Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Qubit–environment entanglement that is undetectable under a fixed interaction can be witnessed with qubit-only measurements if the interaction parameters are switched mid-protocol.

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

2026-08-03 17:23 UTC pith:IDEQSDDN

load-bearing objection Solid witness logic and a genuinely new two-stage control idea; the only real gap is the unmodeled switch, which is an experimental concern, not a flaw in the math. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09658 v2 pith:IDEQSDDN submitted 2025-12-10 quant-ph

Entanglement with a mode observable via a tunable interaction with a qubit

Ma{\l}gorzata Strza{\l}ka , Radim Filip , Katarzyna Roszak This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ud03.65.Yz85.25.-j
keywords qubit-environment entanglementpure dephasingentanglement detectiontransmon qubitmicrowave cavityspin-boson modeltunable interactioncoherence witness
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.

Qubit-only detection of qubit-environment entanglement fails for a whole class of pure-dephasing interactions: whenever the operators that govern the environment's evolution conditional on the qubit pointer states commute, as they do for the transmon-in-cavity (spin-boson) Hamiltonian. This paper shows that the obstruction is not fundamental if the experimenter can tune the interaction. The proposal is a two-stage protocol: first evolve under one set of parameters to prepare the environment in the pointer-conditioned states, then apply a Hadamard gate and evolve under a different set of probe parameters; if the resulting qubit coherence curves for the two pointer preparations differ at any time, the pointer-conditioned environmental states are different, and by the separability criterion this certifies that the joint state would have been entangled for any superposition qubit initial state. For a transmon qubit in a microwave cavity, the authors identify concrete preparation and probe parameters and show the signal is large at zero temperature and still nonnegligible at finite temperatures. A sympathetic reader cares because it replaces a symmetry-based impossibility with a practical protocol using control already available in superconducting and trapped-ion platforms.

Core claim

The central claim is that for pure-dephasing evolutions whose conditional environment operators commute, such as the transmon-cavity Hamiltonian, qubit-environment entanglement can nevertheless be detected using qubit-only measurements by switching the interaction parameters mid-protocol. Specifically, if after preparing R00(t) and R11(t) with the qubit in pointer states 0 and 1, applying a Hadamard gate, and evolving under a second PD Hamiltonian with different parameters, the coherence curves differ at any τ, then R00(t)≠R11(t); by the separability criterion this is equivalent to entanglement generation for any initial superposition of pointer states.

What carries the argument

The machinery rests on two elements. First, the if-and-only-if separability criterion for pure-dephasing states: the joint state is separable exactly when the two pointer-conditioned environmental density matrices R00(t) and R11(t) are equal. Second, a two-stage readout that converts the difference between these environmental states into a difference in qubit coherence: after the environment is prepared in R_ii(t), a Hadamard gate creates a superposition, and a second evolution under a non-commuting probe Hamiltonian makes the coherence (Eq. 7) depend on which R_ii(t) was prepared. The probe parameters must be chosen so that each preparation operator fails to commute with at least one probe

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is experimental: the qubit-environment coupling can be switched from preparation to probe parameters within a single run, quickly enough and without disturbing the prepared environmental states; the circuit diagram in the paper simply states that the interaction is changed, with no mechanism or error model supplied.

What would settle it

With preparation time set so that no entanglement is generated (e.g., βt/ℏ=0), the two coherence curves from Eq. (7) must overlap exactly; if they do not, the witness has a spurious background. Conversely, keep the same parameters in both stages: since the conditional operators commute, the curves must coincide at all τ even when entanglement is present; any difference would mean the measurement itself generates or destroys the signal.

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

If this is right

  • The protocol turns qubit coherence into a witness for spin-boson entanglement in a transmon qubit coupled to a microwave cavity, with an experimentally feasible parameter set.
  • Because the only requirement is tunability of the coupling, the scheme transfers to trapped-ion and cavity-QED platforms with similar Hamiltonians.
  • The scheme remains valid if quadratic boson terms are added to the Hamiltonian, so it extends beyond the linear spin-boson model.
  • The detection no longer depends on the commutation properties of the interaction; it shifts the requirement to control over the interaction, which several qubit platforms already possess.
  • Finite-temperature simulations show the witness signal remains nonnegligible, making near-term experiments plausible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to use the two-stage protocol not just as a witness but as a quantitative probe: the magnitude of the coherence difference should track the degree of generated entanglement (e.g., via concurrence or negativity), which the paper does not compute.
  • The switch between preparation and probe settings is the experimentally delicate step; the protocol implicitly assumes the switch is instantaneous and back-action-free, so error models for finite switching times would be a natural follow-up.
  • The same logic could be applied to other 'undetectable' entanglement classes where a symmetry in the initial state or coupling hides the information from a fixed measurement basis.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a qubit-only protocol for witnessing qubit-environment entanglement (QEE) generated by a pure-dephasing spin-boson-type interaction, using a transmon qubit coupled to a microwave cavity described by Hamiltonian (5). Because the conditional environment operators w_0(t) and w_1(t) commute, earlier fixed-interaction detection schemes fail for this system. The authors exploit tunable coupling: they first prepare the environmental states R_00(t) and R_11(t) by evolving pointer states, apply a Hadamard gate, switch the interaction parameters, let the system evolve for time τ, and measure qubit coherence. The central theoretical step is Eq. (7) together with the PPT-based separability criterion Eq. (4): if the two coherence curves differ at any τ, then R_00(t) ≠ R_11(t), which certifies entanglement for any initial superposition of pointer states. Numerical examples for chosen parameters show a sizeable signal at zero and finite temperature.

Significance. The witness logic is mathematically correct and addresses a genuine obstruction: for pure-dephasing evolutions with commuting conditional environment operators, standard qubit-only schemes cannot detect entanglement. Showing that a controlled change of the interaction after the preparation stage circumvents this obstruction is a useful conceptual advance. The paper is also honest about the indirect nature of the scheme and about the fact that coinciding curves are inconclusive. The numerical signals in Figs. 2 and 3 are large enough to make an experimental test plausible. The main weakness is the idealized treatment of the parameter switch; without an error model or timescale analysis, the practical claim that the entanglement can be detected remains not fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Detection of QEE, Eq. (7) and Fig. 1] The protocol assumes an instantaneous switch from the preparation interaction to the detection interaction. Equation (7) uses time-independent conditional operators w'_i(τ) for the second phase, which is only valid if the parameters α/β are changed abruptly at time t. In a realistic transmon-cavity implementation, tuning the coupling has a finite duration δ. During this interval the qubit is in a superposition, and the time-dependent Hamiltonian will generate qubit-environment correlations that are not included in Eq. (7). The prepared state R_ii(t) may be modified before the coherence measurement, and a difference between the i=0 and i=1 runs could then reflect switch dynamics rather than the pre-existing difference R_00(t) ≠ R_11(t). The manuscript gives no mechanism, timescale, or error bound for the switch. Since the novelty of the protocol relies precisely on changing the interactio
  2. [Detection of QEE, discussion after Eq. (8)] The protocol establishes only a one-way implication: if the coherence curves differ, then R_00(t) ≠ R_11(t). The converse is not shown, and the α=0 example demonstrates that the trace in Eq. (7) can be blind to a genuine difference between R_00(t) and R_11(t). The statement that the detection Hamiltonian 'cannot commute with the initial state of the environment' is not developed into a quantitative or testable condition. For the specific parameter pair used in Figs. 2 and 3 the numerical signal is clear, but the broader claim that the detection-phase interaction can be chosen flexibly is supported only by examples. A systematic characterization of when Tr[w'_0 Δ w'_1†] ≠ 0 for Δ = R_00 − R_11, or a more modest statement that the protocol is demonstrated for tailored parameters, would remove this overgeneralization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The panel labels are inconsistent: the last temperature row is labeled '(f),(h)' and panel (g) is missing. Please correct the caption.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The sign convention in the definition of Δρ01 and the claim that both runs correspond to initialization in |+⟩ are not immediately clear. Please spell out the effect of the Hadamard sign so that the reader can verify Eq. (8) directly.
  3. [General notation] The notation R_ii(t) is somewhat unusual for a density matrix; for readability, consider using R_i(t) or explicitly stating that R_ii(t) is the conditional environmental state.
  4. [Introduction and Conclusion] There are minor typos, e.g. 'dissspative' in the introduction and 'extention' in the caption of Fig. 1. Also, the claim that the choice of parameters is 'fairly arbitrary' could be accompanied by a short selection rule or a remark on robustness of the signal to parameter variations.
  5. [Eq. (5)] The parameters α and β are not defined with units. Since α/β is used throughout, please state that β is real and specify the conventions for α (complex coupling) and β (dispersive shift).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the witness follows directly from the PPT-based separability criterion; prior self-citations are independent mathematical results, and no fitted parameter is repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

The central inference is Eq. (7) -> R00(t) != R11(t) -> entanglement. Equation (7) gives rho_01^(i)(tau) = ±(1/2) Tr[w'_0(tau) R_ii(t) w'_1^†(tau)]. Since the only dependence on i enters through R_ii(t) (and a known sign from the Hadamard), a difference between the i=0 and i=1 coherence curves at any tau immediately yields Tr[w'_0(R00-R11)w'_1^†] != 0, hence R00 != R11. This is a logical consequence of the measured quantities, not a definition of entanglement as the signal. The separability criterion Eq. (4) is cited to Refs. [11,12], but those results are derived from the PPT criterion and stated assumptions that do not include the present witness; they are independent mathematical support. Ref. [50] is used only to select Hamiltonian parameters and a Gibbs state known to be entangling; the reported nonzero difference signal is computed from Eq. (7) rather than imported from that reference. No parameter is fitted to the coherence data, and the claim is one-way (coincidence is declared inconclusive), which is characteristic of a genuine witness. The finite-duration switch of the interaction parameters is an experimental-control assumption not modeled in the paper, but a missing control analysis is a correctness/feasibility concern, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol itself requires no new physics beyond standard unitary evolution and the PPT-based separability criterion. The hand-chosen coupling ratios are the only true free inputs; they do not affect the logical validity of the witness but do control whether a particular experiment sees a large signal. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Preparation-phase coupling ratio α_p/β = (1+i)/2
    Hand-chosen so the prepared state is entangling on the displayed timescales; relies on Ref [50] that this choice generates QEE.
  • Measurement-phase coupling ratio α_m/β = 1/√2
    Hand-chosen because an imaginary component in only one Hamiltonian maximizes the coherence discrepancy; this is parameter tuning for signal visibility.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Pure-dephasing form: the full QE Hamiltonian can be written as H=|0⟩⟨0|⊗V0+|1⟩⟨1|⊗V1 (Eq. 1), so the interaction commutes with the qubit free Hamiltonian.
    Assumed for all PD evolutions; defines the class of systems under study.
  • domain assumption Initial state is a product state of pointer-state superposition and arbitrary environment state R(0) (Eq. 3).
    Required for the iff separability criterion Eq. (4).
  • standard math Separability criterion Eq. (4): for PD evolutions with product initial states, the QE state at time t is separable iff R00(t)=R11(t); proven from the PPT criterion in Refs [11,12].
    Taken from prior literature; the paper does not reprove it.
  • domain assumption The model Hamiltonian Eq. (5) describes a transmon qubit in a microwave cavity (Ref [16]).
    Physical modeling assumption connecting the generic PD form to a concrete platform.
  • standard math For α/β=(1+i)/2 and the Gibbs environment state, the evolution at times like βt/ℏ=2 creates QEE (result of Ref [50] by the same authors).
    Used to select example parameters; reliance on a self-cited previous result.
  • domain assumption Initial environment is a Gibbs state with H0=Ω a†a at temperature T.
    Specific example for finite-temperature analysis.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9868 in / 17963 out tokens · 172066 ms · 2026-08-03T17:23:20.716880+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the possibility of detection of ``spin-boson'' entanglement by qubit only measurements. Such entanglement is impossible to detect by previously proposed schemes that involve a fixed system-environment interaction, because of inherent symmetries within the coupling and the initial state of the environment. We take advantage of the possibility of tuning of qubit-environment coupling, that is available in some qubit realizations. As an example we study a superconducting transmon qubit interacting with a microwave cavity, which is one of such systems and is, furthermore, essential in the context of quantum information processing. We propose suitable Hamiltonian parameters for the preparation and measurement phases of the detection scheme that allow for an experimental test, and verify that the reported signal is nonnegligibly large still at finite temperatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09658 by Katarzyna Roszak, Ma{\l}gorzata Strza{\l}ka, Radim Filip.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Circuit representing a single run of the QEE detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the real and imaginary parts of qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of the difference of qubit coherence in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.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

51 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    We have found that an imaginary component 4 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 Re (i) 01( ), Im (i) 01( ) (a) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 Re (i) 01( ), Im (i) 01( ) (b) FIG

    The parametersα andβin both phases are chosen in a fairly arbitrary way, such that entanglement can be detected and the effect of the interaction is visible on similar time-scales in both phases. We have found that an imaginary component 4 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 Re (i) 01( ), Im (i) 01( ) (a) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 Re (i) 01( ), Im (i) 01( ) (b)...

  3. [3]

    Harrington, E

    P. Harrington, E. Mueller, and K. Murch, Engineered dissipation for quantum information science, Nat. Rev. Phys.4, 660 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Gregoratti and R

    M. Gregoratti and R. F. Werner, Quantum lost and found, Journal of Modern Optics50, 915 (2003), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09500340308234541

    work page doi:10.1080/09500340308234541 2003

  5. [5]

    Roszak and J

    K. Roszak and J. K. Korbicz, Purifying teleportation, Quantum7, 923 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Roszak and L

    K. Roszak and L. Cywiński, Equivalence of qubit- environment entanglement and discord generation via pure dephasing interactions and the resulting conse- quences, Phys. Rev. A97, 012306 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Roszak and L

    K. Roszak and L. Cywiński, Qubit-environment- entanglement generation and the spin echo, Phys. Rev. A103, 032208 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Harlender and K

    T. Harlender and K. Roszak, Transfer and teleportation of system-environment entanglement, Phys. Rev. A105, 012407 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Eisert and M

    J. Eisert and M. B. Plenio, Quantum and classical cor- relations in quantum brownian motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137902 (2002)

    2002

  10. [10]

    Pernice and W

    A. Pernice and W. T. Strunz, Decoherence and the na- ture of system-environment correlations, Phys. Rev. A 84, 062121 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    Bizzarri, L

    G. Bizzarri, L. Sansoni, E. Stefanutti, I. Gianani, M. Bar- bieri, K. Roszak, and A. Chiuri, Experimental proto- col for qubit-environment entanglement detection, AVS Quantum Science7, 031401 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Roszak and L

    K. Roszak and L. Cywiński, Characterization and mea- surement of qubit-environment-entanglement generation during pure dephasing, Phys. Rev. A92, 032310 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Roszak, Criteria for system-environment entangle- ment generation for systems of any size in pure-dephasing evolutions, Phys

    K. Roszak, Criteria for system-environment entangle- ment generation for systems of any size in pure-dephasing evolutions, Phys. Rev. A98, 052344 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Roszak, D

    K. Roszak, D. Kwiatkowski, and L. Cywiński, How to detect qubit-environment entanglement generated during qubit dephasing, Phys. Rev. A100, 022318 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    Rzepkowski and K

    B. Rzepkowski and K. Roszak, A scheme for direct detec- tion of qubit–environment entanglement generated dur- ing qubit pure dephasing, Quantum Information Process- ing20, 1 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Strzałka and K

    M. Strzałka and K. Roszak, Detection of entanglement during pure dephasing evolutions for systems and envi- ronments of any size, Phys. Rev. A104, 042411 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Touzard, A

    S. Touzard, A. Kou, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, S. Puri, A. Grimm, L. Frunzio, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Gatedconditionaldisplacementreadoutofsuperconduct- ing qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 080502 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, A

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys- Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf,et al., Quantum error cor- rection of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature584, 368 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Hamsen, K

    C. Hamsen, K. N. Tolazzi, T. Wilk, and G. Rempe, Two- photon blockade in an atom-driven cavity qed system, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 133604 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Haroche, M

    S. Haroche, M. Brune, and J. Raimond, From cavity to circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics16, 243 (2020). 6

    2020

  22. [22]

    Morin, E

    S.Langenfeld, S.Welte, L.Hartung, S.Daiss, P.Thomas, O. Morin, E. Distante, and G. Rempe, Quantum telepor- tation between remote qubit memories with only a sin- gle photon as a resource, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 130502 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Borri, W

    P. Borri, W. Langbein, S. Schneider, U. Woggon, R. L. Sellin, D. Ouyang, and D. Bimberg, Ultralong dephasing time in InGaAs quantum dots,87, 157401 (2001)

    2001

  24. [24]

    Vagov, V

    A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, and T. Kuhn, Impact of pure de- phasing on the nonlinear optical response of single quan- tum dots and dot ensembles,67, 115338 (2003)

    2003

  25. [25]

    Vagov, V

    A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, T. Kuhn, W. Langbein, P. Borri, and U. Woggon, Nonmonotonous temperature depen- dence of the initial decoherence in quantum dots,70, 201305(R) (2004)

    2004

  26. [26]

    Glässl, A

    M. Glässl, A. M. Barth, and V. M. Axt, Proposed ro- bust and high-fidelity preparation of excitons and biex- citons in semiconductor quantum dots making active use of phonons, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 147401 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Tahara, Y

    H. Tahara, Y. Ogawa, F. Minami, K. Akahane, and M. Sasaki, Long-time correlation in non-markovian de- phasing of an exciton-phonon system in inas quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 147404 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    Salamon and K

    T. Salamon and K. Roszak, Entanglement generation be- tween a charge qubit and its bosonic environment during pure dephasing: Dependence on the environment size, Phys. Rev. A96, 032333 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Seidelmann, F

    T. Seidelmann, F. Ungar, A. M. Barth, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, M. Cygorek, and T. Kuhn, Phonon-induced en- hancement of photon entanglement in quantum dot- cavity systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 137401 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Zhao, S.-W

    N. Zhao, S.-W. Ho, and R.-B. Liu, Decoherence and dy- namical decoupling control of nitrogen vacancy center electron spins in nuclear spin baths, Phys. Rev. B85, 115303 (2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    Kwiatkowski and L

    D. Kwiatkowski and L. Cywiński, Decoherence of two en- tangled spin qubits coupled to an interacting sparse nu- clear spin bath: Application to nitrogen vacancy centers, Phys. Rev. B98, 155202 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    H. P. Bartling, M. H. Abobeih, B. Pingault, M. J. Degen, S. J. H. Loenen, C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Entanglement of spin-pair qubits with intrinsic dephasing times exceeding a minute, Phys. Rev. X12, 011048 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    S. L. Bayliss, P. Deb, D. W. Laorenza, M. Onizhuk, G. Galli, D. E. Freedman, and D. D. Awschalom, En- hancing spin coherence in optically addressable molecu- lar qubits through host-matrix control, Phys. Rev. X12, 031028 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Wang, C.-F

    N. Wang, C.-F. Liu, J.-W. Fan, X. Feng, W.-H. Leong, A. Finkler, A. Denisenko, J. Wrachtrup, Q. Li, and R.- B. Liu, Zero-field magnetometry using hyperfine-biased nitrogen-vacancy centers near diamond surfaces, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013098 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Onizhuk and G

    M. Onizhuk and G. Galli, Bath-limited dynamics of nu- clear spins in solid-state spin platforms, Phys. Rev. B 108, 075306 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Y. Y. Gao, M. A. Rol, S. Touzard, and C. Wang, Practi- cal guide for building superconducting quantum devices, PRX Quantum2, 040202 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    X. Ma, J. J. Viennot, S. Kotler, J. D. Teufel, and K. W. Lehnert, Non-classical energy squeezing of a macroscopic mechanical oscillator, Nature Physics17, 322 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Delaney, M

    R. Delaney, M. Urmey, S. Mittal, B. Brubaker, J. Kindem, P. Burns, C. Regal, and K. Lehn- ert, Superconducting-qubit readout via low-backaction electro-optic transduction, Nature606, 489 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Hassani, M

    F. Hassani, M. Peruzzo, L. Kapoor, A. Trioni, M. Zem- licka, and J. M. Fink, Inductively shunted transmons ex- hibit noise insensitive plasmon states and a fluxon de- cay exceeding 3 hours, Nature Communications14, 3968 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  41. [41]

    Kienzler, C

    D. Kienzler, C. Flühmann, V. Negnevitsky, H.-Y. Lo, M. Marinelli, D. Nadlinger, and J. P. Home, Observa- tion of quantum interference between separated mechan- ical oscillator wave packets, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 140402 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    D. Lv, S. An, Z. Liu, J.-N. Zhang, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and K. Kim, Quantum simula- tion of the quantum rabi model in a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. X8, 021027 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    M. Bock, P. Eich, S. Kucera, M. Kreis, A. Lenhard, C.Becher,andJ.Eschner,High-fidelityentanglementbe- tween a trapped ion and a telecom photon via quantum frequency conversion, Nature communications9, 1998 (2018)

    1998

  44. [44]

    K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, T. Schuster, N. M. Linke, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, Verified quantum information scrambling, Nature567, 61 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Kokail, R

    C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Entanglement hamiltonian tomography in quantum simulation, Nature Physics17, 936 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Robust and deterministic preparation of bosonic logical states in a trapped ion (2023), arXiv:2310.15546 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bilityofmixedstates: necessaryandsufficientconditions, Physics Letters A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  48. [48]

    Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys

    A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  49. [49]

    C. A. Ryan, B. R. Johnson, D. Ristè, B. Donovan, and T. A. Ohki, Hardware for dynamic quantum computing, Review of Scientific Instruments88, 104703 (2017), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5006525/19787616/104703_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5006525/19787616/104703_1_online.pdf 2017

  50. [50]

    X. Mi, P. Roushan, C. Quintana, S. Mandrà, J. Marshall, C. Neill, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, A. Bourassa, M. Broughton, B. B. Buck- ley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, A. Dunsworth, D. Eppens, C. Erickson, ...

    2021

  51. [51]

    Strzałka, R

    M. Strzałka, R. Filip, and K. Roszak, Qubit-environment entanglement in time-dependent pure dephasing, Phys. Rev. A109, 032412 (2024)

    2024