Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Design fast Rydberg blockade SWAP gates with synthetic modulated driving

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that a fast two-qubit SWAP gate can be implemented directly on neutral-atom qubits via Rydberg blockade, with numerically optimized modulated driving waveforms yielding gate errors below 10^-4.

desk verdict Plausible direct Rydberg SWAP gate, but the finite-blockade waveforms are conditional on a resonant Förster model never mapped to the usual V|rr><rr| shift. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09882 v1 pith:DM4U6MEW submitted 2024-11-15 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Xin Wang , Tianze Sheng , Yuan Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 32.80.Qk03.67.Lx42.50.-p33.80.Rv
keywords RydbergblockadeSWAPgateneutralatomqubitssyntheticmodulateddrivingFourierserieswaveformstwo-qubitcoldquantumcomputingdesign
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 establishes that a fast two-qubit SWAP gate can be implemented directly on neutral-atom qubits using the Rydberg blockade effect, without decomposing the operation into three controlled-phase gates. The authors design laser pulse waveforms, expressed as finite Fourier series with synthetic continuous modulation, that drive the ground-Rydberg transitions of both qubits and produce the correct population exchange and phase accumulation. Numerical simulations of these waveforms show gate errors below $10^{-4}$ under idealized conditions, and the designs adapt to finite Rydberg blockade strengths and tolerate typical laser fluctuations. If the results transfer to the lab, a SWAP gate becomes a basic primitive for cold-atom quantum processors, complementing the existing controlled-phase gates and enabling higher connectivity in large qubit arrays.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the separation of the two-qubit dynamics into singlet and triplet subspaces, defined by the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of |01> and |10>. Only the triplet couples to the Rydberg blockade through the Forster term B|rr><qq'| + h.c. with penalty δq, while the singlet evolves as a V-type three-level system unaffected by the interaction. The paper encodes the driving fields as truncated Fourier series and optimizes the coefficients numerically to satisfy the SWAP conditions: full population return and the correct relative phase between singlet and triplet. This structure turns the SWAP gate design into an inverse problem solvable by standard optimization, and it is the reason the gate can be made fast and robust.

What would settle it

Simulate the published waveforms under the standard blockade Hamiltonian V|rr><rr| with V = 2π × 125 MHz, instead of the Forster model in Eq. (2), and compare the resulting gate error; if the error rises above $10^{-4}$, the model-dependence of the design is exposed. Equivalently, an experiment measuring two-qubit state transfer fidelity with these pulses on a pair of atoms at the designed interaction strength would settle the matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Rydberg blockade SWAP gate protocol does exist, contrary to the implicit assumption that blockade gates are limited to controlled-phase operations. The paper shows that by driving both qubit states |0> and |1> to the same Rydberg level with two coherent lasers, the two-qubit Hilbert space splits into a singlet subspace that evolves without Rydberg interaction and a triplet subspace that couples to the doubly excited state |rr> through a Forster resonance of strength B. The SWAP operation is realized by choosing continuously modulated Rabi frequencies and detunings, found by numerical optimization, so that the singlet acquires a π phase relative to the triplet while all populations return to the computational basis. The paper provides explicit waveform coefficients for the standard SWAP format and an opposite format, using hybrid amplitude-frequency modulation or amplitude-only modulation, for both ideal and finite blockade strengths, and it reports gate errors below $10^{-4}$ in all cases.

Load-bearing premise

The designs assume the Rydberg interaction is well described by a Forster resonance coupling |rr> to |qq'> with a given strength B and penalty δq; if the real interaction follows a different model, such as a simple blockade shift V|rr><rr|, the simulated $10^{-4}$ errors may not hold in the lab.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A direct SWAP gate avoids the three-controlled-phase decomposition, shortening the gate sequence and reducing accumulated errors in neutral-atom processors.
  • The gate operates with interaction strengths on the order of 100 MHz, matching currently available Rydberg blockade setups and enabling fast operation.
  • The same design method extends to two-photon ground-Rydberg transitions by adiabatic elimination, requiring no extra design burden.
  • The gate is compatible with the buffer-atom framework for long-range connectivity, allowing distant qubits to swap through buffer atoms without shuttling.
  • The singlet-triplet decomposition provides a general template for designing other exchange-type gates, such as iSWAP or sqrt(SWAP), via synthetic modulated driving.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Fourier-series optimization strategy could be applied to design a family of two-qubit exchange gates, not just SWAP, by changing the target phase relation between singlet and triplet.
  • Combining this SWAP gate with the buffer-atom framework may enable all-to-all connectivity in large arrays, a step toward fault-tolerant neutral-atom computation.
  • The robustness to laser fluctuations, demonstrated for Rabi frequency and detuning errors, suggests the waveforms could be made even more robust by including those error channels explicitly in the optimization cost function.
  • The claimed 10^-4 error assumes the Forster resonance model; testing the same waveforms against the standard blockade-shift model would determine how model-dependent the result is.
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. The manuscript proposes a numerical construction of a two-qubit Rydberg-blockade SWAP gate driven by continuously modulated lasers. The authors consider a two-atom model whose single-atom Hamiltonians couple |0> and |1> to |r> and whose two-body interaction is a Förster-resonance term Hq = B|rr><qq'| + B|qq'><rr| + delta_q |qq'><qq'|. They decompose the computational basis into singlet and triplet sectors and optimize Fourier coefficients for the Rabi frequencies and detunings so that the two sectors acquire the correct relative population and phase behavior. Several waveform families are presented: hybrid amplitude-and-frequency modulation, amplitude-only off-resonant driving, resonant amplitude-only driving, and finite-blockade versions with B = 2 pi x 125 MHz and B = 2 pi x 100 MHz at delta_q = 0. Numerical simulations show gate errors below 1e-4, and robustness scans against Rabi-frequency, detuning, and interaction-strength variations are included. The paper claims this establishes the existence of a fast Rydberg-blockade SWAP gate compatible with current experimental techniques.

Significance. If the construction is valid, it would provide a direct two-qubit SWAP gate for neutral-atom platforms, potentially avoiding the usual decomposition into three Controlled-PHASE gates and extending the recent success of synthetic continuously modulated driving to gates with net population transfer. The paper has several concrete strengths: the Hamiltonian and waveforms are explicit; the singlet/triplet decomposition is analytically transparent; the Fourier coefficients are given in full, which would allow independent reproduction; and the robustness scans in Figs. 4 and 5 add useful information about sensitivity to control errors. The main caveat is that the central existence claim is verified numerically in the same closed-system model used to optimize the waveforms, and the finite-blockade examples rely on a specific Förster interaction with delta_q = 0 that is not mapped to the standard Rydberg blockade shift or to a specific experimental configuration. These issues are load-bearing for the headline 1e-4 error claim and need to be addressed before the result can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (2); Section IV, Fig. 5] The finite-blockade waveforms are optimized for the resonant Förster model Hq = B|rr><qq'| + B|qq'><rr| + delta_q|qq'><qq'| with delta_q = 0, and the two finite-blockade examples fix B = 2 pi x 125 MHz and B = 2 pi x 100 MHz. This model is not interchangeable with the standard blockade shift V|rr><rr|: the shift model emerges from a far-off-resonant Förster channel with V = B^2/delta_q, which has no delta_q -> 0 limit. Since no atomic species, Rydberg level pair, electric field, or interatomic distance is identified at which B ~ 2 pi x 125 MHz with delta_q = 0 is physically realized, the claim in Sec. I that the gate can adapt to finite Rydberg blockade strengths is demonstrated only within Eq. (2). The authors should either simulate the same waveforms under a V|rr><rr| interaction (with V in the 100 MHz to 1 GHz range) or provide a quantitative mapping to a specific Förster-resonant experimental configuration. Without one of these, the reported 1e-4 error rates for the finite-blockade examples are not a predictive statement about laboratory Rydberg interactions.
  2. [Section III; figure captions of Figs. 2, 3, 7, 8] The paper reports 'calculated gate errors are less than 1e-4' but never defines the fidelity or error metric in the main text or appendix. Because the Fourier coefficients are obtained by numerical search in exactly the same closed-system Schrödinger model used to compute these errors, the reported errors are in-sample checks. Please state the fidelity measure explicitly (for example, the Pedersen–Mølmer gate fidelity or the average fidelity over the logical subspace), specify how the four initial states are weighted, and add an out-of-sample validation such as random logical states or an independent integration method. This is necessary for the reader to assess whether the claimed 1e-4 error is a controlled prediction or a property of the optimization landscape.
  3. [Section IV, Figs. 4 and 5] The robustness scans in Figs. 4 and 5 vary Rabi frequencies, detunings, and the Förster parameter B within the same model used to design the pulses. They do not address the two-photon example of Fig. 6, nor do they include spontaneous emission, which the text itself identifies as a fundamental limit and estimates only as ~0.5 gamma_r T. For the claim that the gates are compatible with current experimental conditions, please add at least one numerical simulation including Rydberg-state decay, or state quantitatively the maximum allowed decay rate gamma_r for a target error of 1e-4. Without this, the practical significance of the 1e-4 figure remains unclear.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and title] The title and text contain spacing artifacts such as 'SW AP' and the abstract contains the grammatically incomplete phrase 'bear considerable resistance some major adverse effects'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a duplicated phrase, 'Rydberg Rydberg blockade', which should be fixed.
  3. [Section III] The Fourier representation is defined with a denominator (2N+1) for a reference time tau = 0.25 microseconds, but the figures and coefficient tables do not explicitly state the total gate duration for each example; adding this would make the waveforms fully reproducible.
  4. [Appendix A, Fig. 6] The text states that single-photon waveforms can be translated to two-photon waveforms by adiabatic elimination, but no explicit two-photon Hamiltonian or final parameter set is given for the comparison in Fig. 6; a short derivation or a precise reference would make this translation checkable.
  5. [Section II, Fig. 1] The Morris–Shore transform is cited as an interpretive tool for the linkage structure, but it is not actually applied in the text; either use it explicitly or remove the citation to avoid an unsubstantiated reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SWAP waveforms are constructive numerical solutions verified in the same model used for design, and the paper does not present them as independent predictions.

full rationale

The central claim is that optimized Fourier-modulated waveforms realize a SWAP truth table in the two-atom Rydberg-blockade Hamiltonian of Eq. (2). The gate target is specified independently in Table I, and the Fourier coefficients are control parameters, not fit parameters calibrated to the reported error; the 'calculated gate errors are less than 10^-4' are in-sample simulations of the same model, which is appropriate for an existence/design claim rather than an independent prediction. The finite-blockade examples fix B and δq and then scan B in Figs. 4-5, which is sensitivity analysis rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction loop. Self-citations [34,35,39] supply the waveform-parameterization methodology and prior phase-gate context, but the existence of the SWAP gate is not asserted solely on the authority of those papers; it is demonstrated by the explicit waveforms and their simulated evolution. Concerns about whether the Förster interaction model in Eq. (2) maps to a particular experimental species are model-validity and correctness risks, not circularity. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a specific effective Hamiltonian, a uniform-driving symmetry assumption, and numerically fitted waveforms. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main unverified input is the Forster-resonance model for the Rydberg blockade, which is not checked against the standard blockade description.

free parameters (6)
  • Fourier coefficients for hybrid modulation SWAP waveforms = Six-term series in Sec. III
    Chosen by numerical search so the singlet and triplet wave functions acquire the phases required for the standard SWAP format.
  • Fourier coefficients for amplitude-only off-resonant SWAP waveforms = Nine-term series in Sec. III
    Chosen so amplitude-only driving realizes a SWAP with an overall pi phase.
  • Fourier coefficients for finite-blockade amplitude-only waveforms (B = 2 pi x 125 MHz) = Nine-term series in Appendix A
    Optimized for a finite Rydberg blockade strength rather than idealized B = infinity.
  • Fourier coefficients for resonant amplitude-only waveforms = Ten-term series in Fig. 7 and Appendix A
    Optimized under resonant driving with Delta0 = Delta1 = 0.
  • Fourier coefficients for identical-Rabi finite-blockade waveforms (B = 2 pi x 100 MHz) = Eight-term series in Fig. 8 and Appendix A
    Optimized with Omega0(t) = Omega1(t) and Delta0 + Delta1 = 0.
  • Rydberg interaction parameters B and delta_q = 2 pi x 125 MHz or 2 pi x 100 MHz with delta_q = 0; idealized B = infinity
    Prescribed values chosen to mimic finite blockade; they are inputs to the optimization, not measured from experiment.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each atom is described by a three-level system {|0>, |1>, |r>} with rotating-wave-approximation couplings as in Eq. (1).
    All gate designs and error estimates use this truncated effective Hamiltonian; leakage to other levels is not included in the optimized waveforms.
  • domain assumption The two atoms see identical, uniform driving fields, which preserves exchange symmetry and justifies the singlet/triplet decomposition.
    The authors state this is the usual experimental practice, but the symmetry is load-bearing for the claimed dynamics.
  • domain assumption The Rydberg blockade is modeled by a Forster resonance Hq = B|rr><qq'| + B|qq'><rr| + delta_q|qq'><qq'| rather than the conventional shift V|rr><rr|.
    The finite-blockade waveforms are optimized for this specific model; the paper does not show equivalence with the standard blockade Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Gate fidelity is evaluated in closed-system Schrodinger evolution without spontaneous emission; Rydberg decay is included only as an order-of-magnitude error estimate 0.5 gamma_r T.
    The reported gate errors below 1e-4 are ideal closed-system quantities, not realistic dissipative fidelities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design fast Rydberg blockade SWAP gates with synthetic modulated driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DM4U6MEW

@misc{pith2026241109882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design fast Rydberg blockade SWAP gates with synthetic modulated driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DM4U6MEW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09882}
}
read the original abstract

The cold atom qubit platform emerges as an attractive choice for the next stage of quantum computation research, where a special family of synthetic analytical pulses has considerably improved the experimental performance of Controlled-PHASE Rydberg blockade gates in recent studies. The success of Controlled-PHASE Rydberg blockade gates triggers the intriguing question of whether the two-qubit Rydberg blockade gate SWAP gate exists. Via investigating the transition linkage structure, we provide a definitive answer to this question and establish the method of fast SWAP Rydberg blockade gates with synthetic continuously-modulated driving. These gate protocols use careful analysis to properly generate coherent population transfer and phase accumulation of the wave function in the atom-laser interaction process. They can adapt to finite Rydberg blockade strengths and bear considerable resistance some major adverse effects such as laser fluctuations. Further examinations reveal that we can anticipate satisfying performances of the method with currently available experimental techniques in relevant research areas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) The optical drivings and atomic tran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Numerical simulation of Rydberg Ryd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (Color online) Numerical simulation of gate errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Numerical simulation of gate errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Comparison of Rydberg blockade [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Numerical simulation of Rydberg Ry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Numerical simulation of Rydberg Ry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.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. Analysis of heralded higher-fidelity two-qubit entangling gates with self-correction

    quant-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual-rail buffer-atom Rydberg CZ gate with PT-symmetric waveforms cancels first-order amplitude and phase errors upon projecting the buffer atom, giving heralded gate errors projected at 10^-4 to 10^-6.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    You and M

    L. You and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052302 (2000)

    2000

  2. [2]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Saffman, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 202001 (2016)

    M. Saffman, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 202001 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Nature Physics5, 110 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Isenhower, E

    L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010503 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    de L´ es´ eleuc, D

    S. de L´ es´ eleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053803 (2018). 8

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Chao, Z.-X

    Y.-X. Chao, Z.-X. Hua, X.-H. Liang, Z.-P. Yue, L. You, and M. K. Tey, Optica 11, 945 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Y.-Y. Jau, A. M. Hankin, T. Keating, I. H. Deutsch, and G. W. Biedermann, Nature Physics 12, 71 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    T. M. Graham, M. Kwon, B. Grinkemeyer, Z. Marra, X. Jiang, M. T. Lichtman, Y. Sun, M. Ebert, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 230501 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Y. Liu, Y. Sun, Z. Fu, P. Xu, X. Wang, X. He, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 054020 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Schine, A

    N. Schine, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, M. J. Martin, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature Physics 18, 1067 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    H. Kim, W. Lee, H.-g. Lee, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, Nature Communications 7, 13317 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Z. Fu, P. Xu, Y. Sun, Y.-Y. Liu, X.-D. He, X. Li, M. Liu, R.-B. Li, J. Wang, L. Liu, and M.-S. Zhan, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042430 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    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. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    Y. Sun, P. Xu, P.-X. Chen, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 13, 024059 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    I. I. Beterov and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042710 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Saglam, T

    U. Saglam, T. G. Walker, M. Saffman, and D. D. Yavuz, Phys. Rev. A 107, 063711 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Pause, L

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Optica 11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Sun, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astron- omy 67, 120311 (2024)

    Y. Sun, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astron- omy 67, 120311 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Poole, T

    C. Poole, T. M. Graham, M. A. Perlin, M. Otten, and M. Saffman, arXiv:2404.18809

  16. [24]

    D. C. McKay, S. Filipp, A. Mezzacapo, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 064007 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, B. Kan- nan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. Mc- Nally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021058 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Fan, Fundamental Research 1, 5 (2021)

    H. Fan, Fundamental Research 1, 5 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Ga¨ etan, Y

    A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Nature Physics 5, 115 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    J.-L. Wu, Y. Wang, J.-X. Han, Y.-K. Feng, S.-L. Su, Y. Xia, Y. Jiang, and J. Song, Photon. Res.9, 814 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Li, J.-L

    W.-X. Li, J.-L. Wu, S.-L. Su, and J. Qian, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012608 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    C. F. Sun, X. Y. Chen, W. L. Mu, G. C. Wang, J. B. You, and X. Q. Shao, EPJ Quantum Technology 11, 34 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  24. [32]

    Aharonov and J

    Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1593 (1987)

    1987

  25. [33]

    T¨ orm¨ a, Phys

    P. T¨ orm¨ a, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240001 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Sun, Phys

    Y. Sun, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, L061002 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Sun, Opt

    Y. Sun, Opt. Express 31, 3114 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Physics Letters A 367, 47 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Petrosyan, F

    D. Petrosyan, F. Motzoi, M. Saffman, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 96, 042306 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    J. R. Morris and B. W. Shore, Phys. Rev. A 27, 906 (1983)

    1983

  31. [39]

    X. Fan, X. Wang, and Y. Sun, Fundamental Research 10.1016/j.fmre.2024.07.002 (2024)

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.