Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Optical tweezer-controlled entanglement gates with trapped ion qubits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An optical tweezer on a single trapped ion makes a global entangling laser pulse act conditionally on that ion's qubit state, giving a controlled entanglement gate in one pulse.

desk verdict A genuine, honestly reported proof-of-principle for a tweezer-mediated controlled gate in trapped ions; the coherent version for superposition controls remains unvalidated, but the paper deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08565 v1 pith:ASFMAM2Q submitted 2025-06-10 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

David Schwerdt , Lee Peleg , Gal Dekel , Lekshmi Rajagopal , Oz Matoki , Avram Gross , Yotam Shapira , Nitzan Akerman
show 1 more author
Roee Ozeri
This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics PACS 03.67.Lx37.10.Ty
keywords trappedionsopticaltweezerscontrolledentanglementgatesMølmer-SørensengateToffolimotionalmodesstate-dependentpotentialssingle-pulsemulti-qubit
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 claims a new mechanism for controlled entanglement in trapped-ion quantum computers: an optical tweezer aimed at one ion shifts the frequencies of the chain's collective vibration modes, but only when that ion is in one of its two qubit states. Because a standard Mølmer-Sørensen pulse is detuned from a mode frequency, the state-dependent shift changes the gate's detuning, making the entangling operation conditional on the control ion's state. The authors demonstrate this on a three-ion chain with the control in either logical basis state, showing that in one case the outer ions undergo a fully entangling rotation and in the other a spin flip, matching a controlled-MS gate at the level of the extracted detunings ($\delta_D=(2\pi)\cdot4.05(2)$ kHz and $\delta_S=(2\pi)\cdot8.20(5)$ kHz). They further argue that the same mechanism, driven by multiple laser tones, yields a single-pulse $n$-controlled Toffoli-type gate whose duration does not grow with the number of controls.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the state-dependent optical tweezer potential. A red-detuned Gaussian tweezer creates a harmonic potential for the ion with frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{o.p.}}=2\sqrt{\hbar\omega_{\mathrm{LS}}/(m w_0^2)}$, where $\omega_{\mathrm{LS}}$ is the induced light shift; the $|S\rangle$ state sees this potential while the $|D\rangle$ state does not. This on-site potential shifts the eigenfrequencies of the chain's axial modes by an amount linear in intensity, $\Delta\nu_m$, for modes in which the tweezed ion participates. The argument works by choosing the shift to equal the MS gate detuning, $\Delta\nu_m=\delta_0$, so that the entanglement phase $\Phi_m=\eta_m^2\Omega^2 T/\delta$ takes one of two values depending on the control state; the large light shift ($\omega_{\mathrm{LS}}\gg\Omega$) keeps the tweezed ion off-resonant so it does not participate in the gate. For the multi-control extension, the same machinery is combined with multi-tone drive fields to zero out the phase in all but one effective mode.

What would settle it

Initialize the control ion in an equal superposition such as $(|S\rangle+i|D\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, apply the full gate pulse, and perform quantum process tomography on the three-ion system. If the reconstructed map deviates from the ideal controlled-MS operation $U_{\mathrm{CMS}}$ beyond the level expected from known technical noise, the coherent controlled gate is not realized; equivalently, measuring the control's Ramsey fringe decay during a 500 µs gate with the tweezer on would directly show whether superpositions survive the gate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a tightly focused, far-detuned optical tweezer on a single ion makes the motional mode spectrum of an ion chain depend on that ion's electronic state, and this can be exploited to make an entangling gate conditional on the qubit. In the demonstrated three-ion case, the tweezed central ion experiences an optical potential only in the $|S\rangle$ state; the resulting mode shift $\Delta\nu_m$ changes the detuning of a global bichromatic Mølmer-Sørensen drive from $\delta_0$ to $\delta_0+\Delta\nu_m$. Setting $\Delta\nu_m=\delta_0$ doubles the effective detuning for the $|S\rangle$ control state, so that at the gate time the entanglement phase on the outer ions is $\pi/2$ instead of $\pi$; up to single-qubit rotations this realizes the controlled-MS operator $U_{\mathrm{CMS}}=e^{-i\frac{\pi}{8}(\mathbb{I}_2-Z_2)X_1X_3}$, analogous to a Toffoli gate. The measured gate detunings, $\delta_D=(2\pi)\cdot4.05(2)$ kHz and $\delta_S=(2\pi)\cdot8.20(5)$ kHz, confirm the expected doubling, and the measured fidelities are $F_D=93.50(85)\%$ and $F_S=85.0(1.4)\%$. The authors are explicit that the demonstration is limited to control qubits in logical basis states because tweezer intensity fluctuations dephase superpositions by roughly 1 MHz, far faster than the 500 µs gate, and they propose dynamical decoupling and decoherence-free-subspace encodings as routes to a fully coherent gate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the tweezed control ion keeps its quantum coherence for the full duration of the gate; with the current 1–10% intensity fluctuations causing about 1 MHz of dephasing, the demonstrated gate only works for control qubits in fixed basis states, and the fully coherent controlled gate rests on noise-mitigation ideas that have not been validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single-pulse controlled-MS gate, equivalent up to single-qubit rotations to a Toffoli gate, replaces the multi-gate decompositions normally needed for controlled entanglement operations.
  • The protocol generalizes to $n$ control ions: with all ions participating equally in the center-of-mass mode, the shift depends only on how many controls are in the $|S\rangle$ state, giving $n+1$ effective mode configurations and a single-pulse, $n$-controlled MS gate.
  • The gate time does not scale with the number of controls; it scales inversely with the per-ion frequency shift, so in the simulated 10-control example it remains comparable to the three-ion demonstration at about 644 µs.
  • Required control Rabi frequency grows as the square root of chain size, similar to standard MS gates, so the method's resource overhead for many-control gates is modest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same state-dependent mode-shift mechanism is not limited to MS-type drives: any gate or measurement whose detuning is set relative to a motional mode frequency could be made conditional on a tweezed ion's state, potentially enabling controlled-phase gates or state-dependent motional readout.
  • The authors' proposed noise-mitigation routes (dynamical decoupling or a decoherence-free-subspace encoding of the control) remain untested; the decisive next experiment is to run the gate with the control in an equal superposition and verify that the process matrix matches a coherent controlled-MS gate.
  • If the control-coherence problem is solved, the single-pulse $n$-controlled gate could substantially cut circuit depth for algorithms such as Grover search or quantum arithmetic that are dominated by multi-controlled operations, but this benefit is conditional on the unvalidated noise mitigation.
  • The basis-state-only demonstration already establishes a useful primitive, since many classical-control applications (for example, compiling conditional resets or feed-forward operations) only need control in known states.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Schwerdt et al. propose and experimentally test a method for making a Mølmer-Sørensen (MS) entangling gate conditional on the internal state of a trapped-ion control qubit. The control ion is illuminated by an optical tweezer: when it is in the S state, the tweezer induces a qubit-state-dependent optical potential that shifts the axial motional mode frequency by Δν_m, changing the MS gate detuning; when it is in the D state, the mode is unshifted. They set Δν_m equal to the gate detuning and demonstrate with a three-ion chain that the outer ions undergo different dynamics depending on whether the central ion is in |D⟩ (producing X1X3) or in |S⟩ (producing a maximally entangling operation). The extracted detunings, δ_D = 2π·4.05(2) kHz and δ_S = 2π·8.20(5) kHz, match the expected factor-of-two shift, and the reported fidelities are 93.5% and 85.0% for the two cases. Because tweezer intensity fluctuations dephase the control qubit on a timescale much shorter than the 500 µs gate, the experiment is limited to basis-state controls; the authors propose dynamical decoupling and decoherence-free-subspace schemes in the supplementary material for a future coherent version. The paper also outlines a generalization to n-controlled MS gates with gate time independent of n, supported by a simulation.

Significance. If the mechanism can be made coherent, it offers a new and compact route to multi-qubit controlled entangling gates in trapped-ion processors, with potential advantages in circuit compilation. The experimental demonstration, although confined to basis-state controls, is a first proof-of-principle that an optical-tweezer-induced motional shift can control a trap-ion entangling gate. The authors are commendably transparent about the coherence limitation and the need for noise mitigation, and the manuscript includes useful derivations of the mode shifts and the phase-space trajectories. The n-controlled generalization is interesting but remains speculative without experimental validation, and the proposed noise-mitigation schemes are not yet tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (4) and Conclusion] The central claim that the protocol implements a coherent controlled entanglement gate is not supported by the experiment as presented. The control qubit is tested only in the logical basis states |S⟩ and |D⟩, not in a superposition, and the observed 1–10% tweezer intensity noise causes a light-shift dephasing of up to ~1 MHz, orders of magnitude faster than the 500 µs gate. The basis-state results verify the state-dependent motional shift and its effect on the MS dynamics, but they do not validate the coherent unitary U_CMS in Eq. (4). The abstract and main text acknowledge this, but the title and the conclusion ('demonstrated a protocol for controlled entanglement operations') overstate what is shown. I recommend the authors either add a demonstration with a superposition control (for example, using the dynamical decoupling sequence in SM C, even with reduced fidelity) or explicitly and consistently characterize the demonstrated operation as a classically controlled gate, with the coherent version left as a proposal.
  2. [SM C] The proposed decoherence-free-subspace encoding of the control qubit requires unequal tweezer strengths so that |SD⟩ and |DS⟩ produce different motional shifts. The manuscript then assumes that intensity noise is global and contributes only a global phase. If the tweezer intensities are unequal, the fractional intensity noise on the two beams need not be common-mode, and differential light-shift noise may not be cancelled. This trade-off is not analyzed. Since the DFS scheme is one of the two proposed routes toward a fully coherent gate, a quantitative assessment of noise rejection under unequal intensities is needed before this mitigation can be considered viable.
  3. [Generalizing the method, Fig. 3] The simulation of the n-controlled MS gate is presented without a sensitivity analysis. The three-ion experiment already shows that fluctuations of Δν_m degrade the S-branch fidelity to 85% (SM B: parity contrast A_p = 0.71(2)). In the multi-tone scheme, phase-space closure in each effective mode depends on the accuracy of the per-ion shifts and the tone amplitudes; any spread in Δν_m across ions would produce imperfect closure and gate errors. The authors should estimate the robustness of the n-controlled gate to realistic parameter errors, or explicitly state that the scaling claim assumes ideal parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(b) caption] The caption states that 'the outer ions (qubits 2 and 3) undergo MS dynamics', but the central ion is qubit 2, so the outer ions are qubits 1 and 3.
  2. [Section 'Controlled entanglement gate', Eq. (2)] The operator J_x is defined as (X1+X2)/2, but the gate acts on qubits 1 and 3; the definition should be (X1+X3)/2.
  3. [Results and analysis] The statement that the case-D fidelity is 'comparable' to a standard MS gate would be more useful if it included the numerical value or a citation for that reference measurement.
  4. [Introduction] The claim that this is 'the first experimental realization of an entangling gate mediated by an optical tweezer' would benefit from a citation or a brief justification to avoid inadvertent omission of prior work.
  5. [Throughout] The analogy to the canonical Toffoli gate is loose: the gate in Fig. 1(c) has a single control and two targets, whereas a Toffoli gate has two controls and one target. Please clarify the sense of the analogy in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central experimental claim is self-contained, and the cited self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The state-dependent motional shift follows from standard dipole-trap physics (Eq. 1, citing Grimm et al.) and the normal-mode calculation in SM A; the MS phase (Eq. 2) is the standard Sørensen-Mølmer result. The choices Δν_m = δ0 and the stated T and Ω are design inputs, not predictions: they are selected so that the MS phase formula yields Φ = π or π/2 (Eq. 3), and the resulting UCMS (Eq. 4) is algebraically derived from those phases. The experiment then extracts δ_D and δ_S by fitting the measured dynamics; the fitted ratio near 2 confirms the model but is not presented as an independent prediction. Self-citations ([16], [17], [29]) appear in the multi-tone generalization and scaling discussion, but the central three-ion demonstration does not rely on them, and the comparison to a standard MS gate provides an external benchmark. The acknowledged limitation that superposition control states were not demonstrated affects the strength of the coherent CMS claim, but it is a validity limitation, not a circularity.

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

The central result relies on standard MS gate theory, a harmonic-oscillator model for mode shifts, and the assumption that the tweezer only perturbs the S state. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the deliberately chosen gate conditions (shift, detuning, Rabi frequency, duration) rather than fits to unknown physics.

free parameters (6)
  • Motional shift Δν_m = 2π·4 kHz
    Set by tweezer power to match δ0, realizing the controlled gate condition.
  • Gate detuning δ0 = 2π·4 kHz
    Chosen to set gate time T=500 μs and Rabi frequency.
  • Rabi frequency Ω = 2π·47.4 kHz
    Set to δ0/(2η_m) to produce the desired entanglement phase at T.
  • Light shift ω_LS = 2π·10.4 MHz
    Required to produce the 4 kHz motional shift with w0≈1 μm.
  • Gate time T = 500 μs
    Equal to 4π/δ0, chosen for phase π or π/2.
  • n=10 simulation parameters = gate time 644 μs, Ω=2π·120 kHz, ω_LS=2π·20 MHz
    Chosen as realistic parameters for the simulated n-controlled gate.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard MS gate unitary and phase formula (Eq. 2)
    The paper uses the standard Mølmer-Sørensen formalism for spin-dependent forces and entanglement phase.
  • domain assumption Optical tweezer creates an on-site harmonic potential only when ion is in |S>, with negligible effect in |D>
    The protocol relies on the state-dependent light shift on the S manifold and negligible shift on D, stated in the Gate implementation section.
  • domain assumption Tweezed ion is decoupled from the drive because the light-shifted transition is far off-resonance (ω_LS >> Ω)
    Assumed in the Controlled entanglement gate section to prevent the control ion from participating in the gate dynamics.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic regime δ << ν, other modes decoupled
    The gate is operated with small detuning compared to mode frequencies, allowing only the chosen mode to be addressed.
  • domain assumption Harmonic axial potential and standard Coulomb interactions for mode structure
    SM derives mode shifts using the standard harmonic-plus-Coulomb model, neglecting anharmonic corrections.
  • domain assumption For generalization, total COM mode shift depends only on number of tweezed ions in |S>, not their positions
    State in the Generalizing the method section to justify n-controlled gates; relies on equal participation of all ions in the COM mode.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical tweezer-controlled entanglement gates with trapped ion qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASFMAM2Q

@misc{pith2026250608565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical tweezer-controlled entanglement gates with trapped ion qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASFMAM2Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08565}
}
abstract

We propose an entanglement protocol where ions illuminated by optical tweezers serve as control qubits. We experimentally demonstrate this proposal with a controlled M$\o$lmer-S$\o$rensen operation on a three-ion chain, analogous to the canonical Toffoli gate. Our demonstration features cases in which the control qubit was in one of its logical basis states, and not in their superposition, due to dephasing by tweezer beam intensity fluctuations. Finally, we discuss how our protocol generalizes to a broad class of unitary operations and larger qubit systems, enabling a single-pulse implementation of $n$-controlled unitaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Spectral picture for the optical tweezer-controlled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Gate dynamics for the outer ions in a three-ion chain, controlled by the qubit state of the central ion that is illuminated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Extension of the optical tweezer-controlled gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Motional mode shift of the COM (solid line) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Parity curve obtained by scanning the phase ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dynamical decoupling technique to restore the qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1971 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022311 (2000)

    2000

  4. [4]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Bar- rett, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovi´ c, C. Langer, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Experimental demonstration of a robust, high-fidelity geometric two ion-qubit phase gate, Nature 422, 412 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Ospelkaus, C

    C. Ospelkaus, C. E. Langer, J. M. Amini, K. R. Brown, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Trapped-ion quantum logic gates based on oscillating magnetic fields, Physical Review Letters 101, 090502 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Ballance, T

    C. Ballance, T. Harty, N. Linke, M. Sepiol, and D. Lu- cas, High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped- ion hyperfine qubits, Physical Review Letters 117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.060504 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.060504 2016

  7. [7]

    Gaebler, T

    J. Gaebler, T. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. Wineland, High-fidelity universal gate set for 9be+ ion qubits, Physical Review Letters 117, 10.1103/phys- revlett.117.060505 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2016

  8. [8]

    Harty, M

    T. Harty, M. Sepiol, D. Allcock, C. Ballance, J. Tarl- ton, and D. Lucas, High-fidelity trapped-ion quantum logic using near-field microwaves, Physical Review Let- ters 117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.140501 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.140501 2016

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    C. M. L¨ oschnauer, J. M. Toba, A. C. Hughes, S. A. King, M. A. Weber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nour- shargh, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, C. Matthiesen, M. Malinowski, and T. P. Harty, Scalable, high- fidelity all-electronic control of trapped-ion qubits (2024), arXiv:24...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Moses, C

    S. Moses, C. Baldwin, M. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascar- runz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn, J. Bohnet, N. Brown, N. Burdick, W. Bur- ton, S. Campbell, J. Campora, C. Carron, J. Chambers, J. Chan, Y. Chen, A. Chernoguzov, E. Chertkov, J. Col- ina, J. ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Shapira, R

    Y. Shapira, R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Robust entanglement gates for trapped-ion qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 180502 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    P. H. Leung, K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, N. M. Linke, C. Monroe, and K. R. Brown, Robust 2-qubit gates in a linear ion crystal using a frequency-modulated driving force, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 020501 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    C. H. Valahu, I. Apostolatos, S. Weidt, and W. K. Hensinger, Quantum control methods for robust entan- glement of trapped ions, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 55, 204003 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Shapira, S

    Y. Shapira, S. Cohen, N. Akerman, A. Stern, and R. Ozeri, Robust two-qubit gates for trapped ions using spin-dependent squeezing, Physical Review Letters 130, 10.1103/physrevlett.130.030602 (2023)

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Grzesiak, R

    N. Grzesiak, R. Bl¨ umel, K. Wright, K. M. Beck, N. C. Pisenti, M. Li, V. Chaplin, J. M. Amini, S. Debnath, J.- S. Chen, and Y. Nam, Efficient arbitrary simultaneously entangling gates on a trapped-ion quantum computer, Nature Communications 11, 10.1038/s41467-020-16790- 9 (2020)

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Shapira, R

    Y. Shapira, R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, N. Akerman, L. Pe- leg, L. Gazit, R. Ozeri, and A. Stern, Theory of robust multiqubit nonadiabatic gates for trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032330 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Shapira, L

    Y. Shapira, L. Peleg, D. Schwerdt, J. Nemirovsky, N. Ak- erman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped- ion quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2307.09566 [quant- ph]

    2023

  10. [18]

    Maslov and Y

    D. Maslov and Y. Nam, Use of global interactions in efficient quantum circuit constructions, New Journal of Physics 20, 033018 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Maslov, and Y. Nam, Constant-cost imple- mentations of clifford operations and multiply-controlled gates using global interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230501 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Nemirovsky, M

    J. Nemirovsky, M. Chuchem, and Y. Shapira, Efficient compilation of quantum circuits using multi-qubit gates (2025), arXiv:2501.17246 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Schwerdt, Y

    D. Schwerdt, Y. Shapira, T. Manovitz, and R. Ozeri, Comparing two-qubit and multiqubit gates within the toric code, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022612 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quan- tum 2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.040203 (2021)

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, in Pro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’19 (ACM, 2019) p. 193–204

    2019

  16. [24]

    S. S. Ivanov, P. A. Ivanov, and N. V. Vitanov, Ef- ficient construction of three- and four-qubit quantum gates by global entangling gates, Physical Review A 91, 10.1103/physreva.91.032311 (2015)

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Y. H. Teoh, M. Sajjan, Z. Sun, F. Rajabi, and R. Islam, Manipulating phonons of a trapped-ion system using op- tical tweezers, Phys. Rev. A 104, 022420 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Mazzanti, R

    M. Mazzanti, R. Gerritsma, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and A. Safavi-Naini, Trapped ions quantum logic gate with optical tweezers and the magnus effect, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033036 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Mazzanti, R

    M. Mazzanti, R. X. Sch¨ ussler, J. D. Arias Espinoza, Z. Wu, R. Gerritsma, and A. Safavi-Naini, Trapped ion quantum computing using optical tweezers and electric fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 260502 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Olsacher, L

    T. Olsacher, L. Postler, P. Schindler, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and L. M. Sieberer, Scalable and parallel tweezer gates for quantum computing with long ion strings, PRX Quan- tum 1, 020316 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Schwerdt, L

    D. Schwerdt, L. Peleg, Y. Shapira, N. Priel, Y. Florshaim, A. Gross, A. Zalic, G. Afek, N. Akerman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, Scalable architecture for trapped-ion quantum computing using rf traps and dynamic optical potentials, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041017 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem¨ uller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Op- tical dipole traps for neutral atoms (Academic Press,

  23. [31]

    SM, Supplemental material, that include further techni- cal details

  24. [32]

    James, Quantum dynamics of cold trapped ions with application to quantum computation, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics 66, 181–190 (1998)

    D. James, Quantum dynamics of cold trapped ions with application to quantum computation, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics 66, 181–190 (1998)

    1998

  25. [33]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory, Nature 458, 996–1000 (2009). I. SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL A. Effect of optical tweezers on motional mode structure We derive the effect...

    2009

  26. [34]

    In this procedure, the gate is performed in N stages. In each stage we apply the gate drive for a time τ = T N followed by a bit flip on the illuminated ion, an idle du- ration of time τ where the optical tweezer remains on, and a final bit flip. Under reasonable assumptions o...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.