Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 97 references

Ultrafast quantum gate operations in a Kramers-Henneberger atom Qubit

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an atom dressed by a strong laser field, whose time-averaged potential becomes a double well, can act as a qubit whose two lowest dressed states are the computational basis, and that a weak resonant pulse performs…

desk verdict A plausible proof-of-concept for a KH-atom qubit with femtosecond control pulses, but the full-TDSE Z and S gate claims are not certified by the paper's own population data. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07185 v1 pith:B3RRWGCP submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

A. Tasnim Aynul , C. Li , L. Cruz Rodriguez , C. Figueira de Morisson Faria This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx32.80.Rm42.50.Hz
keywords Kramers-Hennebergerpotentialsingle-qubitgatesultrafastquantumcontrolstrong-fieldstabilizationlight-induceddoublewellRabioscillationsdressedstates
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 proposes that the Kramers-Henneberger atom, an atom held in a strong laser field so that the time-averaged potential forms a double well, can serve as an ultrafast qubit. The two lowest states of that light-induced double well are the computational basis, so the qubit is created and maintained by the driving field itself. A much weaker resonant pulse drives Rabi rotations between these states, and full numerical solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation confirm a Z gate and an S gate on the tens-of-femtoseconds timescale. In a time-averaged two-level version of the same model, all six standard single-qubit gates are demonstrated, and the paper argues that the main error is structured leakage into higher field-dressed states rather than stochastic decoherence.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-averaged Kramers-Henneberger potential $V_0(x;\alpha_{0s}) = \frac{1}{T_s}\int_0^{T_s} V(x+\alpha_s(t))\,dt$, a laser-created double well whose minima sit at the classical turning points $\pm\alpha_{0s}$. Its two lowest eigenstates $|\phi_0\rangle$ and $|\phi_1\rangle$, separated by $\omega_{10}$, are the qubit basis; coherent superpositions of them localise in the left and right wells and precess at $\omega_{10}$. The gate mechanism is the resonant dipole coupling of a weak field, with Rabi frequency $\Omega_R = \varepsilon_{0w}\mu$ where $\mu = \langle\phi_1|\hat{x}|\phi_0\rangle = 6.13754$ a.u., and the pulse area $\theta = \Omega_R t$ sets the rotation angle. Gate quality is read from the inter-well asymmetry $A(t)$ and the phase fidelity $F_\phi = 1 - |\delta-\eta|/\eta$ for target rotations $\eta=\pi$, $\pi/2$, or $\pi/4$, where $\delta$ is the phase shift of the asymmetry oscillation relative to the strong-field-only reference; a composite sequence $R_z(\theta)=R_x(\pi/2)R_y(\theta)R_x(-\pi/2)$ builds the phase gates.

What would settle it

Run full process tomography on the effective qubit after a $\pi$ pulse starting at $T_G=800$ a.u.: if the reconstructed map shows that the population exchange $P_0\leftrightarrow P_1$ is incomplete or that the higher-state population $P_{2+}$ grows during the gate while the asymmetry phase shift stays near $\pi$, then the Z-gate claim fails because the phase-shift observable is not a faithful gate fidelity. A direct measurement of the qubit-subspace population $P_0+P_1$ immediately after the pulse, compared with its strong-field-only value, would settle this.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a strong laser field does not have to be an enemy of quantum computation: in the Kramers-Henneberger frame the field reshapes the atomic potential into a double well whose two lowest eigenstates form a qubit, and a weak resonant control field implements coherent single-qubit rotations in this dressed basis. Concretely, with strong-field parameters $\varepsilon_{0s}=5$ a.u. and $\omega_s=0.7$ a.u., the driving field stabilises the atom and leaves roughly 60% of the surviving bound population in the two-state qubit subspace; a weak pulse at the splitting frequency drives Rabi oscillations with dipole moment $\mu = 6.13754$ a.u. Full time-dependent Schrödinger equation simulations give a Z gate with phase fidelity between 0.892 and 0.937 and an S gate with phase fidelity 0.930, with gate times of 50 fs and 29 fs, about six orders of magnitude shorter than driven superconducting gates. The time-averaged two-level model yields the complete six-gate set with fidelities above 0.93, and comparison with the full dynamics shows that the discrepancy is dominated by population leakage into higher Kramers-Henneberger eigenstates, not by coupling to an external bath.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that after the strong field turns on, the atom sits in a near-equal coherent superposition of the two lowest dressed states with roughly 40% of the surviving bound population leaking into higher states, and that the phase shift of the inter-well asymmetry faithfully measures a clean single-qubit gate even when the population-based diagnostics disagree.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gate times of 28–50 fs put single-qubit operations about six orders of magnitude faster than driven superconducting gates, in a regime where phonon, charge, and nuclear-spin decoherence channels are too slow to act during a gate.
  • The strong field is the computational resource: higher intensity deepens the trapping double well and suppresses ionisation, so the qubit is stabilised by the field rather than damaged by it.
  • The dominant error is structured leakage into higher Kramers-Henneberger eigenstates, driven by off-resonant coupling; pulse shaping, composite sequences, and optimal start-time selection are concrete routes to suppress it without hardware changes.
  • In the time-averaged two-level limit the full six-gate set is available, so once leakage is controlled the same gates should run in the full time-dependent dynamics.
  • The pulse start time selects the rotation axis on the Bloch sphere, and the weak-field amplitude sets the gate speed, giving two continuously tunable laser parameters for qubit control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Rydberg states are used so that the transition dipole scales as $\mu\sim n^2 a_0$, the same scheme would reach far higher Rabi frequencies, and with Kramers-Henneberger stabilisation at lower intensity this suggests a concrete route to attosecond gate times that the paper mentions but does not simulate.
  • The phase-fidelity metric $F_\phi$ is insensitive to population errors in some regimes, as the paper itself notes for the Z-gate population exchange; a natural extension is to report quantum process fidelity or a leakage-inclusive gate fidelity for each gate.
  • The same double-well engineering could be extended to two qubits by placing two Kramers-Henneberger atoms close enough for dipole-dipole coupling between their well-localised states, or by using a higher dressed eigenstate as a bus; the paper identifies two-qubit gates as an open question.
  • Because the computational basis exists only while the driving field is on, the Kramers-Henneberger qubit is a transient, field-defined Hilbert space, which points toward executing gates during a single laser pulse and reading out before the field is removed.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a qubit platform based on a Kramers-Henneberger (KH) atom: a strong laser field creates a time-averaged double-well potential whose two lowest eigenstates define the qubit, and a weak resonant field drives gate operations. The authors report full time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) simulations with the complete time-dependent KH potential, claiming confirmation of a Z gate and an S gate on femtosecond timescales, together with a complete six-gate set in the time-averaged two-level limit. They also analyse decoherence and leakage timescales and argue that the KH qubit satisfies several DiVincenzo criteria in a proof-of-concept regime.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, this would be a conceptually interesting result: a strong-field-dressed atom in which the computational basis is created and maintained by the driving field, with gate times orders of magnitude shorter than conventional platforms. The paper has genuine strengths: the full-TDSE simulations with the complete time-dependent KH potential are a substantial numerical effort; the comparison between the full dynamics and the time-averaged two-level model is a valuable diagnostic; and the decoherence analysis (T_P2+ and T_A) is a useful step beyond a purely idealised treatment. The proposed photoelectron-imaging readout is also a sensible, if not yet simulated, route to measurement. However, as detailed below, the certification of the full-TDSE Z and S gates is not currently supported by the paper's own observables, and the internal inconsistency of the S-gate readout undermines the central claim. The ideal two-level demonstrations are clean but do not by themselves establish a strong-field gate demonstration.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IVC1, Eq. (34), Table V] The certification of the full-TDSE 'Z gate' at T_G=800 a.u. is not supported by the reported population dynamics. An R_z(pi) gate on an equatorial qubit state leaves P_0 and P_1 unchanged, but Fig. 6(e) shows a clean P_0<->P_1 exchange, which the text itself attributes to a transverse R_x component accompanying R_z(pi). The phase-shift fidelity F_phi (Eq. 34) measures only the shift of the asymmetry oscillation and is blind to this population exchange. To establish that the implemented map is R_z(pi) up to a global phase, the authors should compute the qubit-subspace process matrix or Pauli transfer matrix from the full TDSE wavefunction and report a process fidelity with respect to the target unitary. Without this, the label 'clean Z gate' in Table V is unjustified.
  2. [Sec. IVC2, Table VI, Eqs. (24)-(25), (33)] The S-gate characterisation is internally inconsistent. Table VI reports that, for T_G=800 a.u., P_1 drops to near zero post-pulse while the right-well localisation bias is B=-0.783. Using the localisation basis defined in Eqs. (24)-(25), a state with P_1 approximately zero is approximately |phi_0^KH>, which is symmetric and yields A(t) approximately 0 according to Eq. (33), not B=-0.783. The reported signatures can only be reconciled if the state contains substantial P_2+ components that are not captured by the two-state localisation basis, or if the populations and the asymmetry are evaluated in different bases. The authors must clarify the basis used for the readout and certify the S gate on the defined qubit subspace, for example by restricted process tomography on that subspace.
  3. [Sec. IIIB, Sec. IVC, Sec. IVD4] The claim that full TDSE simulations confirm a Z gate and an S gate is not consistent with how the gate pulses are implemented. In Sec. IIIB the authors note that a single resonant control pulse gives direct access to R_x(theta) and R_y(theta), and that genuine R_z(theta) gates require the composite sequence of Eq. (31). The full-TDSE Z and S results in Secs. IVC1 and IVC2, however, use single resonant pulses, while the composite sequence is only applied in the time-averaged ideal two-level limit (Sec. IVD4). A single resonant pulse on an equatorial initial state implements an equatorial-axis rotation, not R_z(pi) or R_z(pi/2). Therefore the abstract's statement that full TDSE simulations 'confirm a Z gate and S gate' is not established; a full-TDSE demonstration of genuine phase gates would require implementing Eq. (31) or an equivalent and verifying the resulting process.
  4. [Eq. (34), Table V] F_phi as defined in Eq. (34) does not discriminate between 'clean' and 'leaky' gates in the way the paper uses it. Table V shows that T_G=500 and 1100 a.u. both give F_phi=0.945 and are classified as 'leaky', while T_G=800 a.u. gives the lower F_phi=0.853 and is classified as 'clean'. This is not a small discrepancy: the very cases with higher phase fidelity are the ones excluded by population conservation. The authors should either define a single composite fidelity that includes both the phase shift and qubit-subspace population conservation, or restrict F_phi to cases where P_0+P_1 is shown to be conserved and state explicitly that F_phi is not a gate-quality metric otherwise. The current usage, in which F_phi is quoted as the primary figure of merit while the gate classification is based on unquantified population criteria, is not reproducible.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. V] The abstract's claim that these results 'constitute the first demonstration of coherent single-qubit gates in a strong-field setting' is stronger than what is demonstrated. The only full-TDSE gates are the single-pulse Z and S operations, which are not certified as the target unitaries (see major comments above); the complete six-gate set is demonstrated only in the time-averaged two-level limit, where the full time-dependent dynamics of the strong field are not present. The novelty claim should be reworded to describe a demonstration of coherent control of a KH-atom qubit, and the 'first' claim should either be substantiated with a targeted literature search or removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'ultrafastsingle-qubitgateoperations' should be 'ultrafast single-qubit gate operations'.
  2. [Sec. IIIC, Eq. (34)] The definition of F_phi can yield values outside [0,1] when |delta-eta| > eta, as for the reported delta=-0.818pi and eta=pi/2 (which would give a negative fidelity if evaluated literally). The wrapping convention used to compute |delta-eta| should be specified, including the branch cut, so that the reported F_phi=0.364 is reproducible.
  3. [Sec. IVE] The case epsilon_0w=0.00003 a.u. is labelled an 'identity gate'; as a negative control this is reasonable, but 'identity' should be reserved for a deliberate no-op operation to avoid confusion with the identity gate in Table II.
  4. [Fig. 6] The captions refer to 'circled regions' in several panels, but the circles are not visible in a greyscale print version; consider using distinct line styles or markers to identify the regions.
  5. [Sec. IVD2] There is a typo in the text: 'applies a a sequence of resonant pulses' should read 'applies a sequence of resonant pulses'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: full TDSE gate observation is an independent benchmark against two-level Rabi theory.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The qubit basis is defined by eigenstates of the time-averaged KH potential (Eq. 15), and the target gate angles are computed from the standard Rabi formula (Eqs. 27-30) using the independently computed dipole moment mu=6.13754 a.u.; the subsequent full TDSE propagation (Eq. 1) is a separate simulation that includes the complete time-dependent KH potential, and the observed phase shifts (e.g., delta=+0.937pi for the pi pulse at TG=500 and delta=+0.535pi for the pi/2 pulse at TG=800) are extracted from the full dynamics, not imposed by the two-level input. Agreement between the ideal and full cases is therefore a non-trivial check. Self-citations to [58] provide the reduced-dimensionality model, KH-stability context, and phase-space behavior, but the gate claim does not reduce to that work by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is used to force the outcome. The skeptical concerns that F_phi ignores population errors, that P0-P1 exchange at TG=800 is incompatible with a pure Rz(pi), and that the S-gate signatures at TG=800 are mutually inconsistent are validity and correctness issues about gate characterization, not circularity: the target phase shifts come from two-level theory, while the phase-shift fidelity is an incomplete diagnostic rather than an input recycled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof-of-concept relies on a small set of hand-picked laser parameters (epsilon_0s, omega_s, epsilon_0w, tau_2, T_G, phi) and on the validity of reducing the driven atom to a two-level system in a time-averaged double well. No new particles or forces are introduced; the KH potential is established prior art.

free parameters (6)
  • epsilon_0s (strong field amplitude) = 5.0 a.u.
    Chosen to create a 13-bound-state double-well KH potential; from [72]. Central to defining the qubit basis.
  • omega_s (strong field frequency) = 0.7 a.u.
    Chosen with epsilon_0s to set quiver amplitude alpha_0s=10.2 a.u. and the qubit energy gap; from [72].
  • epsilon_0w (weak field amplitude) = 0.0003 a.u. (also 0.0001, 0.00065)
    Sets the Rabi frequency and gate time; varied to explore speed-leakage trade-offs.
  • tau_2 (weak pulse ramp duration) = 358 a.u.
    Chosen as approximately half a cycle of the weak field; contributes to gate completion time.
  • T_G (weak pulse start time) = 800 a.u. (clean case); 500/1100 a.u. leaky
    Selects the Bloch-sphere phase at gate start; the clean gate results depend on this choice.
  • carrier phase phi = pi (pi/2 for Y gate)
    Sets the rotation axis in the xy-plane; chosen per gate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The time-averaged KH potential V0(x) from the zeroth Fourier component dominates the qubit dynamics; higher harmonics act as a perturbation.
    Used to define the ideal two-level model in Sec. IIB; the full TDSE includes all harmonics, so this axiom applies only to the ideal gate demonstrations.
  • domain assumption The one-dimensional soft-core potential V(x)=-1/sqrt(x^2+1) is a faithful model for a real atom at the chosen intensity.
    Central to all simulations; the paper acknowledges it is a proof-of-concept and discusses Rydberg/3D extensions as future work.
  • domain assumption The dipole approximation and non-relativistic Schrodinger equation are valid at epsilon_0s=5 a.u., omega_s=0.7 a.u. (I approx 8.8e17 W/cm2).
    The paper states relativistic corrections are not considered, consistent with standard practice; this is an assumption about the physics.
  • domain assumption The mixed-gauge coupling H_coupl = (x+alpha_s(t)) epsilon_w(t) (Eq. 10) with constant dipole mu describes the resonant gate dynamics more accurately than the full coupling (Eq. 16).
    Used for all ideal two-level gate results; the paper notes the full coupling had poorer agreement and was not used.
  • domain assumption The qubit subspace is spanned by |phi_0> and |phi_1>, and all other states (P_2+) constitute leakage/error rather than part of the computational space.
    The projection in Eq. (32) treats P_2+ as leakage; this is a modeling choice necessary for the qubit interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast quantum gate operations in a Kramers-Henneberger atom Qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3RRWGCP

@misc{pith2026260807185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast quantum gate operations in a Kramers-Henneberger atom Qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3RRWGCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07185}
}
read the original abstract

We propose and demonstrate the Kramers-Henneberger KH) atom as a novel qubit platform for ultrafast single-qubit gate operations. In the KH frame, the time-averaged strong laser field engineers a double-well potential whose two lowest eigenstates define the qubit basis, so that the computational structure is created and maintained by the driving field itself. A weak resonant control field drives coherent gate operations: full time-dependent Schr\"{o}dinger equation simulations with the complete time-dependent KH potential confirm a Z gate and S gate of the order of femtoseconds, six orders of magnitude faster than laser-driven superconducting qubit gates. Decoherence characterisation gives longer decoherence times than those required for the gate operations. The complete six-gate single-qubit set is demonstrated in the time-averaged two-level limit, with strong agreement between the full and time-averaged descriptions confirming that fidelity is limited by structured leakage rather than stochastic decoherence. In principle, this is an error channel suppressible through pulse engineering. These results constitute the first demonstration of coherent single-qubit gates in a strong-field setting, with a clear pathway toward attosecond-scale operations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Illustration of the Kramers-Henneberger approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Two equivalent basis representations for the KH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Unnormalised qubit populations and asymme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Leakage times of the KH qubit under the strong [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Conditional populations for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Qubit-subspace population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: demonstrates a near-perfect X gate. With the KH ground state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Schematic pulse sequence for KH qubit opera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Ideal initialisation test — [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Ideal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Composite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: illustrates a clear trade-off: increasing ε0w shortens the gate time and increases Ngates, but also raises the ratio α0w/α0s and the disturbance to the KH potential. For weak fields, such as ε0w = 0.0001 a.u. the gate is slow but clean, with minimal leakage. As the fi…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows the probability density in the Kramers￾Henneberger frame at t = 513 a.u., which is slightly af￾ter the onset of stabilization, considering the strong-field only and a bichromatic field with an additional π pulse of strength ε0w = 0.0003 a.u. starting at TG = 500…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Time-dependent width (twice the standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Population diagnostics for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    9 demonstrates a near-perfect X gate

    Ideal gates and initial conditions Fig. 9 demonstrates a near-perfect X gate. With the KH ground state ϕKH 0 as the initial condition, aπpulse atε 0w = 0.0003a.u. drives a complete population inver- sionP 0 →0,P 1 →1with no leakage, i.e.,P 0 +P 1 = 1 throughout. Thepopulationminimumoccursslightlybe- foret π due to the additional pulse area accumulated dur...

  2. [2]

    At the moment, the full TDSE allows access to approximate equatorial states

    State initialization An important condition for a qubit is to be able to initialize it to a known state before the start of the gates [63]. At the moment, the full TDSE allows access to approximate equatorial states. However, the equatorial state at the timesTG cannot be cleanly rotated to a pure eigenstate pole;P2+ leakage during the preparatory pulse do...

  3. [3]

    Complete single-qubit gate set — ideal case Beyond theZandXgates demonstrated above, the ideal two-level system supports the complete set of stan- dard single-qubit gates. The Hadamard gate is realised by applying aπ/2pulse to the KH ground state|ψ 0⟩ initial condition with carrier phaseφ=π; theR x(π/2) rotation maps the north pole to the equator, produci...

  4. [4]

    Composite phase gates As discussed in Section IIIB, theS,T, andZgates are additionally demonstrated here as composite three-pulse sequences,R z(θ) =R x(π/2)R y(θ)R x(−π/2), start- ing from a localized coherent superposition( ϕKH 0 + ϕKH 1 )/ √ 2and using the shortened-flat envelope so that the target angleθis delivered exactly at the marked com- pletion t...

  5. [5]

    Andrea Rozzi, S

    C. Andrea Rozzi, S. Maria Falke, N. Spallanzani, A. Ru- bio, E. Molinari, D. Brida, M. Maiuri, G. Cerullo, H. Schramm, J. Christoffers, and C. Lienau, Quantum coherence controls the charge separation in a prototyp- ical artificial light-harvesting system, Nature Communi- cations4, 1602 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    S. M. Falke, C. A. Rozzi, D. Brida, M. Maiuri, M. Amato, E. Sommer, A. D. Sio, A. Rubio, G. Cerullo, E. Molinari, and C. Lienau, Coherent ultrafast charge transfer in an organic photovoltaic blend, Science344, 1001 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    G. S. Engel, T. R. Calhoun, E. L. Read, T.-K. Ahn, T. Mančal, Y.-C. Cheng, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming, Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems, Nature 446, 782 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Lee, Y.-C

    H. Lee, Y.-C. Cheng, and G. R. Fleming, Coherence dy- namics in photosynthesis: Protein protection of excitonic coherence, Science316, 1462 (2007)

    2007

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    G. D. Scholes, G. R. Fleming, A. Olaya-Castro, and R. van Grondelle, Lessons from nature about solar light harvesting, Nature Chemistry3, 763 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    J. Cao, R. J. Cogdell, D. F. Coker, H.-G. Duan, J. Hauer, U. Kleinekathöfer, T. L. C. Jansen, T. Mančal, R. J. D. Miller, J. P. Ogilvie, V. I. Prokhorenko, T. Renger, H.-S. Tan, R. Tempelaar, M. Thorwart, E. Thyrhaug, S. West- enhoff, and D. Zigmantas, Quantum biology revisite...

    2020

  3. [11]

    D. D. Awschalom, L. C. Bassett, A. S. Dzurak, E. L. Hu, and J. R. Petta, Quantum spintronics: Engineering and manipulating atom-like spins in semiconductors, Science 339, 1174 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Q. A. Turchette, C. S. Wood, B. E. King, C. J. My- att, D. Leibfried, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Deterministic entanglement of two trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3631 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Smirnova, Y

    O. Smirnova, Y. Mairesse, S. Patchkovskii, N. Dudovich, D. Villeneuve, P. Corkum, and M. Y. Ivanov, High harmonic interferometry of multi-electron dynamics in molecules, Nature460, 972 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    B. B. Augstein and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, High- order harmonic generation in diatomic molecules: Quan- tum interference, nodal structures and multiple orbitals, Modern Physics Letters B26, 1130002 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Hassouneh, A

    O. Hassouneh, A. C. Brown, and H. W. van der Hart, Multichannelinterferenceinhigh-order-harmonicgenera- tion from ne+ driven by an ultrashort intense laser pulse, Phys. Rev. A89, 033409 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Augé, P.Balcou, H.G.Muller,andP.Agostini,Observationofa trainofattosecondpulsesfromhighharmonicgeneration, Science292, 1689 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    J. M. Dahlström, A. L’Huillier, and A. Maquet, Intro- duction to attosecond delays in photoionization, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics45, 183001 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of attosecond pulse trains, Rev

    P. Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of attosecond pulse trains, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 030501 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Nisoli, P

    M. Nisoli, P. Decleva, F. Calegari, A. Palacios, and F. Martín, Attosecond electron dynamics in molecules, Chemical Reviews117, 10760 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Ghimire and D

    S. Ghimire and D. A. Reis, High-harmonic generation from solids, Nature Physics15, 10.1038/s41567-018- 0315-5 (2018)

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    S. Y. Kruchinin, F. Krausz, and V. S. Yakovlev, Collo- quium: Strong-field phenomena in periodic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 021002 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    D. E. Deutsch, Quantum computational networks, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathemati- cal and Physical Sciences425, 73 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  17. [25]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Demonstration of a fundamental quantum logic gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4714 (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    Schmidt-Kaler, H

    F. Schmidt-Kaler, H. Häffner, M. Riebe, S. Gulde, G. P. T. Lancaster, T. Deuschle, C. Becher, C. F. Roos, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Realization of the cirac–zoller controlled-not quantum gate, Nature422, 408 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Yamamoto, Y

    T. Yamamoto, Y. A. Pashkin, O. Astafiev, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Demonstration of conditional gate oper- ation using superconducting charge qubits, Nature425, 941 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    J. H. Plantenberg, P. C. de Groot, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Demonstration of controlled-not quan- tum gates on a pair of superconducting quantum bits, Nature447, 836 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    L.O’Brien, G

    J. L.O’Brien, G. J.Pryde, A. G.White, T. C.Ralph,and D. Branning, Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled-not gate, Nature426, 264 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, A photon– photonquantumgatebasedonasingleatominanoptical resonator, Nature536, 193 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Isenhower, E

    L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Demonstration of a neutral atom controlled- not quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 010503 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent ma- nipulation of coupled electron spins in semicon- ductor quantum dots, Science309, 2180 (2005), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sci...

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    I. L. Chuang, N. Gershenfeld, and M. Kubinec, Experi- mental implementation of fast quantum searching, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3408 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev

    M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1267 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    Ibrahim, C

    H. Ibrahim, C. Lefebvre, A. D. Bandrauk, A. Staudte, and F. Légaré, H2: the benchmark molecule for ultrafast science and technologies, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics51, 042002 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Kübel, M

    M. Kübel, M. Spanner, Z. Dube, A. Y. Naumov, 29 S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, M. J. J. Vrakking, P. B. Corkum, D. M. Villeneuve, and A. Staudte, Probing multiphoton light-induced molecular potentials, Nature Communications11, 2596 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    P. M. Abanador and U. Thumm, Characterization of light-induced potentials in the strong-field dissociation ofo 2 +, Phys. Rev. A102, 053114 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    P. V. Demekhin and L. S. Cederbaum, Light-induced conical intersections in polyatomic molecules: General theory, strategies of exploitation, and application, The Journal of Chemical Physics139, 154314 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Csehi, G

    A. Csehi, G. J. Halász, L. S. Cederbaum, and Á. Vibók, Light-induced conical intersections, inAttosecond Molec- ular Dynamics(The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    J. E. Bækhøj, C. Lévêque, and L. B. Madsen, Signatures of a conical intersection in attosecond transient absorp- tion spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 023203 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Chini, B

    M. Chini, B. Zhao, H. Wang, Y. Cheng, S. X. Hu, and Z. Chang, Subcycle ac stark shift of helium excited states probed with isolated attosecond pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 073601 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    M. Wu, S. Chen, M. B. Gaarde, and K. J. Schafer, Time- domain perspective on autler-townes splitting in attosec- ond transient absorption of laser-dressed helium atoms, Phys. Rev. A88, 043416 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet engineering of quantum materials, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Lucchini, F

    M. Lucchini, F. Medeghini, Y. Wu, F. Vismarra, R. Borrego-Varillas, A. Crego, F. Frassetto, L. Poletto, S. A. Sato, H. Höbener, U. De Giovannini, A. Rubio, and M. Nisoli, Controlling floquet states on ultrashort time scales, Nature Communications13, 7103 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    J. Kim, X. Hong, C. Jin, S.-F. Shi, C.-Y. S. Chang, M.- H. Chiu, L.-J. Li, and F. Wang, Ultrafast generation of pseudo-magnetic field for valley excitons in wse2 mono- layers, Science346, 1205 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    E. J. Sie, J. W. McIver, Y.-H. Lee, L. Fu, J. Kong, and N. Gedik, Valley-selective optical stark effect in mono- layer WS2, Nature Materials14, 290 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Rana and G

    N. Rana and G. Dixit, All-optical ultrafast valley switch- ing in two-dimensional materials, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 034056 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    M. S. Mrudul and G. Dixit, Controlling valley- polarisation in graphene via tailored light pulses, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics54, 224001 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    M. S. Mrudul, Álvaro Jiménez-Galán, M. Ivanov, and G. Dixit, Light-induced valleytronics in pristine graphene, Optica8, 422 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Tyulnev, Á

    I. Tyulnev, Á. Jiménez-Galán, J. Poborska, L. Vamos, P. S.J. Russell, F.Tani, O.Smirnova, M.Ivanov, R.E. F. Silva, and J. Biegert, Valleytronics in bulk mos2 with a topologic optical field, Nature628, 746 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    G. N. Gopalan, A. Bharti, P. Venkat, and G. Dixit, Har- nessing light for valley control in 2d semiconductors, Ad- vanced Optical Materials14, e01593 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    Dixit, private communication (2026)

    G. Dixit, private communication (2026)

    2026

  46. [54]

    W. C. Henneberger, Perturbation method for atoms in intense light beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.21, 838 (1968)

    1968

  47. [55]

    Gavrila, Atomic stabilization in superintense laser fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics35, R147 (2002)

    M. Gavrila, Atomic stabilization in superintense laser fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics35, R147 (2002)

    2002

  48. [56]

    Morales, M

    F. Morales, M. Richter, S. Patchkovskii, and O. Smirnova, Imaging the kramers–henneberger atom, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 16906 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Pont and M

    M. Pont and M. Gavrila, Stabilization of atomic hydro- gen in superintense, high-frequency laser fields of circular polarization, Physical Review Letters65, 2362 (1990)

    1990

  50. [58]

    V. C. Reed, K. Burnett, and P. L. Knight, Harmonic gen- eration in the kramers–henneberger stabilization regime, Physical Review A47, R34 (1993)

    1993

  51. [59]

    L. B. Madsen, Strong-field approximation for high-order harmonic generation in infrared laser pulses in the accel- erated kramers–henneberger frame, Physical Review A 104, 033117 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Richter, S

    M. Richter, S. Patchkovskii, F. Morales, O. Smirnova, and M. Ivanov, The role of the kramers–henneberger atom in the higher-order kerr effect, New Journal of Physics15, 083012 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    I. A. Ivanov, A. S. Kheifets, and K. T. Kim, Interference patterns in ionization of kramers–henneberger atom, Scientific Reports12, 17048 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Tasnim Aynul, L

    A. Tasnim Aynul, L. C. Rodriguez, and C. F. d. M. Faria, Quantum beating and cyclic structures in the phase- space dynamics of the kramers-henneberger atom, Phys. Rev. A111, 043102 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Protopapas, P

    M. Protopapas, P. L. Knight, and K. Burnett, Phase de- pendence in two-color excitation of a model atom by in- tense fields, Phys. Rev. A49, 1945 (1994)

    1994

  56. [64]

    Cheng, J

    T. Cheng, J. Liu, and S. Chen, High-intensity two-color interference effect on atomic stabilization, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1451 (1999)

    1999

  57. [65]

    R. M. Potvliege, Adiabatic stabilization in a two-colour field, Phys. Rev. A60, 1311 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    Bauer and F

    D. Bauer and F. Ceccherini, Two-color stabilization of atomic hydrogen in circularly polarized laser fields, Phys. Rev. A66, 053411 (2002)

    2002

  59. [67]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, The physical implementation of quan- tumcomputation,FortschrittederPhysik48,771(2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    Figueira de Morisson Faria, M

    C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, M. Dörr, W. Becker, and W. Sandner, Time-frequency analysis of two-color high- harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. A60, 1377 (1999)

    1999

  61. [69]

    Richter,Imaging and Controlling Electronic and NU- clear Dynamics in Strong Lasr Fields, Phd thesis, Tech- nische Universit"at Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2016)

    M. Richter,Imaging and Controlling Electronic and NU- clear Dynamics in Strong Lasr Fields, Phd thesis, Tech- nische Universit"at Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Fring, V

    A. Fring, V. Kostrykin, and R. Schrader, On the absence of bound-state stabilization through short ultra-intense fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics29, 5651 (1996)

    1996

  63. [71]

    C. F. de Morisson Faria, A. Fring, and R. Schrader, On the influence of pulse shapes on ionization probability, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics31, 449 (1998)

    1998

  64. [72]

    C. F. de Morisson Faria, A. Fring, and R. Schrader, Analytical treatment of stabilization (1998), arXiv:physics/9808047 [physics.atom-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  65. [73]

    R. M. Potvliege, STRFLO: a program for time- independentcalculationsofmultiphotonprocessesinone- electron atomic systems I. quasienergy spectra and an- gular distributions, Comput. Phys. Commun.114, 42 (1998)

    1998

  66. [74]

    Gavrila and J

    M. Gavrila and J. Z. Kamiński, Free-free transitions in intense high-frequency laser fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 613 (1984)

    1984

  67. [75]

    Popov, O

    A. Popov, O. Tikhonova, and E. Volkova, Applicability of the kramers-henneberger approximation in the theory 30 of strong-field ionization, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics32, 3331 (1999)

    1999

  68. [76]

    M. J. Norman, C. Chandre, T. Uzer, and P. Wang, Non- linear dynamics of ionization stabilization of atoms in intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. A91, 023406 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  70. [78]

    Hayashi, T

    T. Hayashi, T. Fujisawa, H. D. Cheong, Y. H. Jeong, and Y. Hirayama, Coherent manipulation of electronic states in a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 226804 (2003)

    2003

  71. [79]

    Allen and J

    L. Allen and J. H. Eberly,Optical Resonance and Two- Level Atoms(Wiley, New York, 1975)

    1975

  72. [80]

    Chelkowski, A

    S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, and A. Apolonski, Phase-dependent asymmetries in strong-field photoion- ization by few-cycle laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A70, 013815 (2004)

    2004

  73. [81]

    He, Z.-H

    P.-L. He, Z.-H. Zhang, and F. He, Young’s double-slit interference in a hydrogen atom, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 163201 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021314 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  77. [85]

    Hanson, L

    R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Spins in few-electron quan- tum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 1217 (2007)

    2007

  78. [86]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  79. [87]

    Borsch, M

    M. Borsch, M. Meierhofer, R. Huber, and M. Kira, Light- wave electronics in condensed matter, Nat. Rev. Mater. 8, 668 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Alt- shuler,1/fnoise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 361 (2014)

    2014

  81. [89]

    Werninghaus, D

    M. Werninghaus, D. J. Egger, F. Roy, S. Machnes, F. K. Wilhelm, and S. Filipp, Leakage reduction in fast super- conducting qubit gates via optimal control, npj Quantum Information7, 14 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Richter, private communication (2026)

    M. Richter, private communication (2026)

    2026

  83. [91]

    Jelezko, T

    F. Jelezko, T. Gaebel, I. Popa, A. Gruber, and J. Wrachtrup, Observation of coherent oscillations in a single electron spin, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 076401 (2004)

    2004

  84. [92]

    J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Manipulat- ing quantum entanglement with atoms and photons in a cavity, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 565 (2001)

    2001

  85. [93]

    N. J. van Druten, R. C. Constantinescu, J. M. Schins, H. Nieuwenhuize, and H. G. Muller, Adiabatic stabiliza- tion: Observationofthesurvivingpopulation,Phys.Rev. A55, 622 (1997)

    1997

  86. [94]

    Eichmann, T

    U. Eichmann, T. Nubbemeyer, H. Rottke, and W. Sand- ner, Observing Rydberg atoms to survive intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 203002 (2013)

    2013

  87. [95]

    M. V. Fedorov and A. M. Movsesian, Field-induced ef- fects of narrowing of photoelectron spectra and stabilisa- tion of Rydberg atoms, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 21, L155 (1988)

    1988

  88. [96]

    M. V. Fedorov and A. M. Movsesian, Interference sup- pression of photoionization of Rydberg atoms in a strong electromagnetic field, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B6, 928 (1989)

    1989

  89. [97]

    Eichmann, T

    U. Eichmann, T. Nubbemeyer, H. Rottke, and W. Sand- ner, Acceleration of neutral atoms in strong short-pulse laser fields, Nature461, 1261 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.