Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Robust certification of non-projective measurements: theory and experiment

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces an SDP hierarchy whose feasible tensors encode convex mixtures of projective measurements, uses it to bound the critical visibility of arbitrary POVMs, and — with a robust dual-witness extension — certifies the qubit SI

desk verdict Strong SDP hierarchy for POVM simulability, but the experimental certification SDP (D6) is internally inconsistent as written (D18/D19 don't follow from D5), so the 5σ claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.04446 v2 pith:3Y3UNGUK submitted 2025-11-06 quant-ph

Raphael Brinster , Peter Tirler , Shishir Khandelwal , Michael Meth , Hermann Kampermann , Dagmar Bru{ss} , Rainer Blatt , Martin Ringbauer
show 2 more authors
Armin Tavakoli Nikolai Wyderka
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ta03.67.-a
keywords positiveoperator-valuedmeasuresprojectivesimulabilitycriticalvisibilitysemidefiniteprogramminghierarchynon-simulabilitywitnessestrapped-ionquditprocessorSIC-POVMsancilla-assistedmeasurementsimulation
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 is trying to establish a general, scalable way to tell when a generalized quantum measurement is genuinely non-projective, i.e. cannot be simulated by classically mixing projective measurements. Its tool is a hierarchy of semidefinite programs whose solutions give upper bounds on the critical visibility — the amount of white noise at which a POVM becomes simulable — and in many tested cases these bounds are exact. The hierarchy detects POVMs missed by previous criteria, and its dual programs yield witnesses that can be evaluated from experimental data. The authors demonstrate the full protocol on a trapped-ion processor, certifying a qubit SIC-POVM and a qutrit real-space IC-POVM as non-simulable with confidence above five standard deviations. They note that convergence of the hierarchy is conjectured rather than proven, and the exactness of several entries in their table depends on that conjecture.

What carries the argument

The central object is the m-partite tensor R_{i1...im} = Σ pλ P_i1 ⊗ ... ⊗ P_im, which would arise if the POVM were a convex mixture of projective measurements. The hierarchy maximizes t subject to positivity, fixed marginals equaling identity or the noisy effect Φ_t(M_i), and partial traces with swap operators V_ab that vanish for distinct outcomes, encoding orthogonality of projectors. At m = 2 this gives upper bounds on t; higher m tighten them. The dual SDP turns a feasible solution into witness operators W_i = Tr_2 A_i, whose negative expectation value certifies non-simulability, and the robust extension adds a third tensor leg for the prepared states so that experimentally measured pro

What would settle it

Re-derive the left-hand sides of equations (D18) and (D19) from the definition R_{ijα} = Σ pλ P_i ⊗ P_j ⊗ ρ_α; if they reduce to Tr(M_j) I and Tr(M_i) I rather than to q_{α,j} I and q_{α,i} I, the extended SDP as printed is not the stated necessary condition and the 5σ certification must be re-run with corrected constraints. A separate decisive test: solve H_5 for a four-dimensional POVM such as SIC4a; any H_5 < H_4 disproves the collapse conjecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any POVM M the SDP H_m(M), whose variable R_{i1...im} is a candidate for a convex mixture of tensor products of projective effects, yields a monotone sequence of upper bounds H_m ≥ t(M), with equality at m = d for every case studied. The hierarchy is built from three constraints — positivity, fixed marginals matching the noisy POVM, and swap constraints enforcing orthogonality — and is therefore a universal necessary condition for projective simulability. As evidence of strength, the paper shows H_4 ≤ 0.8661 for the two-copy qubit SIC-POVM M2 ⊗ I, while a previously proposed SDP criterion fails to detect its non-simulability. It also claims that dual witnesses,

Load-bearing premise

The experimental certification rests on the feasibility SDP in Appendix D being a valid set of necessary conditions for projectively simulable data. As printed, constraints (D18) and (D19) do not appear to follow from the stated construction of R_{ijα}; if they are wrong, an infeasible SDP could reflect that error rather than genuine non-simulability. The exact visibility values marked tight in Table I additionally rest on the unproven conjecture that the hierarchy collapses

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any d-dimensional POVM, each level H_m is efficiently computable and monotonically decreasing with m, giving progressively tighter upper bounds on critical visibility without requiring an explicit projective decomposition in advance.
  • The hierarchy detects non-simulability where a previously proposed SDP criterion fails: for the two-copy qubit SIC-POVM, H_4 ≤ 0.8661.
  • Dual witnesses give experimental certificates: measuring the POVM on eigenstates of W_i and observing a negative expectation value proves non-simulability under the hierarchy's necessary conditions.
  • The robust extension allows certification with realistic state-preparation fidelities, and the trapped-ion experiments certify both a qubit SIC-POVM and a qutrit real-space IC-POVM as non-simulable with better than 5σ confidence.
  • With a qubit ancilla, the rank-partition SDP yields upper bounds on simulability thresholds, giving quantitative control over how much extra dimension helps simulate a POVM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If Conjecture 2 holds, the simulability boundary for d-dimensional POVMs is exactly determined at level d, making the set of projectively simulable POVMs finitely characterizable and possibly enabling explicit projective decompositions for any POVM rather than only the studied examples.
  • Editorial inference: The same R-tensor and swap-constraint construction could be extended from measurements to quantum instruments or channels, where a similar simulability question is open.
  • Editorial inference: The robust certification protocol could serve as a general device-dependent benchmark for any Naimark-dilation implementation, quantifying the effective extra dimension a device actually uses.
  • Editorial inference: A decisive numerical test of Conjecture 2 would be to solve H_5 for a four-dimensional POVM such as SIC4a; if H_5 < H_4, the exactness of the level-d entries in Table I would fail.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an SDP hierarchy H_m(M) to bound the critical visibility t(M) of POVMs with respect to projective simulability. The hierarchy uses m-partite matrices with positivity, partial-trace, and swap constraints, and the authors prove monotonicity H2(M) ≥ H3(M) ≥ ... ≥ t(M). They benchmark the hierarchy on SIC-POVMs and other examples, including a two-copy SIC-POVM that is detected by their method but not by the criterion of Ref. [12]. They derive dual non-simulability witnesses, extend the framework to be robust against state preparation errors through a feasibility SDP, and report trapped-ion experiments certifying a qubit SIC-POVM and a qutrit real IC-POVM with claimed 5σ confidence. They also provide upper bounds on projective simulability when an ancillary system is available.

Significance. The main theoretical contribution is a clean and useful one: a computable, monotonically improving sequence of necessary conditions for projective simulability, together with explicit dual witnesses. The two-copy SIC example is a genuine demonstration of improvement over prior criteria. The experimental robustness method is a valuable step toward practical certification and appears to be internally consistent. I specifically checked the appended stress-test concern about Appendix D: it does not land. Equations (D18)–(D19) are consistent with the construction (D5) because V acts by left multiplication in the paper's convention (Eq. (13)); the partial traces yield Tr(ρ_α M_j)I = q_{α,j}I and Tr(ρ_α M_i)I = q_{α,i}I, not Tr(M_j)I and Tr(M_i)I. Thus the experimental feasibility SDP is not invalidated for that reason. The remaining issues are presentation-level and do not affect the central claims.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D7)] The notation R^Γ_{ijα} is never defined. If Γ denotes a partial transpose or realignment, please specify the map and the subsystem(s) on which it acts. This constraint is part of the feasibility SDP used for the experimental claim, so it must be unambiguous.
  2. [Eq. (40)] The spectral sum runs to d^2−1, but the witness operator W_i is d×d and the decomposition in Eq. (39) has d terms. The upper limit should be d−1.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B5)] The dual objective appears to lack a sum over i: it should read Σ_i Tr(Tr_2(A_i)M_i). As written the expression depends on a free index i, and the weak-duality argument in the proof of Theorem 3 is not fully transparent. Please correct.
  4. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D18)–(D19)] To avoid a natural misreading, add a sentence reminding the reader that V_{ab} acts by left multiplication as in Eq. (13), not by conjugation. I verified that with this convention the constraints are consistent with the construction (D5).
  5. [Table I / Appendix C] For the entries marked ∗, the exactness of t(M) relies on reading off a projective decomposition from the SDP solution. Since Conjecture 2 is unproven, please state explicitly how each extracted decomposition was verified (e.g., by reconstructing Φ_t(M) and checking positivity and normalization) so that 'exact' is justified beyond numerical evidence.
  6. [Appendix E 3] Minor typo: 'qusext' should likely be 'qu6it' or 'six-dimensional qudit'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the central SDP hierarchy and witnesses are independent of their inputs, though Appendix D contains a separate algebraic inconsistency.

full rationale

The hierarchy H_m(M) in Eq. (18) is a relaxation: constraints (19)-(21) are necessary conditions for a decomposition of the form (14), so the optimum is an upper bound on the true critical visibility. The target t(M) is not inserted into the constraints; it is optimized. The dual SDP and witness construction use standard weak duality, and the witnesses are evaluated from measured probabilities rather than fitted to the certification result. The paper's self-citation to Ref. [12] is used as a benchmark and as a source of comparison values in Table I, not as the derivation of H_m or of the witnesses; no load-bearing claim is reduced to an unverified self-citation. Conjecture 2 is explicitly unproven and is not required for the upper-bound claim. Separately, and not a circularity: substituting R_{ijα}=Σ_λ p_λ P_i^λ⊗P_j^λ⊗ρ_α (D5) into (D18)-(D19) yields Tr(M_j)I and Tr(M_i)I, not q_{α,j}I and q_{α,i}I, so the experimental feasibility SDP (D6) is internally inconsistent and cannot, as written, support the 5σ non-simulability certification. This is an algebraic/correctness defect, not an equivalence between prediction and input.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no free parameters to data. The main unproven ingredients are the collapse conjecture and the validity of the experimental feasibility SDP; the latter is the more serious issue because the printed equations do not match the stated construction.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Projective simulability set P(d,n) is the convex hull of projective measurements with classical post-processing irrelevant.
    Definition of critical visibility taken from Oszmaniec et al. [7]; foundation of the whole hierarchy.
  • domain assumption The matrix constraints (8)-(11) and (19)-(21) are necessary conditions for a POVM to be projectively simulable.
    Core mathematical assumption of the SDP hierarchy; follows from the projective decomposition but is only necessary, not sufficient.
  • standard math Weak duality of semidefinite programming is used to construct non-simulability witnesses.
    Used in Theorem 3 and Appendix B; standard SDP duality.
  • standard math Naimark dilation allows any POVM to be implemented as a projective measurement on an extended Hilbert space.
    Used in the experimental implementation and in the ancilla section.
  • ad hoc to paper The extended feasibility SDP (D6), including constraints (D18)-(D19), correctly captures necessary conditions for experimental data to come from a projectively simulable POVM.
    Required for the experimental certification; as written these constraints appear inconsistent with the stated R_{ijα} construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture 2: the hierarchy collapses at level d, so H_d(M)=t(M).
    Not proved; used to interpret many computed values in Table I as exact critical visibilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust certification of non-projective measurements: theory and experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Y3UNGUK

@misc{pith2026251104446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust certification of non-projective measurements: theory and experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Y3UNGUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.04446}
}
read the original abstract

Determining the conditions under which positive operator-valued measures (POVMs), the most general class of quantum measurements, outperform projective measurements remains a challenging and largely unresolved problem. Of particular interest are projectively simulable POVMs, which can be realized through probabilistic mixtures of projective measurements, and therefore offer no advantage over projective schemes. Characterizing the boundary between simulable and non-simulable POVMs is, however, a difficult task, and existing tools either fail to scale efficiently, provide limited experimental feasibility or work only for specific POVMs. Here, we introduce and demonstrate a general method to certify non-simulability of a POVM by introducing a complete hierarchy of semidefinite programs. It provides upper bounds on the non-simulability measure of critical visibility of arbitrary POVMs which are tight in many cases and outperform previously known criteria. We experimentally certify the non-simulability of two- and three-dimensional POVMs using a trapped-ion qudit quantum processor by constructing non-simulability witnesses and introduce a modification of our framework that makes them robust against state preparation errors. Finally, we extend our results to the setting where an additional ancilla system is available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04446 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Faithful representation of the set of POVMs con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the set of projectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Schematic view of the trap and the course level struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Certified fidelity for the different states to be mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Simulating quantum measurements without superposition devices

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Sets of POVMs that can be simulated by classically measuring in fixed bases form a new intermediate class between commutative measurements and jointly measurable ones, with exact thresholds for all projective measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

    E. S. G´ omez, S. G´ omez, P. Gonz´ alez, G. Ca˜ nas, J. F. Barra, A. Delgado, G. B. Xavier, A. Cabello, M. Kleinmann, T. V´ ertesi,et al., Device-independent certification of a nonprojective qubit measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 260401 (2016)

    2016

  2. [1]

    One 40Ca+ ion is trapped in a linear Paul trap, and information is encoded in the population of the metastable state (D 5/2) and the ground state (S 1/2)

    Setup The experiment is performed on the same trapped ion qudit quantum processor described in [15, 31]. One 40Ca+ ion is trapped in a linear Paul trap, and information is encoded in the population of the metastable state (D 5/2) and the ground state (S 1/2). A schematic of both the physical level scheme and the trap geometry can be seen in Fig. 4. The io...

  3. [2]

    Scattering light then corresponds to the ion being in the S 1/2 manifold, no light to the D5/2 manifold

    Qudit Detection State readout also utilizes the 397 nm laser, scattering light resonantly and collecting it using an objective and focusing it onto an Andor EMCCD camera. Scattering light then corresponds to the ion being in the S 1/2 manifold, no light to the D5/2 manifold. In order to discriminate multiple different levels of the D5/2 manifold, multiple...

  4. [3]

    POVM Measurement Experimentally, two different POVMs are certified for non-simulability: The 4-effect SIC-POVM in a 2d system M2, and a 6-effect informationally complete POVM in a real 3d systemM 3r. 15 State Fidelity |Ψ0⟩ 0.9999(1) |Ψ1⟩ 0.9989(2) |Ψ2⟩ 0.9989(2) |Ψ3⟩ 0.9992(2) State Fidelity |Φ0⟩ 0.9965(3) |Φ1⟩ 0.9975(2) |Φ2⟩ 0.9971(2) |Φ3⟩ 0.9970(2) |Φ4⟩...

  5. [4]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ot- taviani,et al., Advances in quantum cryptography, Adv. Opt. Photonics12, 1012 (2020)

    2020

  6. [5]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  7. [6]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum computation, Nat. Phys.5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  8. [7]

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, Quantum state discrimination, Adv. Opt. Photonics1, 238 (2009). 16

    2009

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measurements, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.39, 13507 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    Stricker, M

    R. Stricker, M. Meth, L. Postler, C. Edmunds, C. Ferrie, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, R. Kueng, and M. Ringbauer, Experimental single-setting quantum state tomography, PRX Quantum3, 040310 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Oszmaniec, L

    M. Oszmaniec, L. Guerini, P. Wittek, and A. Ac ´ ın, Simulating positive-operator-valued measures with projective measure- ments, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 190501 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Kotowski and M

    M. Kotowski and M. Oszmaniec, Pretty-good simulation of all quantum measurements by projective measurements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09339 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Mart ´ ınez, E

    D. Mart ´ ınez, E. S. G´ omez, J. Cari˜ ne, L. Pereira, A. Delgado, S. P. Walborn, A. Tavakoli, and G. Lima, Certification of a non-projective qudit measurement using multiport beamsplitters, Nat. Phys.19, 190 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Oszmaniec and T

    M. Oszmaniec and T. Biswas, Operational relevance of resource theories of quantum measurements, Quantum3, 133 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Cobucci, R

    G. Cobucci, R. Brinster, S. Khandelwal, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, N. Wyderka, and A. Tavakoli, Maximally non-projective measurements are not always symmetric informationally complete, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03652 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Tavakoli, M

    A. Tavakoli, M. Smania, T. V´ ertesi, N. Brunner, and M. Bourennane, Self-testing nonprojective quantum measurements in prepare-and-measure experiments, Sci. Adv.6, eaaw6664 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nat. Phys.18, 1053 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Singal, F

    T. Singal, F. B. Maciejewski, and M. Oszmaniec, Implementation of quantum measurements using classical resources and only a single ancillary qubit, npj Quant. Inf.8, 82 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Hirsch, M

    F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, T. V´ ertesi, M. Navascu´ es, and N. Brunner, Better local hidden variable models for two-qubit Werner states and an upper bound on the Grothendieck constantK G(3), Quantum1, 3 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Vandenberghe and S

    L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, Semidefinite programming, SIAM review38, 49 (1996)

    1996

  14. [22]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski,Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to quantum entanglement(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Sz¨ oll¨ osi, All complex equiangular tight frames in dimension 3, arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.6429 (2014)

    F. Sz¨ oll¨ osi, All complex equiangular tight frames in dimension 3, arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.6429 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    L. P. Hughston and S. M. Salamon, Surveying points in the complex projective plane, Adv. Math.286, 1017 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Zhu, SIC POVMs and clifford groups in prime dimensions, J

    H. Zhu, SIC POVMs and clifford groups in prime dimensions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.43, 305305 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    A. J. Scott and M. Grassl, Symmetric informationally complete positive-operator-valued measures: A new computer study, J. Math. Phys.51(2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Horodecki, L

    P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Five open problems in quantum information theory, PRX Quantum3, 010101 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Zauner, Grundz¨ uge einer nichtkommutativen Designtheorie, PhD thesis, University of Vienna (1999)

    G. Zauner, Grundz¨ uge einer nichtkommutativen Designtheorie, PhD thesis, University of Vienna (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Morelli, H

    S. Morelli, H. Yamasaki, M. Huber, and A. Tavakoli, Entanglement detection with imprecise measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 250501 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Tavakoli, Semi-device-independent framework based on restricted distrust in prepare-and-measure experiments, Phys

    A. Tavakoli, Semi-device-independent framework based on restricted distrust in prepare-and-measure experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 210503 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, J

    W. Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.58, 13 (1963)

    1963

  24. [32]

    S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Direct fidelity estimation from few pauli measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 230501 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Khandelwal and A

    S. Khandelwal and A. Tavakoli, Simulating quantum instruments with projective measurements and quantum postpro- cessing, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 040202 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Schindler, D

    P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, J. T. Barreiro, E. Martinez, S. X. Wang, S. Quint, M. F. Brandl, V. Nebendahl, C. F. Roos, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, A quantum information processor with trapped ions, New J. Phys.15, 123012 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    H¨ ansch and A

    T. H¨ ansch and A. Schawlow, Cooling of gases by laser radiation, Opt. Commun.13, 68 (1975)

    1975

  28. [36]

    D. J. Wineland, R. E. Drullinger, and F. L. Walls, Radiation-pressure cooling of bound resonant absorbers, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 1639 (1978)

    1978

  29. [37]

    Eschner, G

    J. Eschner, G. Morigi, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Laser cooling of trapped ions, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B20, 1003 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Dalibard and C

    J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Laser cooling below the Doppler limit by polarization gradients: Simple theoretical models, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B6, 2023 (1989)

    2023

  31. [39]

    M. K. Joshi, A. Fabre, C. Maier, T. Brydges, D. Kiesenhofer, H. Hainzer, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Polarization-gradient cooling of 1d and 2d ion coulomb crystals, New J. Phys.22, 103013 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Diedrich, J

    F. Diedrich, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Laser cooling to the zero-point energy of motion, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 403 (1989)

    1989

  33. [41]

    Leibfried, Experiments towards quantum information with trapped calcium ions, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol

    D. Leibfried, Experiments towards quantum information with trapped calcium ions, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 551 (AIP, 2001) p. 130–142

    2001

  34. [42]

    Freund, C

    R. Freund, C. D. Marciniak, and T. Monz, A self-referenced optical phase noise analyzer for quantum technologies, Rev. Sci. Instrum.95, 063005 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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