Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Quantum Contextuality and Entanglement-Free Grover Search in a Trapped-Ion Optical Qudit

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single $^{138}\mathrm{Ba}^{+}$ ion, programmed as a four-level optical qudit, runs an entanglement-free Grover search with up to $94.5\pm2.0\%$ success and violates a CHSH-type noncontextuality inequality up to $S=2.816\pm0.082$, near…

desk verdict Credible trapped-ion qudit experiment with a solid Grover result and a contextuality claim that is under-defended: the operational-equivalence requirement needs real evidence before S=2.816 can be called a contextuality witness. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04128 v1 pith:ECR4RZQX submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Tarun Dutta , Jasper Phua Sing Cheng , Alex Jin , Sergi Ramos-Calderer , José Ignacio Latorre , Manas Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Ta
keywords quantumcontextualityquditGroversearchtrappedionopticalCHSHinequalitycoherentcontrolbarium
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

Quantum search is usually expected to need entanglement between many qubits; this paper argues that a single trapped ion, viewed as a four-level optical qudit, can run it through coherent interference alone, with the marked state found up to $94.5\pm2.0\%$ of the time. Using the same programmable ion, the paper reports a CHSH-type noncontextuality inequality violated up to $S=2.816\pm0.082$, close to the quantum limit $2\sqrt{2}$. Together these results claim that one control toolbox, based on four phase-programmable optical rotations, supplies both an algorithmic benchmark and a measured non-classical resource in a single physical system. The wider point of interest is that the two features can now be compared on one platform, separating the role of coherent interference from that of entanglement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-level optical qudit, encoded in two $6S_{1/2}$ and two $5D_{5/2}$ Zeeman sublevels of a single $^{138}\mathrm{Ba}^{+}$ ion, driven on the narrow 1762 nm electric-quadrupole transition. The mechanism that carries the argument is the elementary rotation $R_{ij}(\theta,\phi)=\exp\!\left[-i\theta/2\left(e^{-i\phi}|i\rangle\langle j|+e^{i\phi}|j\rangle\langle i|\right)\right]$, restricted to the four selected transitions. Concatenating these embedded $SU(2)$ pulses generates the full $SU(4)$ group; the same pulse compiler builds the equal-superposition Hadamard, the oracle phase flip, and the diffusion operator $U_s=2|s\rangle\langle s|-I$ for Grover search, and the basis-changing rotations that define the four CHSH measurement contexts. The effective two-qubit encoding is what lets a single particle emulate a two-qubit register, so no entangling gate is needed.

What would settle it

Run the full Grover and CHSH pulse sequences, stop after the final pulse, and detect the populations of the unused magnetic sublevels — the $m_J=\pm3/2,\pm5/2$ levels of $5D_{5/2}$ and the $5D_{3/2}$ manifold. If their combined population is not below the roughly $0.2\%$ leakage allowed in the error budget, the four-level description of the processor is not closed and the reported fidelities would need reinterpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Restated on the paper's own terms: a single $^{138}\mathrm{Ba}^{+}$ ion, with a four-state computational basis drawn from the $6S_{1/2}$ ground and $5D_{5/2}$ metastable manifolds, is a programmable four-dimensional quantum processor. Four allowed optical transitions — $R_{01}$, $R_{02}$, $R_{13}$, $R_{23}$ — generate arbitrary $SU(4)$ operations when combined as phase-controlled $SU(2)$ rotations. Under the mapping $|q_0\rangle=|00\rangle$, $|q_1\rangle=|01\rangle$, $|q_2\rangle=|10\rangle$, $|q_3\rangle=|11\rangle$, the qudit behaves as a two-qubit register, so Grover's algorithm can be run with a phase oracle and a diffusion reflection, without any entangling gate. The measured success probabilities for the four marked states are $(94.2\pm1.6)\%$, $(94.5\pm2.0)\%$, $(84.8\pm3.3)\%$, and $(86.8\pm3.2)\%$; the same pulse framework yields a CHSH parameter $S=2.816\pm0.082$ near $\theta=3\pi/4$, violating the noncontextual bound $S\le2$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result stands on the assumption that the four states chosen as the computational basis are the only ones the control light populates in any measurable way, so the measured populations are not secretly diluted by population sitting in other magnetic sublevels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single-qudit implementation can execute Grover's algorithm at higher fidelity here than earlier trapped-ion two-qubit demonstrations, which reported roughly 60% success, and at a level comparable to superconducting implementations.
  • The four transitions $\{R_{01},R_{02},R_{13},R_{23}\}$ are a sufficient primitive set for arbitrary $SU(4)$ control, so other qudit algorithms can be compiled from the same calibrated pulses.
  • Contextuality can be witnessed in one particle through a CHSH-type inequality, so tests of non-classicality do not require spatial separation or entangling measurements.
  • The same physical platform can report both an algorithm's success probability and a contextuality violation, making it possible to look for a quantitative link between the two.
  • Resource overhead is reduced: an effective two-qubit search runs inside one ion, avoiding the calibration and crosstalk costs of multi-ion entangling gates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If leakage into the unaddressed Zeeman and $5D_{3/2}$ levels is confirmed below the error budget by direct tomography, the same platform could compare different transition geometries to test whether larger contextuality violations track higher Grover fidelity, a connection the paper raises but does not settle.
  • The effective two-qubit encoding suggests a concrete extension: compile the same four-rotation sequences for a real two-qubit processor and compare single-qudit versus entangling-gate search at fixed total error, which would quantify the hardware overhead the paper claims to save.
  • The reduced amplitude of the second CHSH maximum near $\theta=7\pi/4$ is attributed to accumulated decoherence; a shorter or compensated pulse sequence at that angle would test whether residual off-resonant coupling also contributes.
  • Because the CHSH test is state-dependent, a natural follow-up is to prepare different input states and verify that the same effective observables are operationally equivalent across contexts; without that check, the contextuality interpretation rests on the paper's implicit measurement-equivalence assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a programmable four-level optical qudit encoded in a single 138Ba+ ion, controlled through phase-programmable optical rotations on four selected transitions (R01, R02, R13, R23). Using this platform, the authors implement an entanglement-free Grover search over four states, reporting target-state success probabilities up to 94.5±2.0% (average 90.1%), and a CHSH-type state-dependent contextuality test with a maximum |S| = 2.816±0.082 near θ ≈ 3π/4, approaching the Tsirelson bound 2√2. The main text, Methods, and Supplementary Information include population data, uncertainty budgets, noise characterization, and QuTiP simulations of the calibrated dynamics. The paper's headline claims are that the same programmable single-ion platform can benchmark both algorithmic performance and non-classical contextuality.

Significance. If the contextuality claim is supported, the paper would be a valuable demonstration that a single programmable trapped-ion qudit can host both an algorithmic benchmark and a foundational non-classicality witness, with both results measured against absolute external benchmarks (classical bound 2, Tsirelson bound 2√2, and ideal Grover success probability 1). The internal consistency of the data is a clear strength: Table S2 traces a smooth sinusoidal S(θ) with the reported maximum, and Table S3 gives a probability matrix whose rows sum to unity within plausible errors. The supplementary is also unusually honest, explicitly stating that the long-time Allan deviation exponent and the low-frequency PSD slope are not statistically resolved. However, the contextuality claim currently lacks the operational-equivalence evidence required for a valid noncontextuality inequality, and this is a load-bearing gap for the paper's second headline result.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II B, Eqs. (6)–(7), Fig. 2] The contextuality witness is only valid if the four measurement circuits realize operationally equivalent observables in every context. The manuscript asserts that 'phase-controlled rotations define the required measurement bases' but does not give the pulse decompositions of the four circuits, nor does it provide any equivalence test showing that the effective POVM implementing 'Z' in Circuit 1 is identical to that in Circuit 3, and likewise for 'X' in Circuits 2 and 4. Without such data, a noncontextual model with context-dependent measurements can reproduce S > 2, so the observed violation would not demonstrate quantum contextuality. Please add explicit gate decompositions and equivalence checks (for example, tomography of the effective observables in each context), and include the associated uncertainty in the error budget; otherwise the contextuality claim should be rephrased as a measurement-dependent correlation.
  2. [§II A, Eqs. (1)–(2), Table S1, Fig. S1b] The interpretation of all measured populations as populations of the four computational states assumes that laser pulses do not leak population into unaddressed Zeeman levels of 5D5/2 or into the 5D3/2 manifold. The only leakage evidence shown is a single Rabi trace for R02 in Fig. S1b, whereas the Grover and CHSH sequences concatenate many pulses on four different transitions. The text lists 'state leakage' and 'off-resonant excitation' in the error discussion, but it does not quantify leakage for the full synthesized sequences. Please provide per-sequence leakage checks (for example, measuring population outside the computational basis after representative full circuits) or otherwise bound the leakage contribution independently for each headline measurement.
  3. [§IV C, readout protocol] The description of the |q3⟩ population measurement is internally inconsistent as written. The text states that shelving the |q0⟩ population and detecting the unshelved fluorescence 'provides the |q3⟩ population'; without first mapping |q3⟩ onto |q0⟩, the unshelved fluorescence would include |q1⟩, |q2⟩, and |q3⟩. Since every reported probability depends on this readout, please clarify the mapping sequence for each of the four states, or give the explicit reconstruction formula, so that the population assignments in Table S3 and Figs. 3 and 6 are reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II A, after Eq. (2)] The interaction graph is connected, not 'fully connected'; the adjacency matrix has zero entries for the q0–q3 and q1–q2 pairs. Please use 'connected' rather than 'fully connected'.
  2. [Table S3] Several rows of the Grover probability matrix sum to more than 1, with the largest excess about 4.4% (the target |q3⟩ row sums to 1.044). Please comment on whether this reflects correlated systematic errors, a normalization issue, or an artifact of rounding.
  3. [Discussion and §V C] The main text attributes long-term limitations to slow laser-frequency and magnetic-field fluctuations, but the supplementary explicitly states that the long-time Allan deviation exponent is statistically indistinguishable from flat and that the low-frequency PSD slope is not resolved. Please align the main-text claim with the supplementary's stated inconclusiveness.
  4. [References] The reference list contains incomplete author entries ([9] 'P. H. et al.' and [13] 'X. S. et al.') and a duplicate ([8] and [32]). Please correct these.
  5. [Data availability] No data or code availability statement is provided. For a quantitative experimental paper relying on QuTiP simulations with a calibrated Hamiltonian, please state where raw data and simulation scripts can be obtained.
  6. [§II C and Discussion] The performance comparison with earlier trapped-ion (60%) and superconducting (89–98%) implementations should be caveated: different encodings, qubit counts, and error-correction overheads make a direct fidelity comparison of limited quantitative value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: headline results are direct measurements against absolute external benchmarks (S=2, 2√2, and unit single-iteration Grover success), and no central claim reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The two headline results are measured populations converted by explicit formulas (Eqs. (6)-(7)) and compared with absolute external limits: the classical noncontextual bound S=2, the Tsirelson bound 2√2 for the CHSH expression, and unit success probability for ideal single-iteration Grover search. No parameter is fitted to produce these numbers; the Grover fidelities and S=2.816±0.082 are direct experimental outcomes reported with statistical uncertainties. The QuTiP curves in Figs. 3, 4, and 6 are described as numerical simulations from an 'experimentally calibrated Hamiltonian' with measured Rabi frequencies; they are consistency checks against the data rather than load-bearing predictions, and their calibration parameters are independent of the reported target quantities. Incidental self-citations ([22]-[24], [27]) support the previously built trap, ion qubit, and classifier apparatus and are not used to justify the central physical conclusions; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The absence of explicit operational-equivalence tests across the four CHSH contexts is a genuine validity and correctness concern for the contextuality interpretation, but it is a missing experimental condition rather than a circular derivation: the paper does not define S in terms of itself, does not fit the observed violation from the inequality, and does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. The leakage and closed-subspace assumptions are physical approximations with stated error-budget contributions, not circular inputs. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claims are measurements, so the fitted-parameter load is light: four calibration families enter only the numerical simulations and the error budget, never the reported S or success-probability values. The load-bearing axioms are: closure of the four-level manifold under the control pulses, generation of SU(4) by the four rotations, the standard noncontextual bound S≤2, and the operational-equivalence assumption that makes the measured correlations a contextuality witness. No ad hoc entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Calibrated resonance frequencies, Rabi frequencies, and detunings for the four selected transitions = not quoted; calibrated per run via Rabi and Ramsey measurements
    Enter the QuTiP simulations of Figs. 3, 4, and 6 ('experimentally calibrated Hamiltonian'), so the simulation-data agreement is not an independent prediction. The headline S and success-probability values are measured directly and do not use these fits.
  • Common π-pulse duration and single-qudit gate fidelity = π-pulse fidelity (98.8±0.3)% from Fig. S1b
    Fitted from shared Rabi curves; contributes the 1.20% gate-fidelity share of the CHSH uncertainty budget in Table S1.
  • Optical pumping exponential model (A, τ, C) = residual error C near 10^-3, preparation fidelity 99.8%
    Fit to pumping dynamics (Fig. S2); contributes the 0.20% state-preparation share of the error budget; the fit residuals exceed statistical error bars, indicating systematics.
  • Ramsey coherence (V0, T2*, β) and Allan-deviance diffusion coefficient Dφ = T2* from Figs. S1a and S3d; short-time exponent μ1 ≈ -0.4
    Characterization of phase noise; informs the 0.50% laser-frequency-drift share of the error budget. The paper itself reports the long-time exponent and PSD slope as unresolved.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The four computational states form a closed subspace under the 1762 nm control pulses: leakage into unaddressed Zeeman levels (mJ = ±3/2, ±5/2 of 5D5/2, and the 5D3/2 manifold) is negligible for every pulse sequence.
    Section II A selects four of the ten available couplings (Eqs. 1-2) and Section V budgets off-resonant excitation at 0.20%; Fig. S1b supports closure only for the R02 pulse shown, not for the full synthesized sequences.
  • standard math The rotations {R01, R02, R13, R23} with arbitrary (θ, φ) generate the full Lie algebra SU(4), enabling arbitrary unitary operations.
    Methods IV A asserts this without proof or citation. It is true for connected interaction graphs with phase control, but the paper does not demonstrate the decomposition or cite a theorem.
  • standard math Noncontextual hidden-variable assignments imply the CHSH bound S ≤ 2 for the correlated observables.
    Section II B uses this standard derivation (classical bound, black line in Fig. 4) without restating the outcome-determinism and noncontextuality premises; the bound itself is standard, so it is a background axiom, not the fragile step.
  • domain assumption The four measurement circuits realize operationally equivalent observables across contexts (same Z1, X1, Z2, X2 in every context) with joint measurability inside each context and no context-dependent bias.
    Section II B and Fig. 2. The CHSH violation becomes a contextuality witness only under this assumption; the paper does not discuss operational equivalence, sharpness, or context-dependent noise, which are the standard loopholes for single-system tests.
  • domain assumption The qudit-to-two-qubit mapping of Eq. (3) licenses interpreting the single-ion dynamics as Bell-state preparation and two-qubit CHSH measurements, and licenses the 'entanglement-free' claim as referring to physical subsystems rather than effective logical qubits.
    Eq. (3) and Section II C. Under this mapping the intermediate Grover state (|q0⟩+|q1⟩+|q2⟩−|q3⟩)/2 is entangled in the effective qubit picture, so the title's 'entanglement-free' claim depends on this physical-versus-logical distinction.
  • domain assumption The shelving-based readout reconstructs all four populations without bias at 98.6% fidelity.
    Section IV C. The first readout step as written does not obviously isolate the |q3⟩ population (red flag 5); if the shelving or mapping pulses are imperfect, both S and the Grover probabilities would be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Contextuality and Entanglement-Free Grover Search in a Trapped-Ion Optical Qudit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECR4RZQX

@misc{pith2026260804128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Contextuality and Entanglement-Free Grover Search in a Trapped-Ion Optical Qudit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECR4RZQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04128}
}
abstract

Quantum computational advantage is generally attributed to coherent interference and other non-classical resources, yet their respective roles remain difficult to disentangle in experimental platforms where multipartite entanglement is inherently present. High-dimensional quantum systems provide an attractive route for investigating these resources while simultaneously reducing hardware overhead for quantum information processing. Here we realize a programmable four-dimensional optical qudit encoded in a single trapped $^{138}\mathrm{Ba}^{+}$ ion and demonstrate universal coherent control through phase-programmable optical rotations. Using this platform, we implement an entanglement-free realization of Grover's quantum search algorithm, achieving target-state identification probabilities of up to $94.5\pm2.0\%$. Within the same processor, we further demonstrate state-dependent quantum contextuality through a Clauser--Horne--Shimony--Holt (CHSH)-type noncontextuality inequality, obtaining a maximum violation of $S = 2.816 \pm 0.082$, in close agreement with the Tsirelson bound. By integrating programmable quantum computation and contextuality measurements within a single multilevel trapped-ion platform, our work establishes a versatile architecture for investigating the relationship between coherent interference and contextuality in quantum information processing and provides a scalable route toward high-dimensional quantum technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04128 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy-level structure of the trapped-ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pulse sequences implementing the four effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Measured state populations for the four effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the measured CHSH parameter as a function of the rotation angle together with the cor￾responding numerical simulation. The measured val￾ues closely reproduce the expected sinusoidal dependence predicted by coherent quantum evolution. A maximum violation of S =…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum circuit implementing Grover’s search al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Experimental realization of Grover’s search in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Experimental sequence for qudit state readout: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A57, 127 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    The complete CHSH parameterSas a function ofθis summarised in Table II in the supplementary material

    A maximum violation ofS= 2.816±0.082 is observed nearθ= 3π/4. The complete CHSH parameterSas a function ofθis summarised in Table II in the supplementary material. Hilbert space. Under the qudit–qubit correspondence in- troduced above, the computational basis is mapped onto an effective two-qubit basis, allowing the standard CHSH observables to be realize...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Con- textuality supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation, Nature510, 351 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Monroeet al., Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    C. Monroeet al., Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Physical Review Letters74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Frontiers in Physics8, 589504 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    P. H. et al., Native qudit entanglement in a trapped ion quantum processor, Nat. Commun.14, 2242 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, T. Monz, R. Blatt, and P. Schindler, A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics18, 1053 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Effi- cient realization of quantum algorithms with qudits, EPJ Quantum Technology11, 43 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Nikolaeva, A. S. Borisenko, A. E. Korolkov, P. L. Sidorov, K. P. Galstyan, N. V. Se- menin, V. N. Smirnov, M. A. Aksenov, K. M. Makushin, E. O. Kiktenko, A. K. Fedorov, I. A. Semerikov, K. Y. Khabarova, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Towards a multiqu- dit quantu...

    2025

  6. [14]

    X. S. et al., Efficient implementation of a quantum algo- rithm with a trapped ion qudit, Nat. Commun.17, 1911 (2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, and A. G. White, Experimental quantum computing without entan- glement, Physical Review Letters101, 200501 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Muthukrishnan and C

    A. Muthukrishnan and C. R. Stroud, Multivalued logic gates for quantum computation, Physical Review A62, 052309 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    Langer, R

    C. Langer, R. Ozeri, J. D. Jost, J. Chiaverini, B. De- Marco, A. Ben-Kish, R. B. Blakestad, J. Britton, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, T. Rosen- band, T. Schaetz, P. O. Schmidt, and D. J. Wineland, Long-lived qubit memory using atomic ions, Phys. Rev. Lett....

    2005

  10. [18]

    Kotler, N

    S. Kotler, N. Akerman, Y. Glickman, A. Keselman, and R. Ozeri, Single-ion quantum lock-in amplifier, Nature 473, 61 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lu- cas, High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and read- out of a trapped-ion quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 220501 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Wang, C.-Y

    P. Wang, C.-Y. Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Yuan, M. Gu, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceeding one hour, Nature Communications12, 233 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Lloyd, Quantum search without entanglement, Physi- cal Review A61, 010301 (1999)

    S. Lloyd, Quantum search without entanglement, Physi- cal Review A61, 010301 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    D. A. Meyer, Sophisticated quantum search without en- tanglement, Physical Review Letters85, 2014 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Dutta and M

    T. Dutta and M. Mukherjee, A single atom noise probe operating beyond the heisenberg limit, npj Quantum In- formation6, 10.1038/s41534-019-0234-z (2020)

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Dutta, A

    T. Dutta, A. P´ erez-Salinas, J. P. S. Cheng, J. I. Latorre, and M. Mukherjee, Single-qubit universal classifier imple- 1 mented on an ion-trap quantum device, Physical Review A106, 012411 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Dutta, A

    T. Dutta, A. Jin, C. L. Huihong, J. I. Latorre, and M. Mukherjee, Practicality of training a quantum- classical machine in the noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum era, iScience28, 113058 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Brickman, P

    K.-A. Brickman, P. C. Haljan, P. J. Lee, M. Ac- ton, L. Deslauriers, and C. Monroe, Implementation of grover’s quantum search algorithm in a scalable system, Physical Review A72, 050306 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    Pokharel and D

    B. Pokharel and D. A. Lidar, Better-than-classical grover search via quantum error detection and suppression, npj Quantum Information10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    D. Yum, D. D. Munshi, T. Dutta, and M. Mukherjee, Optical barium ion qubit, Journal of the Optical Society of America B34, 1632 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    D. W. Allan, Statistics of atomic frequency standards, Proceedings of the IEEE54, 221 (1966)

    1966

  22. [30]

    Rubiola,Phase Noise and Frequency Stability in Oscil- lators(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008)

    E. Rubiola,Phase Noise and Frequency Stability in Oscil- lators(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    P. D. Welch, The use of fast fourier transform for the es- timation of power spectra: A method based on time av- eraging over short, modified periodograms, IEEE Trans- actions on Audio and Electroacoustics15, 70 (1967)

    1967

  24. [32]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Alt- shuler, 1/fnoise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 361 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Frontiers in Physics8, 589504 (2020). SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION V. EXPERIMENT AL UNCER T AINTIES The performance of the optical qudit is primarily limited by laser-induced decoherence...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.