Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Programmable Rapid Adiabatic Passage laser pulses for Ultra-fast Gates on trapped ions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Shaping CW laser light into STIRAP pulses makes ultrafast trapped-ion gates robust, with simulated fidelities above 99.99%.

desk verdict A credible programmable EOM-based route to adiabatic ultrafast trapped-ion gates, but the headline 99.99% fidelity is not actually nailed down because the peak Rabi frequency is never stated and the error budget has an arithmetic slip. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.04893 v2 pith:3KW6OYK6 submitted 2025-11-07 quant-ph

En-Teng An , Hao-Qing Zhang , Yun-Feng Huang , Chuan-Feng Li , Jin-Ming Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords trappedionsultrafastgatesspin-dependentkicksSTIRAPadiabaticrapidpassageelectro-opticmodulatorsprogrammablepulseshapinggaterobustness
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 aims to show that ultrafast entangling gates on trapped ions, usually driven by mode-locked laser pulse trains, can instead be driven by shaped pulses carved from a continuous-wave laser with electro-optic modulators. Because the pulse waveform, intensity, and phase become programmable, coherent population-transfer protocols—especially STIRAP—can produce spin-dependent kicks that are nearly insensitive to intensity and detuning fluctuations. If the claim holds, the fixed repetition rate and pulse-instability problems of mode-locked sources disappear, and a practical route opens to fast, high-fidelity entangling gates. The headline estimate is a gate fidelity above 99.99% at a 1 ns pulse duration, conditional on the adiabatic condition being met at the required laser power.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the STIRAP dark state |ψ0(t)⟩ = cosϑ(t)|0⟩ - e^{i(kp-ks)x}sinϑ(t)|1⟩, which transfers population between hyperfine qubit states without populating the excited intermediate state; the resulting spin-dependent kick unitary, e^{2iΔk x}|0⟩⟨0| + e^{-2iΔk x}|1⟩⟨1|, plugs into standard fast-gate pulse sequences. The enabling hardware is a programmable pulse source: a phase EOM creates frequency sidebands, a grating filter selects the third order, an intensity EOM carves the envelope, and a single arbitrary waveform generator synchronizes both modulators, so pulse shape, delay, and phase are all software-controlled.

What would settle it

Measure (or fully simulate, specifying the peak Rabi frequency) the single-spin-dependent-kick fidelity as a function of laser intensity and pump-Stokes delay for τ=1 ns. If the STIRAP plateau at per-kick error below 10^-5 does not appear, or if the intensity required to reach adiabaticity produces a spontaneous-emission error above that level, the central claim is falsified. Equivalently, check the Landau-Zener parameter Ω0²/(dδ/dt) at the 1 ns timescale and require it to exceed the adiabatic threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that a STIRAP-based spin-dependent kick, implemented with 1 ns laser pulses generated by an arbitrary-waveform-driven phase and intensity electro-optic modulator chain, outperforms the other coherent-transfer protocols considered (ordinary stimulated Raman transitions, adiabatic rapid passage, and dynamical elimination) in both fidelity and robustness. The paper reports gate infidelity below 10^-4 under variations of pulse intensity and single-photon detuning, and an overall entangling gate fidelity near 99.99% when the STIRAP pulse pair delay is controlled to about 20 ps. It further claims that a programmable pulse source with a bandwidth-limited repetition rate above 1 GH

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes adiabatic following is achieved within the 1 ns pulse duration, but the peak Rabi frequency is never specified and the adiabatic condition is never checked quantitatively; if the required laser intensity is experimentally inaccessible or causes significant spontaneous emission, the 99.99% fidelity estimate fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ultrafast ion gates no longer have to rely on mode-locked lasers: a CW laser plus fast EOMs can generate the pulse sequences with arbitrary timing, removing the repetition-rate constraint.
  • STIRAP-based spin-dependent kicks suppress sensitivity to laser intensity drift and single-photon detuning fluctuations, so gate fidelity should be stable against slow experimental drift.
  • Keeping gate infidelity below 10^-4 from timing errors requires a pulse bandwidth above 1 GHz, which commercial modulators already provide.
  • For the best STIRAP fidelity, the delay between pump and Stokes pulses must be stable to about 20 ps, corresponding to a 50 GHz bandwidth—challenging but in reach of current technology.
  • At N_p = 10 pulse pairs, an SDK error around 10^-5 translates directly through the fidelity formula F_gate ≈ |1 - 2N_pε + N_p^2ε^2|F_o to a 99.99% entangling gate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive check the paper leaves open: the adiabatic condition at τ=1 ns requires a specific peak Rabi frequency, yet Ω0 is never stated; computing the required intensity and comparing it with spontaneous-emission and power limits would test whether the 99.99% estimate is physically accessible.
  • The same programmable modulator chain could implement shortcuts-to-adiabaticity pulses, potentially relaxing the 1 ns adiabatic-following constraint while keeping robustness.
  • The comparison framework suggests that any residual spontaneous emission at the chosen 400 GHz single-photon detuning sets a fidelity ceiling; a quantitative spontaneous-emission error estimate would refine the predicted gate fidelity.
  • The timing precision story has a pipeline implication: the 20 ps requirement pushes the source bandwidth to 50 GHz, which is beyond most current arbitrary waveform generators, so the practical bottleneck may shift from laser technology to electronics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a programmable pulsed-laser system based on electro-optic modulation of a continuous-wave source, and applies it to trapped-ion spin-dependent kicks (SDKs) using adiabatic rapid passage (ARP), stimulated Raman adiabatic rapid passage (STIRARP), and dynamically eliminated (DE) pulse shapes. The central claim is that STIRARP yields the highest single-SDK fidelity and robustness against intensity and detuning fluctuations, and that fast entangling gates can reach fidelities above 99.99% with 1-ns pulses. The paper also analyzes timing-error requirements, suggesting that bandwidth-limited frequencies above 1 GHz are needed and that 10–50 GHz bandwidths could suffice.

Significance. The idea of replacing fixed mode-locked pulse trains with programmable, EOM-shaped pulses from a CW laser is interesting and potentially valuable: it offers continuous timing control, flexible waveform synthesis, and the possibility of adiabatic population transfer in ultrafast gates. The qualitative comparison of ARP, STIRARP, and DE is a useful contribution. However, the quantitative claims -- in particular the >99.99% gate fidelity and the robustness analysis -- are not yet supported by the information provided. The manuscript never specifies the peak Rabi frequency corresponding to the pulse intensity I0, so the simulated SDK fidelities cannot be reproduced or checked against physical constraints such as adiabaticity or spontaneous emission. The fidelity budget also contains an arithmetic inconsistency. With additional detail and corrected error analysis, the proposal could become a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.D, Eq. (5), Fig. 2] The peak Rabi frequency Ω0 is never specified. Eq. (5) defines I1=I2=I0 sin^6(πt/τ) in terms of intensity, but nowhere is I0 related to the Rabi frequency Ω(t) used in Eq. (2) or to the fidelity curves in Fig. 2. Without an absolute scale, the claimed single-SDK fidelities cannot be reproduced or verified. In particular, for a 1-ns pulse under the STIRARP protocol, adiabatic following requires Ω_eff τ ≫ 1; the manuscript gives no numerical estimate of Ω_eff or of the excited-state population. This is a load-bearing omission for the central 99.99% claim.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eq. (7) and closing paragraph] The fidelity budget is arithmetically inconsistent. With 1−Fs ≈ 10^-4 and 1−Fo < 10^-4, the product Fs Fo is at most about 99.98% (if both infidelities are 10^-4), not above 99.99%. To reach >99.99% one needs the sum of the two infidelities to be below 10^-4, which is not what the text states. The abstract and conclusion repeat the >99.99% figure, so the claim should be corrected or the error assumptions tightened.
  3. [Section III.D and Fig. 2 panels (g,h)] The STIRARP and DE simulations use single-photon detuning Δ=0 (single-photon resonance). In this regime even a small transient population of the 2P1/2 state causes spontaneous emission; the paper does not estimate this error. Since the claimed per-SDK infidelity is around 10^-5–10^-4, scattering from the intermediate state could easily dominate. The authors should simulate the full three-level system including spontaneous emission, or provide an upper bound on the excited-state population and the resulting scattering rate.
  4. [Section IV.B, Eq. (7)] The manuscript does not derive or justify Eq. (7). The expression enters the central gate-fidelity claim, yet the error model is unclear: why do N_p pulse pairs produce a term −2N_pϵ + N_p^2ϵ^2? Is this based on an amplitude-error model, a depolarizing model, or something else? If it is an approximation, the range of validity should be stated; the absolute value suggests the expression can become negative, which is not physical for a probability. Please include a derivation or a precise citation to the error model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 2 and 3] The axis labels in Fig. 2 are missing or incomplete: plots (e)–(h) do not name the horizontal axis or give units. Figure 3 uses 'relative laser intensity' without defining the reference point. Please add clear axis labels and a statement of the parameter values used in each curve.
  2. [Section III.D] The optimal parameter list says 'for STIRAP, td = 260 ps' but does not state the single-photon detuning for that scheme. Earlier the text says STIRARP is effective under single-photon resonance; please clarify whether Δ=0 was used and what effect a finite Δ has.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (25) and surrounding text] The claim that a sawtooth voltage with amplitude 2Vπ and period 2τ yields I(t)=I0 sin^6(πt/τ) is not what one obtains from a standard Mach–Zehnder intensity modulator. For a linear ramp from 0 to 2Vπ over τ, the output intensity would scale as sin^2(πt/τ), not sin^6(πt/τ). Either specify the required nonlinear voltage waveform or correct the statement.
  4. [General] There are a few typographical issues, e.g., 'disscusion' in the Acknowledgments. Also, the notation N_p is used for both the number of pulse pairs and the integer n in the GZC/FRAG sequences; consider distinguishing these symbols.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation uses standard STIRAP/SDK theory and external references; missing Rabi-frequency specification and arithmetic inconsistency are verifiability/correctness issues, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The STIRARP SDK operator (Eqs. 11-12) follows from the three-level dark state (Eq. 10) and the adiabatic theorem (Eqs. 8-9), with the position-dependent phase arising from the Raman wave-vector imbalance. The fast-gate closure conditions (Eqs. 17-18) and the timing-error fidelity formula (Eq. 21) are taken from standard external references (notably Refs. [14,15,16,18]), and the overall gate fidelity is then assembled using Eq. 7. The parameter values t_d=260 ps, δ0/2π=18 GHz, and ω_e/2π=200 GHz are optimization choices used for the comparison in Figs. 2-3, not fitted inputs relabeled as predictions. No self-citation is load-bearing: cited STIRAP, adiabatic-passage, and fast-gate results come from established literature by other groups, and no uniqueness theorem from the present authors is invoked. The main concerns are correctness/verifiability rather than circularity: the peak Rabi frequency Ω0 (or absolute pulse intensity) is never specified, so the τ=1 ns adiabatic-following assumption and the absolute fidelity values are not reproducible; and Eq. (7) with 1−F_s≈10^-4 and 1−F_o<10^-4 gives F_gate≈99.98%, not 99.99%. Neither concern amounts to the derivation depending on its own conclusion by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard STIRAP/dark-state theory, an imported fast-gate error formula, and several user-chosen parameters (t_d, δ0, ω_e, Δ, τ, N_p). No new physical entities are postulated. The largest unstated premise is the peak Rabi frequency/intensity needed to maintain adiabaticity without excessive spontaneous emission.

free parameters (10)
  • STIRAP delay t_d = 260 ps
    Chosen as optimal for fidelity (Fig. 2); the headline STIRARP result depends on it.
  • ARP sweep amplitude δ0 = 18 GHz (δ0/2π)
    Chosen as optimal; ARP fidelity and robustness depend on this value.
  • DE modulation frequency ω_e = 200 GHz (ω_e/2π)
    Chosen for the DE protocol; no optimization or sensitivity analysis is shown.
  • Single-photon detuning Δ = 400 GHz (Δ/2π)
    Used for SRT/ARP comparisons; affects spontaneous emission and the neglected Stark shift.
  • Pulse duration τ = 1 ns
    Sets the ultrafast timescale; all fidelity curves use τ = 1 ns.
  • Peak Rabi frequency / pulse intensity I0 = not stated
    Controls adiabaticity and spontaneous emission. Its absence makes the fidelity curves non-reproducible.
  • Number of pulse pairs N_p = 10 (FRAG, n=1)
    Minimum number used in the simulation; enters the cumulative-error formula Eq. 7.
  • Lamb-Dicke parameter η = 0.3
    Chosen for gate timing simulations; affects sensitivity to timing errors.
  • Trap frequency ω = 1 MHz
    Chosen for the numerical gate simulations.
  • Thermal mode occupations n̄_c, n̄_s = not specified
    Used in Eq. 21 for timing-error infidelity, but the values are not given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The adiabatic theorem is valid for the 1 ns STIRAP/ARP pulses used here.
    Eqs. 8-11 assume perfect adiabatic following and a zero dark-state geometric phase, but no adiabaticity parameter (Ω_Rabi · τ) is stated or checked.
  • domain assumption The differential Stark shift δ_A in Eq. 2 is negligible.
    The text argues δ_A/Ω ∝ ω_HF/Δ with Δ = 400 GHz, but the residual phase error is never evaluated. This underpins the two-level reduction.
  • ad hoc to paper Intensity and single-photon detuning fluctuations are identical for both Raman pulses.
    Section III.D: 'we assume that fluctuations in pulse intensity and single-photon detuning are identical for both pulses.' This simplification may not hold experimentally.
  • domain assumption The fast-gate error model in Eq. 7 (from Ref. [30]) is valid for combining single-SDK errors with free evolution.
    F_gate = |1 − 2N_p ε + N_p² ε²| F_o is imported from the literature and not re-derived or tested against a full gate simulation.
  • domain assumption The 171Yb+ level structure can be truncated to the 2S_1/2 hyperfine states and the 2P_1/2 manifold, neglecting 2P_3/2.
    Section II: coupling to 2P_3/2 is neglected because Δ is much smaller than the 100 THz fine-structure splitting. This is standard but not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable Rapid Adiabatic Passage laser pulses for Ultra-fast Gates on trapped ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KW6OYK6

@misc{pith2026251104893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable Rapid Adiabatic Passage laser pulses for Ultra-fast Gates on trapped ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KW6OYK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.04893}
}
read the original abstract

Scalable quantum gates remain a central challenge for trapped-ion quantum computing. Ultrafast gates driven by spin-dependent kicks (SDKs) provide a promising approach. However, current protocols rely on mode-locked lasers, suffering from inflexible timing control and limited single-SDK fidelity. To overcome this, we propose a scheme using rapid adiabatic passage (RAP) pulses modulated from a continuous-wave laser. We demonstrate that this RAP-based approach suppresses the sensitivity of SDKs to fluctuations in optical intensity, thereby enabling the construction of robust entangling gates. Furthermore, the programmable nature of these modulated pulses allows for precise control over pulse sequences, further optimizing gate performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spin-dependent kick on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The pulse sequences and SDK performances for different protocols. (a–d) illustrate various adiabatic SDK schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of the fast gate error 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: From Fig. 2, we observe that the STIRARP tech [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The gate infidelity 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: And the Eq. 18 serves to accumulate the required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) GZC scheme and (b) FRAG schemes performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Laser configuration for generating programmable pulses.A continuous-wave laser at 1108 nm is used as the seed light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The grating filter system. The grating filter assembly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Monroe and J

    C. Monroe and J. Kim, Scaling the ion trap quantum processor, Science339, 1164 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Myerson, D

    A. Myerson, D. Szwer, S. Webster, D. Allcock, M. Curtis, G. Imreh, J. Sherman, D. Stacey, A. Steane, and D. Lu- cas, High-fidelity readout of trapped-ion qubits, Physical Review Letters100, 200502 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Piltz, T

    C. Piltz, T. Sriarunothai, A. Var´ on, and C. Wunder- lich, A trapped-ion-based quantum byte with 10- 5 next- neighbour cross-talk, Nature communications5, 4679 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Milburn, S

    G. Milburn, S. Schneider, and D. James, Ion trap quan- tum computing with warm ions, Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics48, 801 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and quan- tum computation with ions in thermal motion, Physical Review A62, 022311 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits, Physical review letters117, 060504 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Steane, C

    A. Steane, C. F. Roos, D. Stevens, A. Mundt, D. Leibfried, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Speed of ion-trap quantum-information processors, Physical Re- view A62, 042305 (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 281 (2003)

    2003

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Jaffe, V

    M. Jaffe, V. Xu, P. Haslinger, H. M¨ uller, and P. Hamil- ton, Efficient adiabatic spin-dependent kicks in an atom interferometer, Physical Review Letters121, 040402 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Mizrahi, C

    J. Mizrahi, C. Senko, B. Neyenhuis, K. Johnson, W. Campbell, C. Conover, and C. Monroe, Ultrafast spin-motion entanglement and interferometry with a sin- gle atom, Physical review letters110, 203001 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Johnson, B

    K. Johnson, B. Neyenhuis, J. Mizrahi, J. Wong-Campos, and C. Monroe, Sensing atomic motion from the zero point to room temperature with ultrafast atom interfer- ometry, Physical Review Letters115, 213001 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    J. D. Wong-Campos, S. A. Moses, K. G. Johnson, and C. Monroe, Demonstration of two-atom entanglement with ultrafast optical pulses, Physical Review Letters 119, 230501 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Guo, Y.-K

    W.-X. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, Y.-Y. Huang, L. Feng, C.-X. Huang, H.-X. Yang, J.-Y. Ma, L. Yao, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.- M. Duan, Picosecond ion-qubit manipulation and spin- phonon entanglement with resonant laser pulses, Physical Review A106, 022608 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Torrontegui, D

    E. Torrontegui, D. Heinrich, M. Hussain, R. Blatt, and J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, Ultra-fast two-qubit ion gate using sequences of resonant pulses, New Journal of Physics22, 103024 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, P. Zoller, and J. I. Cirac, Speed op- timized two-qubit gates with laser coherent control tech- niques for ion trap quantum computing, Physical Review Letters91, 157901 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    C. D. Bentley, A. R. Carvalho, and J. J. Hope, Trapped ion scaling with pulsed fast gates, New Journal of Physics 17, 103025 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    C. D. Bentley, R. L. Taylor, A. R. Carvalho, and J. J. Hope, Stability thresholds and calculation techniques for fast entangling gates on trapped ions, Physical Review A 93, 042342 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    C. D. Bentley, A. R. Carvalho, D. Kielpinski, and J. J. Hope, Fast gates for ion traps by splitting laser pulses, New Journal of Physics15, 043006 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Heinrich, M

    D. Heinrich, M. Guggemos, M. Guevara-Bertsch, M. Hus- sain, C. Roos, and R. Blatt, Ultrafast coherent excita- tion of a 40ca+ ion, New Journal of Physics21, 073017 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    M. I. Hussain, M. J. Petrasiunas, C. D. Bentley, R. L. Taylor, A. R. Carvalho, J. J. Hope, E. W. Streed, M. Lobino, and D. Kielpinski, Ultrafast, high repetition rate, ultraviolet, fiber-laser-based source: application to- wards yb+ fast quantum-logic, Optics express24, 16638 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    X. Miao, E. Wertz, M. Cohen, and H. Metcalf, Strong op- tical forces from adiabatic rapid passage, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics75, 011402 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    N. V. Vitanov, T. Halfmann, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Laser-induced population transfer by adi- abatic passage techniques, Annual review of physical chemistry52, 763 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    Slichter and W

    C. Slichter and W. C. Holton, Adiabatic demagnetization in a rotating reference system, Physical Review122, 1701 (1961)

    1961

  16. [24]

    S. C. Carrasco, S. Lourette, I. Sola, and V. S. Malinovsky, Dynamically enhanced two-photon spectroscopy, Physi- cal Review Letters134, 163601 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Z.-T. Lu, T. Zheng, Y. Yang, S.-Z. Wang, J. Singh, Z.-X. Xiong, and T. Xia, Measurement of the electric dipole 10 moment of 171 yb atoms in an optical dipole trap, in APS Division of Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2023 (2023) pp. X03–003

    2023

  18. [26]

    B. W. Shore, K. Bergmann, A. Kuhn, S. Schiemann, J. Oreg, and J. H. Eberly, Laser-induced population transfer in multistate systems: A comparative study, Phys. Rev. A45, 5297 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Kuklinski, U

    J. Kuklinski, U. Gaubatz, F. T. Hioe, and K. Bergmann, Adiabatic population transfer in a three-level system driven by delayed laser pulses, Physical Review A40, 6741 (1989)

    1989

  20. [28]

    Martin, B

    J. Martin, B. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Coherent popu- lation transfer in multilevel systems with magnetic sub- levels. ii. algebraic analysis, Physical Review A52, 583 (1995)

    1995

  21. [29]

    A. K. Ratcliffe, R. L. Taylor, J. J. Hope, and A. R. Carvalho, Scaling trapped ion quantum computers us- ing fast gates and microtraps, Physical Review Letters 120, 220501 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    E. P. Gale, Z. Mehdi, L. M. Oberg, A. K. Ratcliffe, S. A. Haine, and J. J. Hope, Optimized fast gates for quantum computing with trapped ions, Physical Review A101, 052328 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Comparat, General conditions for quantum adiabatic evolution, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 012106 (2009)

    D. Comparat, General conditions for quantum adiabatic evolution, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 012106 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0001106 (2000)

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    B. W. Shore, Picturing stimulated raman adiabatic pas- sage: a stirap tutorial, Advances in Optics and Photonics 9, 563 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Hussain, D

    M. Hussain, D. Heinrich, M. Guevara-Bertsch, E. Tor- rontegui, J. Garcıa-Ripoll, C. Roos, and R. Blatt, Multi- ghz repetition rate, multi-watt average power, ultraviolet laser pulses for fast trapped-ion entanglement operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03404 (2020)

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.