Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Position-noise error in an interaction-driven Rydberg gate can be pushed below 10^-4 with an optical lattice plus a motion-echo sequence.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 03:39 UTC pith:7BCP3GWB

load-bearing objection Solid, honest theory proposal: lattice pinning plus a motion echo can suppress position-noise error in interaction-driven Rydberg CZ gates to ~1e-4, with the pulse-transfer step openly left as the main open problem. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23090 v1 pith:7BCP3GWB submitted 2026-07-25 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Protocols of coherent motion control for an interaction-driven Rydberg gate

Valentin Magro , Wojciech Adamczyk , Sylvain de L\'es\'eleuc This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph quant-ph
keywords interaction-driven Rydberg gatemotion echooptical latticevan der Waals interactionmotional controlneutral-atom quantum computinggate fidelityspin-motion coupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the main obstacle to interaction-driven Rydberg gates—the steep (6ΔR/R)^2 sensitivity of the gate phase to atomic position—can be made a non-issue by two coherent-motion ingredients: a two-dimensional optical lattice that pins atoms to periodic sites, and a motion echo that cancels the van der Waals force kick. With these, the position-noise contribution to the CZ gate error stays below 10^-4 for realistic parameters, including thermal motion up to n̄=3 and alignment errors up to 50 nm, while atoms spend only about 10 ns in Rydberg states. A sympathetic reader would care because this removes the speed-lifetime tradeoff that limits blockade gates and moves Rydberg gates toward the 10^-4 error regime without requiring ground-state cooling.

Core claim

At the heart of the proposal is the recognition that the interaction-driven gate's Achilles heel, the first-order coupling between internal state and relative motion, is exactly the kind of term a spin echo can cancel. Splitting the CZ gate into two √CZ pulses separated by half a trap period makes the momentum kick from the first pulse reverse sign before the second pulse, so the net displacement and geometric phase vanish for any initial motional state. The remaining errors—echo timing, van der Waals curvature, transverse fluctuations, trap anharmonicity, and finite pulse duration—are each shown to contribute at or below the 10^-4 level, and the finite-duration case is handled by a modified

What carries the argument

The central objects are (1) a harmonic-oscillator phase-space rotation used as a motion echo, with propagator U = e^{-iφ} D(iκ) R(θ) D(iκ) whose residual displacement α_res = iκ(1+e^{-iθ}) and geometric phase Φ_geo = κ² sin θ vanish at θ = π; (2) a two-dimensional optical lattice that pins atoms to periodic sites with ω_L = 10ω_T, suppressing static distance errors by about 100-fold and shrinking δR0 from 34 nm to 11 nm; and (3) a squeeze-unsqueeze sequence that cancels the free-expansion squeezing acquired while the trap is off during Rydberg excitation. The interaction potential is Taylor-expanded to second order, so first-order force kicks are echoed away while curvature and higher even-o

Load-bearing premise

Everything downstream assumes that shaped laser pulses can map |01> and |10> to |0r> and |r0>, and |11> to a selected interacting pair eigenstate, with fidelity above 1 - 10^-4 while the traps are off; if pulse errors exceed this, they dominate the gate regardless of how well position noise is suppressed.

What would settle it

Directly measure the residual phase-space displacement of the relative motional state after the two-step echo by reading out the momentum distribution (for example, by release-and-recapture) for θ = π and compare to the single-pulse displacement; observing a nonzero displacement at the κ level, or a gate infidelity that does not drop by about 100-fold relative to the single-pulse interaction gate, would invalidate the first-order cancellation. For the finite-duration case, the predicted optimal angle ωt_wait = 2 arctan(2/ωt_off) is testable by scanning the wait time and locating the infidelity

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • With the echo and lattice, CZ infidelity from position noise drops from about 7×10^-4 to below 10^-4 at R = 3 μm with n̄ = 3, making the interaction-driven gate competitive with blockade gates.
  • Atoms spend only about 10 ns in Rydberg states, so finite-lifetime errors become a minor contributor across R = 2–10 μm.
  • The lattice zone architecture supports parallel operation: about 40 pairs can be entangled simultaneously over a 400 μm region, giving an estimated 10^5 gates per second.
  • The gate works for arbitrary motional states and tolerates thermal occupation up to n̄ = 3 without ground-state cooling.
  • Transport into and out of the lattice keeps motional excitation below Δn = 10^-2 per passage.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same motion-echo construction should apply to any power-law interaction with an odd first-order gradient term; for a resonant dipole-dipole R^-3 interaction the timing condition ωt_wait = π would still cancel the linear force component, though curvature errors would scale differently.
  • Because the lattice sets the interatomic distance by optical periodicity, the protocol removes the need for per-pair distance calibration, a step that could help scale interaction-driven gates to large arrays.
  • The critical experimental bottleneck is the ideal excitation map assumed in the paper; if fast, selective Rydberg pulses with fidelity ≳ 1 - 10^-4 become available, the same toolbox could be applied to dipole-dipole resonance gates or other molecular interaction gates.
  • The unsqueezing protocol suggests a general pattern: any gate that must switch off the trapping light to avoid differential Stark shifts can be followed by a short trap-evolution plus free-expansion step to restore the motional state, a prescription that could be reused for other Rydberg-based schemes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a toolbox of coherent motional-control protocols to make interaction-driven Rydberg CZ gates insensitive to atomic position noise. The two central ideas are (i) placing atoms in a two-dimensional optical lattice superimposed on tweezers, so that the interatomic distance is set by the lattice periodicity and static tweezer-alignment errors are suppressed by the trap-frequency hierarchy, and (ii) a motion-echo sequence in which the CZ gate is split into two sqrt(CZ) operations separated by half a motional period, cancelling the first-order van der Waals force kick for arbitrary motional states. The authors derive analytic error scalings for phase miscalibration, first- and second-order spin-motion coupling, echo-timing residual, transverse confinement, trap anharmonicity, and finite pulse duration, and combine them with Rydberg-lifetime errors into an error budget (Fig. 8, App. J). For representative parameters (R=3 um, lattice frequency 2 pi x 1 MHz, thermal occupation nbar<=3, ~10 ns Rydberg time), the position-noise and lifetime contributions are claimed to be below 1e-4. The analytic derivations are internally consistent and the numerical checks support them.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the work is significant: it provides a concrete and experimentally grounded route to operating Rydberg gates in the interaction-driven regime, where the gate time is set by the van der Waals interaction rather than by the blockade Rabi-frequency constraint, potentially reducing the lifetime error that increasingly limits blockade gates. The motion-echo idea is elegant, the derivations are transparent and checkable, and the paper gives explicit experimental parameters (beam powers, waists, trap frequencies, transport speeds) rather than fitting to a target fidelity. The main value is a rigorous error budget for the motional sector, which is the key obstacle for interaction-driven gates. The practical impact, however, is conditional on the unquantified shaped-pulse excitation map and on the assumption of a pure C6/R^6 interaction, both of which are acknowledged but not analyzed quantitatively.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IIC and Sec. VII] The entire error budget (Eqs. 1, 8–10, Fig. 8, App. J) is computed after an ideal shaped-pulse map |01>,|10> -> |0r>,|r0> and |11> -> |rr~>, introduced in Sec. IIC and conceded in Sec. VII as 'the remaining challenge.' Because the |11> transfer must be driven with Rabi frequencies above V/hbar ~ 2 pi x 50 MHz at R=3 um, pulse errors are not a negligible add-on. The paper should state prominently that 1e-4 is a conditional motion/lifetime error budget, not a full gate fidelity, and ideally estimate the required pulse fidelity (e.g., total error epsilon_pulse + motion budget). Without this, the abstract's 'two-qubit gate error contribution' and the conclusion's 'two qubit gate infidelities at the 10^-4 level' overstate the result.
  2. [Eq. (5) and App. J] The pair interaction is modeled as a pure C6/R^6 shift for all R in the range 2–10 um. ARC C6 coefficients assume non-degenerate perturbation theory; near-degenerate Forster channels (nS+nS -> nP+nP) and avoided molecular curves would alter the R-dependence, and the motion-echo cancellation of the first-order term relies on a strictly R^-6 force. Please justify the absence of such resonances for 87Rb nS1/2 states in this range, or identify parameter windows where R^-6 holds and quantify the sensitivity of the echo protocol to deviations from that power law.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. V.B] The abstract states the protocol 'heat[s] the atom by less than Delta n=0.01' without qualification. In Sec. V.B, for tOff=100 ns, the unsqueezing sequence leaves an average excitation increase of 2.9e-2 for a thermal state nbar=3 in a harmonic trap over the ±5% entangling zone, and 1.5e-1 when anharmonicity is included (Fig. 7(c)). The Delta n<0.01 claim holds only for the tOff=10 ns case. Because Fig. 8 includes states and separations with longer interaction times, please qualify the heating claim and specify the parameter range for which it is valid.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IIC] Grammar: 'We assume shaped laser pulses that maps' should be 'that map.'
  2. [Fig. 3(b)] The label 'L0:9' inside the panel should read 'L_0.9' for consistency with the text.
  3. [Sec. III.B] There are missing spaces in 'This leadstoanegligiblegateerrorof10 −5' and 'of10−4 for ¯nz ≃1.3.'
  4. [Sec. IV.A] In 'For a perfect echo (θ=π), the displacement and the geometric phase cancels', 'cancels' should be 'cancel.'
  5. [Sec. VI] The expression for the entangling flux appears as 'φ∼ vmax/l L0.9/d ≈10 5 gates/s' with a missing superscript; also '10^5 gates/s' is used in the text. Please unify the notation.
  6. [Appendix J] The appendix refers to 'Figure S2' but the main text refers to 'Fig. 8' and there is no list of supplementary figures. Ensure the supplementary numbering is consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: motion-error formulas are derived from physical inputs and stated experimental parameters; the ideal pulse-map idealization is an acknowledged limitation, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central error expressions (Eqs. 1, 8-10) are derived from physical definitions: the average gate fidelity for a CZ with phase error (App. A), the first-order van der Waals gradient encoded in the momentum kick κ = 6φδR0/R (Eq. 5, App. G), and the echo-propagator algebra yielding α_res = iκ(1 + e^{−iθ}), which vanishes at θ = π. No parameter is fitted to reach the 10^-4 target; ωL, R, n̄, timing spreads, and offsets are stated experimental inputs whose feasibility is separately checked (beam powers, waists, Rayleigh length). The claim that lattice pinning and the motion echo suppress position sensitivity follows from the derived Hamiltonian, not from the target value. The residual budget (Fig. 8, App. J) sums independent channels, using ARC C6 coefficients and lifetimes, an external code. Self-citations [23, 28, 40, 42, 45] are experimental anchors (motional squeezing, ultrafast Rydberg excitation, holographic positioning, spin-motion coupling) that are externally falsifiable and are not used to fit the model; moreover the 75 nm positioning improvement from Ref. [40] is not even the value used in the final budget (∆z = 150 nm). The acknowledged ideal-transfer assumption in Sec. IIC ("We assume shaped laser pulses that maps |01> and |10> to |0r> and |r0>, and |11> to a selected interacting pair eigenstate |rr~>") and the Sec. VII caveat ("The remaining challenge is to realize fast and selective excitation of a well-isolated pair state") define the protocol's domain rather than being substituted back into the derivation. This is a completeness limitation of the gate model, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All error numbers are forward calculations from stated inputs; no parameter is fit to reach the 10^-4 target, but the inputs (ωx,L = 1 MHz, ωz,L = 100 kHz, R = 3 μm, n̄ = 3, ±5% timing) are design choices that determine where the target is met and with what margin. The ideal-pulse map is the main ad-hoc input. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated; the motion-echo, unsqueezing sequence, and tilted 2D lattice are procedures and beam configurations using standard laser fields.

free parameters (7)
  • Lattice trap frequency along x, ωx,L = 2π × 1 MHz
    Design input; sets δR0 = 11 nm, echo period, and κ ≈ 0.035 appearing in residual error formulas. Reachable per Sec. IIIA with 2×30 mW, 775 nm, 10 μm waist beams.
  • Transverse lattice frequency ωz,L = 2π × 100 kHz
    Chosen to keep z-thermal/static contributions below ~3×10^-5 at n̄z = 3; implemented by θ = 5.7° tilt (Sec. IIIB, Appendix B).
  • Interatomic separation R = 3 μm (scanned 2–10 μm)
    Baseline for headline numbers; error budget plotted vs R (Fig. 8).
  • Maximum thermal occupation n̄ = 3
    Assumed bound; justified by sideband/EIT cooling (Sec. IVA). Error formulas scale as (2n̄+1) or (2n̄+1)^2.
  • Static tweezer-lattice offsets = Δx = Δy = 50 nm, Δz = 150 nm
    Assumed worst-case alignment; z-lattice reduces effective z-error to ~9 nm (Appendix J).
  • Echo timing spread = ±5%
    From ±10% lattice-frequency variation over ±0.5 zR, calibrated at the median (Sec. IVA).
  • Transport speed v0 = ≤ 0.2 m/s
    Chosen so transport-induced heating ≤ 10^-2 quanta for zT ≤ 150 nm (Sec. IIIC, Fig. 4).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Van der Waals pair shift V = C6/R^6 with C6 from ARC; no Förster or molecular-state mixing at R = 2–10 μm.
    Used in every error formula (Eqs. 1, 5, 8, 10; Sec. II, Appendix J). If the pair curve crosses other channels, the pair eigenstate is not a pure vdW shift.
  • ad hoc to paper Ideal shaped-pulse map: |01>/|10> → |0r>/|r0>, |11> → |rr~> with no motional dependence and unit fidelity.
    Assumed in Sec. IIC; all fidelity numbers are conditional on this map. Paper defers pulse design to Sec. VII ('remaining challenge').
  • domain assumption Harmonic traps; lattice/tweezer anharmonicity treated as a small perturbation (quartic term), not exactly.
    Sec. IVC, Eq. (11), Appendices C–D; validated vs split-operator numerics for the studied parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper Trap light off during Rydberg pulses; ground and Rydberg states experience identical free-space expansion.
    Design choice in Sec. V; the unsqueezing protocol is purpose-built to undo this expansion.
  • standard math Thermal motional states; spin-motion entanglement traced out; average-gate-fidelity formula F = (7 + 3Re s)/10.
    Appendices F–G; the Nielsen average-gate-fidelity formula, applied with the motional environment traced out.
  • domain assumption Frozen approximation (V/ℏ ≫ ω) for first-pass analysis; relaxed in Sec. V for finite pulses.
    Justified at V/ℏ ~ 2π×48 MHz vs ω = 2π×1 MHz for the 10 ns gate; Sec. V treats the general case.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29553 in / 28935 out tokens · 283145 ms · 2026-08-01T03:39:11.452169+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Generating entanglement between two Rydberg atoms is at the core of neutral-atom quantum computers. Current two-qubit gates operate in the Rydberg-blockade regime, in which the full strength of the van der Waals interaction between the two Rydberg atoms is not directly exploited, to avoid sensitivity to the position noise of the tweezer-trapped atoms, at the cost of a longer time spent in the Rydberg state. Here, we propose a set of techniques based on coherent control of the atomic motion obtained by combining optical tweezers and a two-dimensional optical lattice, and a sequence of multiple on/off pulses. The protocols keep the two-qubit gate error contribution from position noise below $10^{-4}$, heat the atom by less than~$\Delta n = 0.01$, while being robust to alignment errors of the potential up to $50$~nm and thermal excitation up to $\bar{n} = 3$. This toolbox opens the path for new two-qubit Rydberg gates directly, or partially, driven by the interaction, in which the atoms spend only $\sim 10$~ns in the Rydberg state, minimizing the increasingly dominant error source originating from its finite lifetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23090 by Sylvain de L\'es\'eleuc, Valentin Magro, Wojciech Adamczyk.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Rydberg gates concepts. (a) Relevant dynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Tools and concepts for interaction-driven gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Combined tweezer–lattice trapping poten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Transport-induced motional excitation in the lat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Motion echo sequence. (a) Schematic of the interaction gate. Each panel shows both a phase-space represen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Heating-free gate sequence. (a) Squeeze [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Total CZ-gate infidelity contribution from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    For the two- dimensional lattice, we choose the axis with the weaker tweezer confinement, since this direction sets the most stringent adiabaticity requirement

    Effective one-dimensional potential To model transport through the lattice, we restrict the dynamics to a single axis and approximate both the lat- tice and tweezer potentials as harmonic. For the two- dimensional lattice, we choose the axis with the weaker tweezer confinement, since this direction sets the most stringent adiabaticity requirement. The coo...

  2. [2]

    Diabatic excitation in a time-dependent harmonic trap The effective one-dimensional motional Hamiltonian corresponding to Eq. (C4) reads ˆHz(t) = ˆp2 z 2m + 1 2 mω2 z (t) ˆz−z0(t) 2 .(C6) Introducing the instantaneous ground-state length δz(t) = s ℏ 2mωz(t) ,(C7) wedefinetheannihilationoperatorinthecomovingframe as ˆbz(t)≡ ˆz−z0(t) 2δz(t) +i δz(t) ℏ ˆpz.(...

  3. [3]

    (C5) we obtain ˙ωz(t) = ω2 z,L 2ωz(t) ˙ξ(t),˙z 0(t) =−z T ω2 z,T ω2 z,L ˙ξ(t) ω4z (t)

    Specialization to a Gaussian lattice envelope Using Eq. (C5) we obtain ˙ωz(t) = ω2 z,L 2ωz(t) ˙ξ(t),˙z 0(t) =−z T ω2 z,T ω2 z,L ˙ξ(t) ω4z (t) . (C17) Substituting Eq. (C17) into Eq. (4) yields νz(t)≃ Z t 0 dt′ ω2 z,L ˙ξ(t′) 4 ω2 z,T +ξ(t ′)ω2 z,L e−i[ϕz(t)−2ϕz(t′)], (C18) βz(t)≃z T ω2 z,T ω2 z,L r m 2ℏ Z t 0 dt′ ˙ξ(t′) ω2 z,T +ξ(t ′)ω2 z,L 7/4 ×e −i[ϕz(t)...

  4. [4]

    Split-operator propagation The Hamiltonian is decomposed into kinetic and po- tential contributions, ˆH= ˆT+ ˆV (1D) L + ˆV (1D) T , with ˆT= ˆp 2/(2m). Since ˆTis diagonal in momentum space and ˆVis diagonal in position space, the short-time evo- lution operator can be implemented by trotterizing the unitary, using the symmetric splitting of the propagat...

  5. [5]

    Extracting the mean excitation number After the full propagation, the residual excitation is quantified by projecting the final wave function onto the eigenstates{|ϕ n⟩}of the bare tweezer potential. ¯n= neig−1X n=0 n|c n|2, c n = Z dx ϕ∗ n(x)ψ final(x).(D8) 16 The states|ϕ n⟩are obtained numerically by diagonal- izing the static bare-tweezer Hamiltonian ...

  6. [6]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Côté, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms, Physical Review Letters85, 2208–2211 (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268–272 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

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

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    A. G. Radnaev, W. C. Chung, D. C. Cole, D. Ma- son, T. G. Ballance, M. J. Bedalov, D. A. Belknap, M. R. Berman, M. Blakely, I. L. Bloomfield, P. D. Buttler, C. Campbell, A. Chopinaud, E. Copenhaver, M. K. Dawes, S. Y. Eubanks, A. J. Friss, D. M. Gar- cia, J. Gilbert, M. Gillette, P. Goiporia, P. Gokhale, J. Goldwin, D. Goodwin, T. M. Graham, C. J. Guttorm...

    2025

  11. [11]

    R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, and M. Endres, Benchmarking and fidelity response theory of high-fidelity rydberg entangling gates, PRX Quantum6, 010331 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, M. Jaffe, J. M. Kindem, L. Wadleigh, E. Zalys-Geller, X. Zhang, C.-A. Chen, M. A. Norcia, J. Epstein, E. Halperin, F. Hum- mel, T. Wilkason, M. Li, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. C. Bohdanowicz, G. Booth, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, W. B. Cairncross, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, D. Crow, M. Feldkamp, C. Griger, A. Heinz, A. M. W. Jon...

    2025

  13. [13]

    Senoo, A

    A. Senoo, A. Baumgärtner, J. W. Lis, G. M. Vaidya, Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, H. Pichler, and A. M. Kauf- man, High-fidelity entanglement and coherent multi- qubitmappinginanatomarray(2025),arXiv:2506.13632 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    S. J. Evered, M. Xu, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, J. P. B. Ataides, M. Kalinowski, D. Bluvstein, N. Maskara, C. Kokail, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, 20 2 4 6 8 10 separation R ( m) 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 CZ infidelity 1 (a) 2 4 6 8 10 separation R ( m) 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 (b) 2 4 6 8 10 separation R ( m)...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Saffman and T

    M. Saffman and T. G. Walker, Analysis of a quantum logic device based on dipole-dipole interactions of op- tically trapped rydberg atoms, Physical Review A72, 022347 (2005)

    2005

  16. [16]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Molmer, Quantum information with rydberg atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313–2363 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with coldtrappedions,PhysicalReviewLetters74,4091–4094 (1995)

    1995

  18. [18]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Physical Review Letters82, 1971–1974 (1999)

    1971

  19. [19]

    Sørensen and K

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

    2000

  20. [20]

    Flühmann, T

    C. Flühmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevit- sky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513–517 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Simoni, I

    M. Simoni, I. Rojkov, M. Mazzanti, W. Adamczyk, A. Ferk, P. Hrmo, S. Jain, T. Sägesser, D. Kienzler, and J. Home, Non-linear cooling and control of a mechanical quantum harmonic oscillator (2025), arXiv:2509.05734 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Matsos, C

    V. Matsos, C. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. Rao, M. Milli- can, X. Kolesnikow, M. Biercuk, and T. Tan, Robust and deterministic preparation of bosonic logical states in a trapped ion, Physical Review Letters133, 050602 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    B. J. Lester, A. M. Kaufman, and C. A. Regal, Ra- man cooling imaging: Detecting single atoms near their ground state of motion, Physical Review A90, 011804 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, and C. A. Regal, Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its quantum ground state, Physical Review X2, 041014 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Coherence and raman sideband cooling of a single atom in an optical tweezer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 133001 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    Beugnon, C

    J. Beugnon, C. Tuchendler, H. Marion, A. Gaëtan, Y. Miroshnychenko, Y. R. P. Sortais, A. M. Lance, M. P. A. Jones, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grang- ier, Two-dimensional transport and transfer of a sin- gle atomic qubit in optical tweezers, Nature Physics3, 696–699 (2007)

    2007

  27. [27]

    Hwang, A

    H. Hwang, A. Byun, J. Park, S. de Léséleuc, and J. Ahn, Optical tweezers throw and catch single atoms, Optica 10, 401 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Lienhard, R

    V. Lienhard, R. Martin, Y. T. Chew, T. Tomita, K. Ohmori, and S. de Léséleuc, Generation of motional squeezed states for neutral atoms in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 253404 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    S. K. Pampel, G. Lubin, D. P. Hewatt, C. McCabe, J. Hwang, S. R. Muleady, T. Xu, A. M. Rey, and C. A. Regal, Motional kerr-cat states of an atom in an optical tweezer (2026), arXiv:2607.18579 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    R. B.-S. Tsai, L. R. B. Picard, X. Sun, Y. Le, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, Gate-based readout and cooling of neutral atoms (2026), arXiv:2603.21643 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    A. L. Shaw, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, R. B.-S. Tsai, J. Choi, and M. Endres, Erasure cooling, control, and hyperentanglement of motion in optical tweezers, Science 388, 845–849 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Cozzini, T

    M. Cozzini, T. Calarco, A. Recati, and P. Zoller, Fast rydberg gates without dipole blockade via quantum con- trol, Optics Communications264, 375–384 (2006). 21

    2006

  33. [33]

    Y. Chew, T. Tomita, T. P. Mahesh, S. Sugawa, S. de Léséleuc, and K. Ohmori, Ultrafast energy ex- change between two single rydberg atoms on a nanosec- ond timescale, Nature Photonics16, 724 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    T. P. Mahesh, T. Matsubara, Y. T. Chew, T. Tomita, S. de Léséleuc, and K. Ohmori, Generation of 480 nm pi- cosecond pulses for ultrafast excitation of rydberg atoms, Opt. Lett.50, 403 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Zhang, T.-W

    Z. Zhang, T.-W. Hsu, T. Y. Tan, D. H. Slichter, A. M. Kaufman, M. Marinelli, and C. A. Regal, High optical access cryogenic system for rydberg atom arrays with a 3000-second trap lifetime, PRX Quantum6, 020337 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    J. Jin, Y. Shi, Y. A. Alaoui, J. Deng, Y. Lu, J. D. Thompson, and W. S. Bakr, Extended rydberg life- times in a cryogenic atom array (2026), arXiv:2602.05959 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    I. I. Beterov, M. Saffman, E. A. Yakshina, D. B. Tretyakov, V. M. Entin, S. Bergamini, E. A. Kuznetsova, and I. I. Ryabtsev, Two-qubit gates using adiabatic pas- sage of the stark-tuned förster resonances in rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A94, 062307 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Petrosyan, F

    D. Petrosyan, F. Motzoi, M. Saffman, and K. Mølmer, High-fidelity rydberg quantum gate via a two-atom dark state, Phys. Rev. A96, 042306 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Time-optimal two- and three- qubit gates for rydberg atoms, Quantum6, 712 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Pagano, S

    A. Pagano, S. Weber, D. Jaschke, T. Pfau, F. Meinert, S. Montangero, and H. P. Büchler, Error budgeting for a controlled-phase gate with strontium-88 rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033019 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Jin and J

    Z.-y. Jin and J. Jing, Geometric quantum gates via dark paths in rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A109, 012619 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Giudici, S

    G. Giudici, S. Veroni, G. Giudice, H. Pichler, and J. Zei- her, Fast entangling gates for rydberg atoms via reso- nant dipole-dipole interaction, PRX Quantum6, 030308 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    N.Mostaan, K.Goswami, P.Schmelcher,andR.Mukher- jee, High-fidelity non-adiabatic dark state gates for neu- tral atoms (2026), arXiv:2602.13885 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Ohmori, and S

    Y.T.Chew, M.Poitrinal, T.Tomita, S.Kitade, J.Mauri- cio, K. Ohmori, and S. de Léséleuc, Ultraprecise holo- graphic optical tweezer array, Phys. Rev. A110, 053518 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    M. A. Norcia, H. Kim, W. B. Cairncross, M. Stone, A. Ryou, M. Jaffe, M. O. Brown, K. Barnes, P.Battaglino, T.C.Bohdanowicz, A.Brown, K.Cassella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, J. Epstein, C. Griger, E. Halperin, F. Hummel, A. M. W. Jones, J. M. Kindem, J. King, K. Kotru, J. Lauigan, M. Li, M. Lu, E. Megidish, J. Marjanovic, M. McDonald, T. Mittiga, J. A. M...

    2024

  47. [47]

    Bharti, S

    V. Bharti, S. Sugawa, M. Kunimi, V. S. Chauhan, T. P. Mahesh, M. Mizoguchi, T. Matsubara, T. Tomita, S. de Léséleuc, and K. Ohmori, Strong spin-motion cou- pling in the ultrafast dynamics of rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 093405 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    C. Nill, S. de Léséleuc, C. Groß, and I. Lesanovsky, Res- onant stroboscopic rydberg dressing: Electron-motion coupling and multibody interactions, Phys. Rev. A111, L041104 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fi- delity of a quantum dynamical operation, Physics Letters A303, 249 (2002)

    2002

  50. [50]

    Emperauger, M

    G. Emperauger, M. Qiao, G. Bornet, Y. T. Chew, R. Martin, B. Gély, L. Klein, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Probing spin-motion coupling of two rydberg atoms by a stern-gerlach-like experiment, Phys. Rev. A112, 053717 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    C. H. Chow, B. L. Ng, V. Prakash, and C. Kurtsiefer, Fano resonance in excitation spectroscopy and cooling of an optically trapped single atom, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023154 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, X. Lyu, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000- qubit system, Nature646, 1075 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architec- ture for universal quantum ...

    2026

  54. [54]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    S. S. Yu, A. Periwal, J. You, Z. Liu, Q. Lyu, Y. Cho, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, and J. M. Doyle, High-fidelity entanglement of polar molecules by dynamic geometric control (2026), arXiv:2607.13008 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Bergonzoni, L

    M. Bergonzoni, L. Pecorari, S. Norrell, C. Poole, G. Pupillo, and M. Saffman, Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with static atomic buses (2026), arXiv:2607.02804 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    P. T. Grochowski, H. Pichler, C. A. Regal, and O. Romero-Isart, Quantum control of continuous systems via nonharmonic potential modulation, Quantum9, 1824 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Šibalić, J

    N. Šibalić, J. Pritchard, C. Adams, and K. Weatherill, Arc: An open-source library for calculating properties of alkali rydberg atoms, Computer Physics Communica- tions220, 319 (2017)

    2017