibrated measurement parameters and on the loss-postselection assumption; these are listed as free parameters or axioms. The theoretical optimality proof has no free parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The scaling conclusion depends on assumed gate infidelities, which are not fitted to the target result.

free parameters (8)
  • R01 Bloch damping (eta_x, eta_y, eta_z) = (0.9809, 0.9341, 1.0000)
    Fitted to repeated-pulse gate benchmarks (SI Eq. S5); used in the circuit-level green curves to validate the probability model. Not used in the MLE variance itself.
  • R12 Bloch damping (eta_x, eta_y, eta_z) = (0.9868, 0.9420, 1.0000)
    Fitted to repeated-pulse gate benchmarks (SI Eq. S5); used in the circuit-level green curves to validate the probability model.
  • Readout phase offsets phi_b01, phi_b12 = (-0.1077, -0.0057)
    The only free parameters in the independently characterized circuit model shown as green curves; they absorb residual calibration phase offsets.
  • Cosine-sine calibration coefficients for nine-outcome probabilities = a,b,c per outcome, see SI Eq. S36
    Fitted to R01 and R12 phase scans; define the likelihood p_mn(theta1, theta2) used by MLE and bootstrap. These are calibration parameters, not tuned to force the claimed variance.
  • Probe purity eta for readout optimization = 0.9
    Estimated from measured preparation performance (SI Eq. S29); used to select the robust readout. The final experimental variance is measured, not fit to this value.
  • Rotation infidelity epsilon_R for scaling simulations = 10^-3, 10^-4, 10^-5, 0
    Chosen gate-error levels for Fig. 4; not fitted. The conclusion that joint estimation remains favorable at state-of-the-art atom numbers depends on these assumed infidelities.
  • CZ infidelity epsilon_CZ for scaling simulations = 10^-3, 10^-4, 10^-5, 0
    Chosen pairwise gate-error levels for Fig. 4; not fitted. They are set equal to epsilon_R for the plotted curves.
  • State preparation and readout circuit angles and phases = Eqs. S31, S32
    Calibrated control parameters that define the implemented POVM and probe; they are optimized and then verified against data, not adjusted to force the reported variance.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quantum Cramér-Rao bound and quantum Fisher information matrix framework.
    Used to derive precision bounds in SI Eqs. S14-S26 and to define the optimal probe and readout.
  • domain assumption The generators g1 and g2 commute, so the QCRB can be saturated locally for pure probes.
    Invoked to justify optimizing the QFI matrix rather than a more complex multi-parameter bound; standard for compatible parameters.
  • standard math Any two-qutrit state with Schmidt number at most two has fidelity at most 2/3 with the maximally entangled state |Phi3>.
    Cited from Terhal and Horodecki (Ref. 53); used to certify genuine qutrit entanglement from F=0.85(1).
  • domain assumption Loss postselection is unbiased with respect to the internal qutrit state.
    All fidelity and phase-estimation results discard 14.5-20 percent of pairs with atom loss, and no state-dependent loss characterization is provided. This assumption is load-bearing for both central claims.
  • domain assumption Calibrated cosine-sine probability model accurately describes the phase response.
    The MLE variance is computed from this model; agreement with an independently characterized circuit model supports it but does not prove it.
  • domain assumption Depolarizing noise on rotations and dephasing on CZ gates models the large-N scaling behavior.
    Used for Fig. 4; assumes no correlated or state-dependent errors and that all gates of a type have the same error rate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Qutrit entanglement and joint multi-parameter estimation in an optical clock platform." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XJMWRDN

@misc{pith2026260805426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Qutrit entanglement and joint multi-parameter estimation in an optical clock platform},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XJMWRDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05426}
}
abstract

Quantum metrology harnesses entanglement to improve measurement precision beyond classical limits. While standard protocols rely on two-level qubits to estimate a single parameter, extending them to entangled multi-level qudits enables the optimal simultaneous estimation of multiple parameters within a single probe. However, generating such multi-level entanglement and harnessing it for joint multi-parameter estimation in atomic clocks has remained an outstanding challenge. Here, we experimentally demonstrate genuine qutrit entanglement and joint multi-parameter estimation in an optical clock platform. Leveraging control over the ground state and two fine-structure clock states of $^{88}\text{Sr}$ atoms trapped in triple-magic optical tweezers, we generate a maximally entangled two-qutrit state with a loss-postselected fidelity of F = 0.85(1), certifying genuine multi-level entanglement. Taking advantage of this high-dimensional entanglement, we theoretically construct and experimentally realize an optimal two-qutrit metrological probe state and noise-robust readout circuit to simultaneously estimate injected phases on two optical clock transitions. We observe a joint estimation variance below the ideal individual two-level sensing threshold, and show theoretically that this advantage persists at state-of-the-art atom numbers under circuit-level noise. These results demonstrate the key building blocks towards quantum information science with high-dimensional states encoded in the internal energy levels of neutral atoms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05426 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. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    2025

  2. [2]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered,et al., Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000-qubit system, Nature646, 1075 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Y. Li, Y. Bao, M. Peper, C. Li, and J. D. Thompson, Fast, continuous and coherent atom replacement in a neutral atom qubit array (2025), arXiv:2506.15633

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Muniz, D

    J. Muniz, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. Kindem, W. Cairncross, A. Ryou, T. Bohdanowicz, C.-A. Chen, Y. Ji, A. Jones, et al., Repeated ancilla reuse for logical computation on a neutral atom quantum computer, Physical Review X 15, 041040 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    S. J. Evered, M. Xu, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, M. Kalinowski, D. Bluvstein, N. Maskara, C. Kokail, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity entangling gates and nonlocal cir- cuits with neutral atoms (2026), arXiv:2604.25987

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    G. Liu, G. Bornet, D. Kurdak, M. Xiao, C. Li, B. Zhang, and J. D. Thompson, High-fidelity neutral atom gates leveraging low-rank Hessian optimization (2026), arXiv:2606.05060

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    R. Lin, Y. Li, L.-T. Zheng, T.-R. Hu, S.-Y. Chen, H.-M. Wu, Y.-C. Zhang, H.-W. Cheng, Y.-H. Deng, Z. Wu, M.- C. Chen, J. Rui, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Sustaining high-fidelity quantum logic in neutral-atom circuits via mid-circuit operations (2026), arXiv:2603.01612

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    O. Lib, H. Timme, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, R. Tao, S. Sun, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Velocity-enabled quantum computing with neutral atoms (2026), arXiv:2603.15561

    arXiv 2026

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    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., A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Graham, Y

    T. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinke- meyer,et al., Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature604, 457 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Realizing spin squeezing with Rydberg inter- actions in an optical clock, Nature621, 734 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Kaubruegger and A

    R. Kaubruegger and A. M. Kaufman, Progress in quan- tum metrology and applications for optical atomic clocks (2025), arXiv:2512.02202

    2025

  6. [14]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski,et al., A fault-tolerant neutral-atom ar- chitecture for universal quantum computation, Nature 649, 39 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. Sanner, W. J. Eckner, R. Kaubruegger, P. Zoller, A. M. Kaufman, and J. Ye, Direct comparison of two spin-squeezed optical clock ensembles at the 10 −17 level, Nature Physics20, 208 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. Dark- wah Oppong, and A. M. Kaufman, Multi-qubit gates and Schr¨ odinger cat states in an optical clock, Nature634, 315 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Finkelstein, R

    R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Di- rekci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer clocks, Nature634, 321 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Two-orbital SU(N) magnetism with ultracold alkaline-earth atoms, Nature Physics6, 289 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Magic- state distillation in all prime dimensions using quantum Reed-Muller codes, Physical Review X2, 041021 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    E. T. Campbell, Enhanced fault-tolerant quantum com- puting ind-level systems, Physical Review Letters113, 230501 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, Quan- tum error correction of qudits beyond break-even, Nature 641, 612 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Szczykulska, T

    M. Szczykulska, T. Baumgratz, and A. Datta, Multi- parameter quantum metrology, Advances in Physics: X 1, 621 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 365 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum 7 processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics18, 1053 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    P. Hrmo, B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Huber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ring- bauer, Native qudit entanglement in a trapped ion quan- tum processor, Nature Communications14, 2242 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, M. V. Okhapkin, S. N. Bagayev, C. Tamm, E. Peik, N. Huntemann, T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, and F. Riehle, Atomic clocks with sup- pressed blackbody radiation shift, Physical Review Let- ters107, 030801 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    M. S. Safronova, S. G. Porsev, C. Sanner, and J. Ye, Two clock transitions in neutral Yb for the highest sensitiv- ity to variations of the fine-structure constant, Physical Review Letters120, 173001 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    R. M. Godun, P. B. R. Nisbet-Jones, J. M. Jones, S. A. King, L. A. M. Johnson, H. S. Margolis, K. Szymaniec, S. N. Lea, K. Bongs, and P. Gill, Frequency ratio of two optical clock transitions in 171Yb+ and constraints on the time variation of fundamental constants, Physical Re...

    2014

  22. [30]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Burshtein, S

    A. Burshtein, S. Fraenkel, M. Goldstein, and R. Finkel- stein, Robust control and entanglement of qudits in neu- tral atom arrays, Physical Review Research8, 013055 (2026)

    2026

  24. [32]

    Yamamoto, J

    R. Yamamoto, J. Kobayashi, T. Kuno, K. Kato, and Y. Takahashi, An ytterbium quantum gas microscope with narrow-line laser cooling, New Journal of Physics 18, 023016 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Omanakuttan, A

    S. Omanakuttan, A. Mitra, M. J. Martin, and I. H. Deutsch, Quantum optimal control of ten-level nuclear spin qudits in 87Sr, Physical Review A104, L060401 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Lindon, A

    J. Lindon, A. Tashchilina, L. W. Cooke, and L. J. LeBlanc, Complete unitary qutrit control in ultracold atoms, Physical Review Applied19, 034089 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Z. Jia, W. Huie, L. Li, W. K. C. Sun, X. Hu, Aakash, H. Kogan, A. Karve, J. Y. Lee, and J. P. Covey, An architecture for two-qubit encoding in neutral ytterbium- 171 atoms, npj Quantum Information10, 106 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Ahmed, A

    H. Ahmed, A. Litvinov, P. Guesdon, E. Mar´ echal, J. H. Huckans, B. Pasquiou, B. Laburthe-Tolra, and M. Robert-de Saint-Vincent, Coherent control over the high-dimensional space of the nuclear spin of alkaline- earth atoms, PRX Quantum6, 020352 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Ammenwerth, H

    M. Ammenwerth, H. Timme, F. Gyger, R. Tao, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Realization of a fast triple-magic all-optical qutrit in 88Sr, Physical Review Letters135, 143401 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Gas-Ferrer, A

    C. Gas-Ferrer, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Buob, L. Bezzo, J. H¨ oschele, and L. Tarruell, Spin-resolved mi- croscopy of 87Sr SU(N) Fermi-Hubbard systems (2026), arXiv:2603.05478

    2026

  31. [39]

    Plassmann, L

    T. Plassmann, L. Schaefer, M. Menashes, and G. Sa- lomon, Rapid state-resolved single-atom imaging of alkaline-earth fermions (2026), arXiv:2602.19876

    2026

  32. [40]

    A. L. Shaw, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Erasure cooling, control, and hyperentanglement of motion in optical tweezers, Science 388, 845 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Kunkel, M

    P. Kunkel, M. Pr¨ ufer, S. Lannig, R. Rosa-Medina, A. Bonnin, M. G¨ arttner, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Simultaneous readout of noncommuting col- lective spin observables beyond the standard quantum limit, Physical Review Letters123, 063603 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    J. Cao, X. Li, T. Mao, W. Xu, and L. You, Joint estima- tion of a two-phase spin rotation beyond classical limit, Physical Review Letters135, 023403 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Cooper and M

    E. Cooper and M. H. Schleier-Smith, Entanglement- enhanced multiparameter sensing: leveraging cavity- mediated programmable interactions, inQuantum Sens- ing, Imaging, and Precision Metrology III(SPIE, 2025) p. PC133922H

    2025

  36. [44]

    Y. Li, L. Joosten, Y. Baamara, P. Colciaghi, A. Sinatra, P. Treutlein, and T. Zibold, Multiparameter estimation with an array of entangled atomic sensors, Science391, 374 (2026)

    2026

  37. [45]

    Friis, G

    N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber, En- tanglement certification from theory to experiment, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 72 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Physical Review Letters111, 070403 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Chen and H

    H. Chen and H. Yuan, Optimal joint estimation of mul- tiple Rabi frequencies, Physical Review A99, 032122 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    J. He, B. Pasquiou, R. G. Escudero, S. Zhou, M. Borkowski, and F. Schreck, Coherent three-photon excitation of the strontium clock transition, Physical Re- view Research7, L012050 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    S. P. Carman, J. Rudolph, B. E. Garber, M. J. Van de Graaff, H. Swan, Y. Jiang, M. Nantel, M. Abe, R. L. Barcklay, and J. M. Hogan, Collinear three-photon ex- citation of a strongly forbidden optical clock transition, Physical Review X15, 031051 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Panelli, E

    G. Panelli, E. J. Porter, V. R. Knight, S. C. Burd, and M. Kasevich, Microsecond-scale coherent control of a for- bidden clock transition with Doppler-free multiphoton excitations (2026), arXiv:2607.06789

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R. Tao, O. Lib, F. Gyger, H. Timme, M. Ammenwerth, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Universal global gates for a fine- structure qubit in strontium-88, Physical Review Letters 136, 153602 (2026)

    2026

  44. [52]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, A. H. Hebert, A. Krahn, R. Groth, G. A. Phelps, O. Markovic, and M. Greiner, Fast single atom imaging for optical lattice arrays, Nature Communications16, 1017 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    B. M. Terhal and P. Horodecki, A Schmidt number for density matrices, Physical Review A61, 040301 (2000)

    2000

  46. [54]

    G¨ uhne and G

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology, Int. J. Quantum Inf.07, 125 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Quantum limits in optical interfer- ometry, Progress in Optics60, 345–435 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

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

    2017

  51. [59]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Reviews of Modern Physics 8 90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    S. Ragy, M. Jarzyna, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Compatibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, Physical Review A94, 052108 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    S. Liu, M. Fadel, Q. He, M. Huber, and G. Vitagliano, Bounding entanglement dimensionality from the covari- ance matrix, Quantum8, 1236 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Pezz` e, M

    L. Pezz` e, M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, P. C. Humphreys, A. Datta, I. A. Walmsley, M. Barbieri, F. Sciarrino, and A. Smerzi, Optimal measurements for simultaneous quantum estimation of multiple phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130504 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    G. J. Dick, Local oscillator induced instabilities in trapped ion frequency standards, inProceedings of the 19th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) Systems and Applications Meeting(Redondo Beach, CA, USA, 1987) pp. 133–147

    1987

  56. [64]

    Chao, Z.-X

    Y.-X. Chao, Z.-X. Hua, X.-H. Liang, Z.-P. Yue, C. Jia, L. You, and M. K. Tey, Robust suppression of high- frequency laser phase noise by adaptive Pound-Drever- Hall feedforward, Physical Review Applied23, L011005 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    Senoo, A

    A. Senoo, A. Baumg¨ artner, J. W. Lis, G. M. Vaidya, Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, H. Pichler, and A. M. Kauf- man, High-fidelity entanglement and coherent multi- qubit mapping in an atom array, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-026-03258-8 (2026)

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    Beugnon, C

    J. Beugnon, C. Tuchendler, H. Marion, A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, Y. R. P. Sortais, A. M. Lance, M. P. A. Jones, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grang- ier, Two-dimensional transport and transfer of a single atomic qubit in optical tweezers, Nature Physics3, 696 (2007)

    2007

  59. [67]

    Lengwenus, J

    A. Lengwenus, J. Kruse, M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, and G. Birkl, Coherent transport of atomic quantum states in a scalable shift register, Physical Review Let- ters105, 170502 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 10, 1749 (1999)

    D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 10, 1749 (1999)

    1999

  61. [69]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Frontiers in Physics8, 589504 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quan- tum theory, Vol. 1 (Edizioni della Normale Pisa, 2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Macchiavello, Optimal estimation of multiple phases, Physical Review A67, 062302 (2003)

    C. Macchiavello, Optimal estimation of multiple phases, Physical Review A67, 062302 (2003)

    2003

  64. [72]

    M. A. Ballester, Entanglement is not very useful for es- timating multiple phases, Physical Review A70, 032310 (2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    NX n=1 (gxn − g) #

    F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applications in quantum imag- ing, Physics Letters A384, 126311 (2020). 9 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION Details about the experimental apparatus...

    2020

  66. [75]

    White-noise robustness The model underlying Fig

    Since everyC N layer contains N 2 pairwise gates, the accumulated dephasing increases withNand eventually eliminates the joint-estimation advantage for nonzero in- fidelity. White-noise robustness The model underlying Fig. 4 assigns an error to each gate of the circuit. We now...

  67. [2024]

    Quantum technologies— 6 from basic research to market

    under DFG Grant No. 554561799, from the Mu- nich Quantum Valley initiative as part of the High-Tech Agenda Plus of the Bavarian State Government, from the BMFTR through the programs MUNIQC-Atoms and MAQCS, from Quantum Science and Technology- National Science and Technology Ma...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.