Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Programmable local spin control is now possible in large rotating Penning-trap ion crystals, using a steered AC Stark beam timed to the crystal rotation.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 07:43 UTC pith:IJ6GW5A6

load-bearing objection Solid experimental first: programmable coherent single-ion Rz control on large rotating Penning crystals, with usable fidelity and clear applications. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2606.00940 v2 pith:IJ6GW5A6 submitted 2026-05-31 quant-ph

Programmable coherent site-selective spin control in rotating Penning-trap ion crystals

Nihar Makadia , Julian Y. Z. Jee , Gustavo Caf\'e de Miranda , Joseph H. Pham , Michael J. Biercuk , Athreya Shankar , Robert N. Wolf This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Penning trapion crystalssite-selective controlAC Stark shiftRz gatesbiskyrmiondual-quadrature sensingbilayer crystals
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.

Penning traps can hold hundreds of ions in rotating crystals useful for quantum simulation and sensing, but continuous rigid-body rotation has blocked flexible single-ion control. This paper shows that a tightly focused off-resonant laser, steered and pulsed in sync with the crystal rotation, can apply programmable local phase rotations (Rz gates) to chosen ions via differential AC Stark shifts. Ramsey tests give an Rz(π) fidelity of about 95% with roughly 1–2% nearest-neighbour crosstalk. The method is used to write structured spin patterns including a biskyrmion texture, to address one layer of a bilayer crystal independently, and to split a crystal into two sub-ensembles that measure orthogonal Ramsey quadratures in one shot. If the control remains reliable as crystals grow, multidimensional Penning-trap arrays become programmable platforms rather than only globally driven ensembles.

Core claim

The authors establish that programmable coherent site-selective spin control is achievable across large rotating 9Be+ crystals: a tightly focused off-resonant beam drives local Rz phase rotations via differential AC Stark shifts, with beam steering and power modulation synchronised to the crystal rotation so that arbitrary ions can be addressed. Ramsey characterisation yields Rz(π) fidelity of 0.950(4) (body text 94.6±1.6%) and nearest-neighbour crosstalk of 0.021(6) (body 1.2±0.5%), sufficient for a biskyrmion spin texture, layer-selective bilayer operations, and dual-quadrature Ramsey sensing.

What carries the argument

Site-selective Rz phase gates realised by a tightly focused off-resonant laser that imprints differential AC Stark shifts, with AOM steering and power modulation timed to the rigid-body crystal rotation so that a short pulse overlaps only the chosen ion(s).

Load-bearing premise

That the still-unexplained roughly 3.6% phase-independent addressing error (after SPAM and dephasing corrections) does not undermine the claimed gate fidelity or the multi-step state-preparation results.

What would settle it

A repeated Rz(π) Ramsey characterisation that isolates and removes the constant amplitude offset, or a quantitative decomposition showing that residual ion motion, beam pointing and power noise fully account for all measured infidelity and crosstalk.

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

If this is right

  • Spatially structured product states (domain walls, vortices, topological textures) can be prepared deterministically and then evolved under native long-range spin interactions.
  • Layer-selective rotations and readout become available in bilayer and multilayer Penning crystals for interlayer correlation and entanglement studies.
  • Dual-quadrature sensing removes Ramsey phase ambiguities and can be extended to multi-region protocols that measure several spin components in one shot.
  • Combined with spin-dependent forces, the method supports seeded nonequilibrium dynamics relevant to proposed simulations of chiral superconductors and skyrmion physics.
  • Fidelity improvements via tighter beams, better cooling and composite pulses would convert global Penning arrays into programmable multidimensional simulators.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same hard-disk-style radial-plus-timing control could be reused for local optical pumping or sideband addressing once a second focused beam or higher power is available.
  • Crosstalk-aware compilation that pre-compensates known neighbour phases could raise effective multi-ion pattern fidelity without hardware changes.
  • If residual pointing and motion noise are the dominant limit, active feed-forward from the co-rotating camera image could push single-gate error below 1% on the next hardware iteration.

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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports programmable coherent site-selective spin control of individual ions in large rotating 9Be+ Coulomb crystals confined in a Penning trap. A tightly focused off-resonant laser (waist ~13.5 µm) induces local Rz phase gates via differential AC Stark shifts; AOM-based radial steering and power modulation are synchronized to the crystal rotation (79–85 kHz) so that arbitrary ions can be addressed sequentially. Ramsey spin-echo characterization yields an SPAM-corrected Rz(π) fidelity of 94.6±1.6 % (abstract quotes 0.950(4)) with nearest-neighbour crosstalk 1.2±0.5 % (abstract 0.021(6)). The capability is used to prepare a biskyrmion spin texture (~150 ions, mean local fidelity 92±2 %), to perform layer-selective addressing in a partially bilayer crystal, and to implement dual-quadrature Ramsey sensing by imprinting a relative π/2 phase between spatial sub-ensembles.

Significance. If the reported fidelities and crosstalk hold, the work removes a long-standing obstacle to flexible local control in Penning-trap arrays that already support hundreds of spins and long-range interactions. The experimental demonstration is concrete: shot-by-shot ion localization, radius-dependent power calibration, geometric models of beam travel and position uncertainty (Supplemental Material), and three independent applications (structured product states, bilayer operations, dual-quadrature sensing) all support the central claim. The residual ~3.6 % phase-independent offset is stated openly and does not reverse the conclusion that usable programmable control has been achieved. The result therefore opens practical routes to engineered domain walls, topological textures, and multilayer sensing protocols that were previously inaccessible in this architecture.

major comments (1)
  1. PERFORMANCE section and abstract: the quoted Rz(π) fidelity and crosstalk differ between the abstract (0.950(4), 0.021(6)) and the body text (94.6±1.6 %, 1.2±0.5 %). The body further decomposes the error into a Gaussian envelope (σ = 3.7±0.2 π → 98.2 % envelope-limited fidelity), an unexplained constant offset of ~3.6 %, and ~0.4 % off-resonant scattering. The abstract numbers appear to be a rounded or differently averaged subset of the same data. For a load-bearing performance claim these values must be reconciled in a single, fully specified analysis (including how the mean fidelity is obtained from the envelope plus offset) so that readers can reproduce the quoted figures.
minor comments (5)
  1. PERFORMANCE, paragraph on residual offset: the text states “The origin of this offset is not resolved by the present data.” A short quantitative bound (e.g., upper limits from measured beam-pointing stability, localization precision, or residual radial temperature) would strengthen the error budget without requiring new experiments.
  2. Fig. 2c and associated text: the SPAM correction of 3.5 % is applied before fitting; it would help readers if the raw (uncorrected) fringe amplitudes were also quoted or shown in the Supplemental Material.
  3. Supplemental Material, geometric models: the white trajectories in Fig. 7b for τ = 100/200/400 ns are useful; adding the measured crosstalk values from the main-text crystal onto the same plot would make the comparison quantitative.
  4. Throughout: minor typographic inconsistencies appear (e.g., “R z” vs “Rz”, missing spaces after periods in some figure captions, “biskyrmion” vs “bi-skyrmion”). A uniform pass would improve readability.
  5. INTRODUCTION and CONCLUSION: the comparison with the earlier radius-selective optical-pumping work (Ref. [19]) is clear, but a one-sentence quantitative contrast of addressing time scaling (linear in N versus power-limited global beams) would help non-specialist readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: experimental fidelities, crosstalk and state preparations are measured against independent SPAM-corrected populations and multi-basis tomography, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental demonstration of site-selective Rz control via AC Stark shifts with rotation-synchronised beam steering. Load-bearing claims (Rz(π) fidelity 94.6±1.6% after SPAM correction, nearest-neighbour crosstalk 1.2±0.5%, biskyrmion mean local fidelity 92±2%, layer-selective fidelities, dual-quadrature contrasts) are obtained from Ramsey fringes, bright-state probabilities and three-basis Bloch-vector reconstruction on the ions themselves. Geometric models and off-resonant-scattering calculations in the Supplemental Material are used only for post-hoc interpretation and mitigation suggestions; they do not generate the reported numbers. Self-citations (e.g. prior radius-selective work [19]) supply context and comparison but are not required to establish the measured gate performance or the new programmable addressing capability. No self-definitional loops, fitted-parameter-as-prediction steps, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors, or ansatz smuggling appear in the derivation chain. The residual unexplained ~3.6% phase-independent offset is reported explicitly and does not close any circular loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental quantum-optics paper. The central claims rest on standard AC-Stark physics, rigid-body crystal rotation, and site-resolved fluorescence detection already established in the group's prior apparatus papers. Free parameters are the usual experimental knobs (waist, pulse length, detuning, power calibration curves) that are measured or set by design rather than fitted to force the fidelity result. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • addressing beam waist w0 = ≈13.5 µm
    Measured ~13.5 µm after astigmatism correction; enters all crosstalk and infidelity geometric models and sets the s/w0 ratio that limits nearest-neighbor error.
  • addressing pulse duration τ = 200 ns
    Chosen as 200 ns to balance optical power, beam travel distance d=ωr r τ, and crosstalk; appears as a free experimental design choice that directly affects reported performance.
  • radius-dependent power calibration Pπ(r) = radius-dependent curve
    Empirically determined for each radius so that a single pulse produces Rz(π); any residual calibration error contributes to the observed dephasing envelope.
  • laser detuning Δ = 2 GHz
    Set to 2 GHz below the |↓⟩→|2P3/2,mj=+1/2⟩ line; fixes the AC-Stark-to-scattering ratio and the required optical power.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Differential AC Stark shift produced by a far-detuned linearly polarized beam generates a pure Rz rotation on the 9Be+ qubit with negligible population transfer when scattering is small.
    Standard quantum-optics result used throughout the protocol and quantified in the Supplemental Material scattering calculation.
  • domain assumption The ion crystal undergoes rigid-body rotation at a known, stable frequency ωr set by the rotating-wall potential, allowing laboratory-frame beam steering to map onto co-rotating ion positions.
    Established Penning-trap physics (Huang et al., Mitchell et al.) assumed when generating synchronized AOM waveforms.
  • domain assumption Single-shot photon timestamping followed by derotation yields ion coordinates accurate enough that residual localization error is sub-dominant to thermal motion and beam pointing.
    Relies on the group's prior Timepix3 imaging work; residual localization error is folded into the position-uncertainty model σ.
  • domain assumption SPAM errors can be independently measured and subtracted to obtain corrected bright-state probabilities that faithfully report the addressing fidelity.
    Standard trapped-ion practice; 3.5% SPAM contribution is quoted and removed before fidelity extraction.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21798 in / 3376 out tokens · 36714 ms · 2026-07-13T07:43:59.056646+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large ion crystals in Penning traps provide a platform for quantum simulation and sensing with hundreds of spins, but their continuous rigid-body rotation has so far limited flexible local qubit control. Here we demonstrate programmable coherent site-selective spin control across large rotating ${}^{9}\mathrm{Be}^{+}$ crystals in a Penning trap. A tightly focused off-resonant laser beam drives local $R_z$ phase rotations via differential AC Stark shifts. Beam steering synchronised with crystal rotation enables addressing of arbitrary ions throughout the crystal. Ramsey-based characterisation shows $R_z(\pi)$ gate fidelity of 0.950(4) and nearest-neighbour crosstalk error of 0.021(6). We demonstrate preparing spatially structured spin patterns, generating a biskyrmion spin texture in a single-layer crystal, and then extend the method to bilayer crystals where we perform layer-selective addressing operations. We further demonstrate dual-quadrature Ramsey sensing by imprinting a relative $\pi/2$ phase shift between spatial sub-ensembles, enabling simultaneous measurement of orthogonal spin components within a single experimental realisation. These results establish programmable local control in large rotating ion crystals, opening new routes for engineering spatially structured quantum states in multidimensional trapped-ion systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00940 by Athreya Shankar, Gustavo Caf\'e de Miranda, Joseph H. Pham, Julian Y. Z. Jee, Michael J. Biercuk, Nihar Makadia, Robert N. Wolf.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental setup and protocol for pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evaluation of the addressing performance. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Experimental demonstrations of programmable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dual-quadrature sensing demonstration. (a) Ram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the optical addressing setup and data processing. The left part of the figure shows a schematic of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Alignment of the addressing beam. a) Exam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Geometric models for addressing crosstalk and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Addressing-laser detuning. Calculated differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Localized control of large ion crystals in a Penning trap using a spatial light modulator

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    A UV SLM creates co-rotating AC Stark patterns that deliver localized coherent control of single-plane Penning crystals with >100 ions, validated by independent CMOS pattern measurements.

  2. Localized control of large ion crystals in a Penning trap using a spatial light modulator

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    A UV-compatible deformable-mirror SLM imprints co-rotating AC Stark-shift patterns that enable localized coherent control of single-plane Penning-trap crystals with >100 ions, validated by population agreement within ~0.1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021314 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    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, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barber- ena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Science 373, 673 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    R. J. Lewis-Swan, A. Safavi-Naini, A. M. Kaufman, and A. M. Rey, Nature Reviews Physics (2019), 10.1038/s42254-019-0090-y

    doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0090-y 2019

  5. [5]

    Debnath, N

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, Nature536, 63 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Nature569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Nam, J.-S

    Y. Nam, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, K. Wright, C. Delaney, D. Maslov, K. R. Brown, S. Allen, J. M. Amini, J. Apis- dorf, K. M. Beck, A. Blinov, V. Chaplin, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, S. Debnath, K. M. Hudek, A. M. Ducore, M. Keesan, S. M. Kreikemeier, J. Mizrahi, P. Solomon, M. Williams, J. D. Wong-Campos, D. Moehring, C. Mon- roe, and J. Kim, npj Quantum...

    doi:10.1038/s41534-

  8. [8]

    Foss-Feig, G

    M. Foss-Feig, G. Pagano, A. C. Potter, and N. Y. Yao, Annu. Rev. Conden. Ma. P.16, 145 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    D’Onofrio, Y

    M. D’Onofrio, Y. Xie, A. J. Rasmusson, E. Wolanski, J. Cui, and P. Richerme, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 020503 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Kiesenhofer, H

    D. Kiesenhofer, H. Hainzer, A. Zhdanov, P. C. Holz, M. Bock, T. Ollikainen, and C. F. Roos, PRX Quan- tum4, 020317 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R.-Y. Yan, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-L. Xu, B.-W. Li, Y.-H. Hou, Y.-Z. Xu, W.-X. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, L. He, and L.-M. Duan, Nature (2024), 10.1038/s41586-024-07459-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07459-0 2024

  12. [12]

    M. Qiao, Z. Cai, Y. Wang, B. Du, N. Jin, W. Chen, P. Wang, C. Luan, E. Gao, X. Sun, H. Tian, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Nat. Phys.20, 623 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Z. Sun, Y. H. Teoh, F. Rajabi, and R. Islam, Physical Review A109, 032426 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Hou, Y.-J

    Y.-H. Hou, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-K. Wu, Y.-Y. Chen, L. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y.-L. Xu, C. Zhang, Q.-X. Mei, H.-X. Yang, J.-Y. Ma, S.-A. Guo, J. Ye, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, P.- Y. Hou, and L.-M. Duan, Nat. Commun.15(2024), 10.1038/s41467-024-53405-z

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53405-z 2024

  15. [15]

    Mitchell, J

    T. Mitchell, J. Bollinger, D. Dubin, X.-P. Huang, W. Itano, and R. Baughman, Science282, 1290 (1998)

    1998

  16. [16]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Nature484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  17. [17]

    Safavi-Naini, R

    A. Safavi-Naini, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. G. Bohnet, M. G¨ arttner, K. A. Gilmore, J. E. Jordan, J. Cohn, J. K. Freericks, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 040503 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Bullock, S

    B. Bullock, S. R. Muleady, J. F. Lilieholm, Y. Zhang, A. Safavi-Naini, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. J. Bollinger, A. M. Rey, and A. L. Carter, (2026), 10.48550/ARXIV.2602.06114, arXiv:2602.06114 [quant- ph]

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06114 2026

  19. [19]

    J. Y. Z. Jee, N. Makadia, J. H. Pham, G. C. de Miranda, M. J. Biercuk, A. Shankar, and R. N. Wolf, (2026), 10.48550/ARXIV.2604.13872, arXiv:2604.13872 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.13872 2026

  20. [20]

    Hawaldar, P

    S. Hawaldar, P. Shahi, A. L. Carter, A. M. Rey, J. J. Bollinger, and A. Shankar, Phys. Rev. X14, 031030 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    A. L. Carter, S. R. Muleady, A. Shankar, J. F. Lilieholm, B. B. Bullock, M. Affolter, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Phys. Rev. A107, 042618 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    D. P. DiVincenzo and IBM, quant-ph/0002077v3 10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11¡771::AID- PROP771¿3.0.CO;2-E, quant-ph/0002077v3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11

  23. [23]

    Shankar, E

    A. Shankar, E. A. Yuzbashyan, V. Gurarie, P. Zoller, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, PRX Quantum3, 040324 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Kaubruegger and A

    R. Kaubruegger and A. M. Kaufman, (2025), 10.48550/ARXIV.2512.02202, arXiv:2512.02202 [quant- ph]

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02202 2025

  25. [25]

    A. M. Polloreno, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Physical Review Research4, 033076 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Carter et al., in preparation

    A. Carter et al., in preparation

  27. [27]

    B. J. McMahon, K. R. Brown, C. D. Herold, and B. C. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 173201 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Kaneda and H

    T. Kaneda and H. Saito, Phys. Rev. A93, 033611 (2016)

    2016

  29. [29]

    Shengbin, Y

    S. Shengbin, Y. Zhao, S. Jiajun, X. Hou, H. Zhou, and J. Wang, New Journal of Physics25(2023), 10.1088/1367-2630/aceff5

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aceff5 2023

  30. [30]

    Psaroudaki and C

    C. Psaroudaki and C. Panagopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 067201 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Koshibae, Y

    W. Koshibae, Y. Kaneko, J. Iwasaki, M. Kawasaki, Y. Tokura, and N. Nagaosa, Japanese Journal of Ap- plied Physics54, 053001 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    Luo and L

    S. Luo and L. You, APL Materials9, 050901 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    W. Li, S. Wu, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Physical Review A105, 053116 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, and S. Kolkowitz, Physical Review X14, 011006 (2024). 7

    2024

  35. [35]

    H. Ball, C. D. Marciniak, R. N. Wolf, A. T.-H. Hung, K. Pyka, and M. J. Biercuk, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 053103 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    J. H. Pham, J. Y. Z. Jee, A. Rischka, M. J. Biercuk, and R. N. Wolf, Adv. Quantum Technol.2024, 2400086 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Huang, J

    X.-P. Huang, J. J. Bollinger, T. B. Mitchell, and W. M. Itano, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 73 (1998)

    1998

  38. [38]

    Nomerotski, I

    A. Nomerotski, I. Chakaberia, M. Fisher-Levine, Z. Janoska, P. Takacs, and T. Tsang, J. Instrum.12, C01017 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    R. N. Wolf, J. H. Pham, J. Y. Z. Jee, A. Rischka, and M. J. Biercuk, Phys. Rev. Applied21, 054067 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Sinanan-Singh, G

    J. Sinanan-Singh, G. L. Mintzer, I. L. Chuang, and Y. Liu, Quantum8, 1427 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Budker, P

    D. Budker, P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, F. Schmidt-Kaler, C. Smorra, and S. Ulmer, PRX Quantum3, 010330

  42. [42]

    Carney, H

    D. Carney, H. Haeffner, D. C. Moore, and J. M. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 061804

  43. [43]

    C. D. Marciniak, H. B. Ball, A. T.-H. Hung, and M. J. Biercuk, Opt. Express25, 15643 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    B. C. Sawyer, J. G. Bohnet, J. W. Britton, and J. J. Bollinger, Physical Review A91, 011401(R) (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    D. H. E. Dubin, Phys. Rev. A88, 013403 (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, A. VanDevender, C. Ospelkaus, D. Meiser, R. Ozeri, and J. J. Bollinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 200401 (2010). SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL EXPERIMENTAL SETUP The addressing implementation for single-qubit phase gates relies on three technical advances compared to our previous setup for radius-selective optical pumping, de- scribed in Ref. [...

    2010

  47. [47]

    Geometric models for addressing crosstalk and target-ion infidelity.a)Crosstalk model

    3 σ/w 0 m/w 0 10−1 10−3 10−5 Infidelity 1 − F Figure 7. Geometric models for addressing crosstalk and target-ion infidelity.a)Crosstalk model. During a finite ad- dressing pulse, the ion moves relative to the addressing beam in the co-rotating frame, so that the accumulated phase is de- termined by the time-integrated beam intensity. For a pulse in which ...