Fast collisional $\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}$ gate for fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice

Jonathan Nemirovsky; Rafi Weill; Yoav Sagi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Fast collisional $\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}$ gate for fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 21-microsecond collisional √SWAP gate for fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice, with >99% fidelity in continuum simulation.

desk verdict A well-benchmarked proposal for a fast superlattice gate, but the headline 21 µs / >99% fidelity rests on a 4–7× extrapolation of the interaction model beyond its validated range. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.22569 v2 pith:JOFNJ2LO submitted 2025-12-27 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

Rafi Weill , Jonathan Nemirovsky , Yoav Sagi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phquant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx05.30.Fk32.80.Qk34.50.Cx

keywords collisionalgateopticalsuperlatticefermionicatoms√SWAPquantumcomputationtime-dependentSchrödingerequationcontactinteractionlattice-depthcontrol

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 proposes a fast entangling gate for two fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice, replacing the slow tunneling-based approach with a controlled collision. The atoms are transiently released into a quasi-harmonic confinement formed by carefully timed modulation of the short- and long-lattice depths, and a contact interaction accumulates the exchange phase needed for √SWAP. The authors simulate the full continuum two-particle Schrödinger equation, benchmark it against experimental tunneling-based gates, and find a gate time of ~21 microseconds with fidelity above 99%, over an order of magnitude faster than tunneling-based implementations. They also show a composite sequence that maintains fidelity above 98.7% under ±5% lattice-amplitude variations.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the transient release of two atoms into a quasi-harmonic confinement created by time-dependent modulation of the superlattice potential V(x,τ) = V_S(τ)cos²(πx/a_x) + V_L(τ)sin²(πx/(2a_x)). The authors keep a modest short-lattice amplitude while rapidly raising the long lattice, preserving a quasi-harmonic potential that focuses the wave packets and avoids anharmonic dispersion. The contact interaction strength γ is tuned so that the collision during the central part of the motion produces the required exchange phase. The theoretical framework is the two-particle time-dependent Schrödinger equation in the continuum (Eq. 2), which goes beyond the two-site Fermi–Hubbard

What would settle it

A 3D simulation or experiment of the proposed fast-collision gate would test the predicted fidelity. Specifically, if a full 3D simulation of the same lattice parameters yields a fidelity below 99% (e.g., due to transverse degrees of freedom or non-ideal delta-interaction), the central claim would be falsified. Alternatively, an experimental measurement of the pair-tunneling frequency during the fast ramp would reveal whether the 1D model's 0.82 rescaling holds, as a mismatch would indicate the need for a more accurate interaction model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fast, high-fidelity √SWAP gate for fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice can be realized by dynamically controlling the short- and long-lattice depths, rather than relying on slow tunneling. The atoms are released from their initial double-well sites into a quasi-harmonic confinement centered between the sites; with a tuned contact interaction, a controlled collision during the transient release accumulates a relative π/2 phase between even and odd wave-function components, generating entanglement. The optimized protocol (with maximum long-lattice depth 140 recoil energies, initial short-lattice depth 41.35 recoil energies, and gate time 21.2 μs) achieves a s

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim relies on the assumption that the 1D continuum model with a regularized delta-function contact interaction, calibrated to experiment via a 0.82 rescaling of the interaction coefficient in the strongly interacting regime, quantitatively predicts the real 3D two-atom collision dynamics during the fast transient release.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The proposed gate operates in ~21 μs, more than an order of magnitude faster than tunneling-based implementations (typically ~1 ms), while maintaining fidelity above 99% in simulation.
A composite sequence of two SWAP^{3/4} gates, realizing SWAP^{3/2}, suppresses sensitivity to lattice-amplitude variations, keeping fidelity above 98.7% for ±5% variations.
Increasing the maximum accessible long-lattice depth to 700 recoil energies shortens the gate to 9.2 μs with slightly higher fidelity (99.41%), suggesting a trade-off between speed and available lattice depth.
The continuum simulation, benchmarked against experimental spin-exchange and pair-tunneling data, captures dynamics beyond the tight-binding approximation, validating the protocol for realistic experimental conditions.
The collision-mediated approach offers a route to scalable neutral-atom quantum computation by decoupling gate speed from tunneling rate.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's 1D continuum model, calibrated with a 0.82 rescaling of the interaction coefficient in the strongly interacting regime, likely underestimates the complexity of the real 3D collision dynamics; the predicted 99% fidelity may degrade when applied to a 3D superlattice.
The composite SWAP^{3/2} sequence could be further optimized by exploring non-uniform lattice-depth variations or by incorporating optimal control techniques that account for spatial intensity inhomogeneities, potentially achieving even higher robustness.
The collision-mediated gate concept might extend to other species or to higher-dimensional superlattices, where the quasi-harmonic focusing mechanism could enable fast two-qubit gates in a 2D array.
A direct experimental test would measure the pair-tunneling frequency in the proposed fast-collision regime; the paper's simulation predicts a deviation from the simple tunneling picture, which could serve as a signature of the collision-mediated phase accumulation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The proposal itself is new and worth taking seriously: instead of waiting for tunneling, the authors transiently reshape the superlattice into a near-harmonic well, let the atoms collide, then reverse the shape change. Optimized envelopes for the short and long lattices are given explicitly, and the single-particle transfer is very clean. Second, the paper is unusually honest about its simulator's limits—it openly reports needing a 0.82 rescaling of the contact interaction to match spin-exchange data and a clear discrepancy in pair tunneling—but the operating point of the proposed gate sits at gamma/h = 31 kHz·µm, four to seven times larger than every benchmark they ran. The 99% fidelity is a plausible extrapolation, not a validated number.

What is done well: the benchmarking against Bojović et al. is serious. Single-particle tunneling matches to a few percent, spin-exchange frequency matches after the explicitly noted rescale, and the Blackman-pulse gate fidelity reproduces the experiment to 0.04%. They also show why a naive short-lattice shutdown fails, which is a useful negative result. The contrast with tunneling-based gates and with the authors' own tweezer work is clear.

Where it's soft: the central quantitative claim depends on a 1D delta-interaction model in a regime—large gamma, short timescale, high relative collision energy—where the model has not been checked. The pair-tunneling benchmark already misses the experimental frequency by ~10% and the phase, and the fact that two different benchmarks require different effective gamma values suggests the delta-function picture has a limited range. The paper argues 1D-to-3D correspondence by assertion. No numerical convergence data or code are given, and fidelities are reported without uncertainty. None of this makes the idea worthless, but it means the abstract's '>99%' should not be taken at face value.

Who should read it: people working on neutral-atom quantum computing, especially superlattice gate schemes, and theorists who care about how much you can trust 1D benchmarks for 3D proposals. I'd send it to peer review—it deserves a serious referee—but I'd expect the referee to demand either a benchmark in the high-gamma regime or a much more careful discussion of the model's validity there, and likely a revision that tempers the quantitative claims.

Recommendation: engage with it, but treat the headline numbers as hypotheses until they get tested in a real 3D setting.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a fast entangling √SWAP gate for two fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice. The gate sequence uses time-dependent control of the short- and long-lattice depths (Eq. 1), transiently releasing the atoms into a quasi-harmonic central confinement; a constant contact interaction accumulates the required exchange phase. The authors solve the two-particle continuum Schrödinger equation with a regularized delta interaction (Eq. 2), benchmark it against single-particle tunneling, spin-exchange, pair-tunneling, and Blackman √SWAP data from Ref. [26], and then optimize the envelope parameters (Eqs. 13–15) to obtain a 21.2 μs √SWAP with 99% fidelity. A repeated SWAP^{3/4} composite sequence is claimed to maintain >98.7% fidelity under ±5% lattice-depth variations.

Significance. If the predicted fidelities survive experimental validation, this would be a substantial advance: a collision-mediated gate roughly two orders of magnitude faster than the current tunneling-based superlattice gate, using only existing lattice controls. The numerical benchmarks are genuinely valuable: single-particle tunneling is reproduced without free parameters (2–8% agreement), the spin-exchange frequency matches experiment exactly, and the Blackman gate fidelity is reproduced to 0.04%. However, the interaction model's calibration in the strongly interacting regime requires ad hoc corrections, and the proposed operating point lies outside the benchmarked parameter range; the quantitative headline result is therefore a conditional numerical prediction rather than an established fact.

major comments (3)

[§III.B, §III.C, Eq. (15)] The central 99%/21.2 μs claim is computed at γ/h = 30.96 kHz·μm, while every interaction benchmark in Sec. III uses γ/h between 4.36 and 7.35 kHz·μm. The model's accuracy is already questionable in the benchmarked regime: pair-tunneling frequency is 4.182 vs 3.8 kHz with a phase mismatch, spin-exchange requires an ad hoc γ→0.82γ rescaling (Fig. 4), and the Blackman gate fidelity is matched only after optimizing γ to 7.35 kHz·μm, 52% above the experimental 4.84 kHz·μm (Sec. III.C). No benchmark exercises the model at large γ or at the high relative velocities of the collisional release. Since the proposed gate relies on the interaction-induced phase during this transient, the 99% fidelity is an extrapolation. Please provide validation in the large-γ/high-momentum regime (e.g., against exact 1D solutions for delta interactions, 3D simulations, or a quantitative error analysis) or explicitl
[§VI, Eq. (9)] The statement that the 1D results 'strongly indicate' realizability in realistic 3D superlattices is asserted, not demonstrated. The 1D delta model with γ extracted via Eq. (9) assumes strict transverse confinement; during the release into the quasi-harmonic well, atoms may occupy excited transverse states, and the effective 1D coupling changes with the local density and collision energy. The sensitivity of the 99% fidelity to the known calibration errors (0.82 rescale, 52% Blackman discrepancy) is not shown. I request a fidelity-vs-γ curve at the operating point, reporting the range of γ for which F>99% (or >97%), so that the reader can judge whether the 18–20% model error is tolerable.
[§V, Eq. (16)] The robustness analysis is incomplete for the central claim. Only global lattice-amplitude variations are tested; variations in γ are not considered, even though γ is the one parameter the model calibrates least reliably. The composite sequence reduces γ to 12.8 kHz·μm (Eq. 16), but this is still ~1.7–2.9 times larger than the benchmarked values, so the >98.7% robustness claim inherits the same extrapolation problem.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract, §V] The abstract states the gate is 'more than an order of magnitude faster than tunneling-based implementations'; Sec. V gives a factor ~54 vs the Blackman protocol but only ~8.4 vs the fast-ramp implementation. The claim should be qualified accordingly.
[§II, Eq. (2)] The regularized delta interaction δreg is used without specifying the regularization prescription. Please define or cite the specific form before first use.
[Figures 2, 4, 7] Several figures lack complete axis labels and units in the current version, making quantitative comparison with the text difficult. For example, Fig. 2 shows holding time but not the occupation axis label.
[§III.B, Fig. 3 caption] There is a typographical mismatch in the caption: '|ψ↑↓(x1, x2, τ)' is missing a closing parenthesis. Please correct.
[Note added] The note about the closely related Ref. [42] is too vague. Please specify how the present work differs from or is related to that concurrent preprint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central gate is a numerical design with externally benchmarked dynamics; disclosed parameter adjustments are calibration caveats, not target definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense that any 'prediction' is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The proposed √SWAP gate is obtained by solving the two-particle time-dependent Schrödinger equation (Eq. 2) with the superlattice potential of Eq. 1, then numerically optimizing a small set of control parameters (VL(0), VS(0), τ_gate, γ) against the independently defined fidelity in Eq. 7. The speed and fidelity claims follow from the solved dynamics, not from defining the output to be the input. The benchmarks against Ref. [26] use external experimental data; the disclosed 0.82 rescaling of γ in Sec. III B and the optimized γ in the Blackman benchmark are explicit calibration adjustments and are reported as such, so they weaken validation but do not define the proposed gate. The main operating point (Eq. 15, γ/h = 30.96 kHz·µm) is outside the benchmarked γ range and the authors acknowledge the 1D-to-3D extrapolation in the Discussion; these are correctness/risk concerns, not circularity. The reliance on the authors' prior tweezer work [36] provides intuition and a limiting-case framework, but the superlattice result is computed independently, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation or fitted parameter being renamed as the central prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains the control parameters optimized for fidelity (Eqs. 15 and 16), the ad hoc envelope shapes, and the main physical model assumptions (1D TDSE with regularized delta interaction, Wannier orbital mapping, transfer of harmonic-trap intuition from [36]). No new entities are postulated. The 0.82 rescaling of γ used for benchmark agreement is recorded as a fitted correction.

free parameters (7)

V_L^max = 140 E_long^r (also 700 case)
Ceiling on long-lattice depth, chosen within experimentally convenient range; sets mid-pulse confinement strength.
V_L(0) = 20 E_long^r
Initial long-lattice depth; optimized control parameter for the gate sequence.
V_S(0) = 41.35 E_short^r (composite 43.4; SWAP 45.93)
Initial short-lattice depth; optimized to maximize fidelity.
τ_gate = 21.2 μs (composite 2×21.39 μs)
Gate duration optimized for fidelity; directly sets the claimed speed advantage.
γ = 30.96 kHz·μm (composite 12.8 kHz·μm)
Contact interaction strength held constant during the pulse and optimized for gate fidelity.
Envelope exponents (2,8) = 2, 8
Ad hoc choices of ramp shapes in Eqs. 13–14; not derived from optimal control theory.
Benchmark rescaling factor for γ = 0.82
Applied in Sec. III B, Fig. 4 to match strongly interacting spin-exchange data; indicates model calibration issue.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption One-dimensional time-dependent Schrödinger equation with a regularized delta-function contact interaction (Eq. 2) captures the two-atom dynamics.
Used throughout for benchmarks and gate predictions; Discussion admits simulations are 1D and infers 3D applicability from agreement with [26].
standard math The two lowest eigenstates of the isolated double well define the qubit orbitals via Wannier-like combinations and the fidelity target (Eqs. 7, 9, 10).
Standard construction, but it presumes the atomic state at gate start/end is confined to these orbitals.
ad hoc to paper The harmonic-trap analytical gate condition from the authors' previous tweezer paper (Sec. II, Ref. [36]) transfers to the superlattice when the potential is made quasi-harmonic.
The design principle and the R/T=±i condition are imported from [36]; the superlattice version is validated only numerically.
domain assumption Experimental parameters taken from Ref. [26] (U = h×6.7 kHz, lattice depths) are accurate.
Benchmarks depend on reported experimental values; if those are wrong, the model calibration and validation change.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast collisional $\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}$ gate for fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOFNJ2LO

@misc{pith2026251222569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast collisional $\sqrt\mathrmSWAP$ gate for fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOFNJ2LO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.22569}
}

abstract

Collisional gates in optical superlattices have recently achieved record fidelities, but their operation times are typically limited by tunneling. Here we propose and analyze an alternative route to a fast $\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}$ gate for two fermionic atoms in an optical superlattice based on optimized, time-dependent control of the short and long lattice depths. The gate is implemented by transiently releasing the atoms into a quasi-harmonic confinement centered between the two sites. With an appropriately chosen contact interaction strength, a controlled collision accumulates the exchange phase required for $\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}$ and generates entanglement. We employ a continuum, time-dependent Schr\"odinger-equation simulation that goes beyond a two-site Fermi--Hubbard description and benchmark it against experimentally implemented tunneling-based protocols, reproducing the observed single-particle tunneling and spin-exchange dynamics. For experimentally accessible lattice depths, we find that the proposed gate operates in $\sim 21\,\mu\mathrm{s}$, more than an order of magnitude faster than tunneling-based implementations, while achieving fidelities $\gtrsim 99\%$. We further analyze sensitivity to lattice-depth variations and show that a composite sequence improves robustness. Our results establish fast, collision-mediated entangling gates in superlattices as a promising building block for scalable neutral-atom quantum computation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22569 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[26]

High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms,

P. Bojović, T. Hilker, S. Wang, J. Obermeyer, M. Baren- dregt, D. Tell, T. Chalopin, P. M. Preiss, I. Bloch, and T. Franz, “High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms,” (2025), arXiv:2506.14711 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

arXiv 2025
[1]

Ising formulations of many np problems,

A. Lucas, “Ising formulations of many np problems,” Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014)

2014
[2]

Warm-starting quantum optimization,

D. J Egger, J. Mareček, and S Woerner, “Warm-starting quantum optimization,” Quantum5, 479 (2021)

2021
[3]

Best practices for portfolio optimization 9 by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices,

G. Buonaiuto, F. Gargiulo, G. De Pietro, M. Esposito, and M. Pota, “Best practices for portfolio optimization 9 by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices,” Scientific Reports13, 19434 (2023)

2023
[4]

Polynomial-time algorithms for prime fac- torization and discrete logarithms on a quantum com- puter,

P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime fac- torization and discrete logarithms on a quantum com- puter,” SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484 (1997)

1997
[5]

D. J. Bernstein, J. Buchmann, and E. Dahmen, eds., Post-Quantum Cryptography(Springer, 2009)

2009
[6]

Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies,

A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, “Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies,” Science309, 1704 (2005)

2005
[7]

Quantum computational chemistry,

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, “Quantum computational chemistry,” Re- views of Modern Physics92, 015003 (2020)

2020

Show all 43 references

[8]

Towards near-term quantum simulation of materials,

L. Clinton, T. Cubitt, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, J. Klassen, A. Montanaro, S. Piddock, R. A. Santos, and E. Sheridan, “Towards near-term quantum simulation of materials,” Nature Communications15, 211 (2024)

2024
[9]

Quantum machine learning,

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,” Nature549, 195 (2017)

2017
[10]

Quantum machine learning: from physics to soft- ware engineering,

A. Melnikov, M. Kordzanganeh, A. Alodjants, and R. K. Lee, “Quantum machine learning: from physics to soft- ware engineering,” Advances in Physics: X8, 2165452 (2023)

2023
[11]

Systematic literature review: Quantum ma- chine learning and its applications,

D. Peral-García, J. Cruz-Benito, and F. J. García- Peñalvo, “Systematic literature review: Quantum ma- chine learning and its applications,” Computer Science Review51, 100619 (2024)

2024
[12]

Fermionic quantum com- putation,

S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum com- putation,” Annals of Physics298, 210 (2002)

2002
[13]

Fermionicquantumprocessingwith programmable neutral atom arrays,

D. González-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T.V. Zache, A.M. Kaufman, M.D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermersch, J.Ye, andP.Zoller,“Fermionicquantumprocessingwith programmable neutral atom arrays,” Proceedings of the National Academy of ...

2023
[14]

Quan- tum simulation of exact electron dynamics can be more efficient than classical mean-field methods,

R. Babbush, W. J. Huggins, D. W. Berry, S. F. Ung, A. Zhao, D. R. Reichman, H. Neven, and J. Lee, “Quan- tum simulation of exact electron dynamics can be more efficient than classical mean-field methods,” Nature Com- munications14, 4058 (2023)

2023
[15]

The bravyi–kitaev transformation for quantum computation ofelectronicstructure,

J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, “The bravyi–kitaev transformation for quantum computation ofelectronicstructure,” JournalofChemicalPhysics137, 224109 (2012)

2012
[16]

Many-body physics with ultracold gases,

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, “Many-body physics with ultracold gases,” Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 885–964 (2008)

2008
[17]

A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays,

D Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, Greiner. M, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays,” Nature606, 269 (2022)

2022
[18]

A tweezer array with 6100 highly coher- ent atomic qubits,

H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, “A tweezer array with 6100 highly coher- ent atomic qubits,” Nature647, 60 (2025)

2025
[19]

Neutral atoms in optical tweezers as messenger qubits for scaling up a trapped ion quantum computer,

S. Kotochigova, “Neutral atoms in optical tweezers as messenger qubits for scaling up a trapped ion quantum computer,” Physical Review Research7, 033212 (2025)

2025
[20]

Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules,

M. Endres, “Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules,” Nature Physics17, 1324 (2021)

2021
[21]

Super- charged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits,

L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenbühler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D Schäffner, and G. Birkl, “Super- charged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits,” Optica11, 222 (2024)

2024
[22]

Cavity-enhanced op- tical lattices for scaling neutral atom quantum technolo- gies to higher qubit numbers,

A. J. Park, J. Trautmann, N. Šantić, V. Klüsener, A. Heinz, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, “Cavity-enhanced op- tical lattices for scaling neutral atom quantum technolo- gies to higher qubit numbers,” PRX Quantum3, 030314 (2022)

2022
[23]

High-fidelity detection of large-scale atom arrays in an optical lattice,

R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zei- her, “High-fidelity detection of large-scale atom arrays in an optical lattice,” Physical Review Letters133, 013401 (2024)

2024
[24]

Iterative assembly of atom arrays with cavity-enhanced optical lattices,

M. A. Norcia, H. Kim, W. B. Cairncross, M. Stone, A. Ryou, M. Jaffe, M. O. Brown, K. Barnes, P.Battaglino, T.C.Bohdanowicz, A.Brown, K.Cassella, C.-A. Chen, R. Coxe, D. Crow, J. Epstein, C. Griger, E. Halperin, F. Hummel, A. M. W. Jones, J. M. Kindem, J. King, K. Kotru, J. Lau...

2024
[25]

Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices,

F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Sni- girev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, “Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices,” Physical Review Research (2024)

2024
[27]

Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using rydberg blockade,

T. Wilk, A. Gaëtan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Miroshny- chenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, “Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using rydberg blockade,” Physical Review Letters104, 010502 (2010)

2010
[28]

Demonstration of a neutral atom controlled-not quantum gate,

L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, “Demonstration of a neutral atom controlled-not quantum gate,” Physical Review Letters 104, 010503 (2010)

2010
[29]

Universal neutral-atom quantum computer with individual optical addressing and nondestructive readout,

A.G. Radnaev, W.C. Chung, D.C. Cole, D. Mason, T.G. Ballance, M.J. Bedalov, D.A. Belknap, M.R. Berman, M. Blakely, I.L. Bloomfield, P.D. Buttler, C. Campbell, A. Chopinaud, E. Copenhaver, M.K. Dawes, S.Y. Eu- banks, A.J. Friss, D.M. Garcia, J. Gilbert, M. Gillette, P. Goiporia...

2025
[30]

Univer- sal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for 10 tweezer clocks,

R. Finkelstein, R. B. Tsai, X. Sun, P. Scholl, S. Direkci, T. Gefen, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, and M. Endres, “Univer- sal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for 10 tweezer clocks,” Nature634, 321 (2024)

2024
[31]

Controlled collisions for multi-particle entanglement of optically trapped atoms,

O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. Hän- sch, and I. Bloch, “Controlled collisions for multi-particle entanglement of optically trapped atoms,” Nature425, 937 (2003)

2003
[32]

Direct observa- tion of second-order atom tunnelling,

S. Fölling, S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, M. Feld, R. Saers, A. Widera, T. Müller, and I. Bloch, “Direct observa- tion of second-order atom tunnelling,” Nature448, 1029 (2007)

2007
[33]

Controlled exchange interaction between pairs of neutral atoms in an optical lattice,

M. Anderlini, P. J. Lee, B. L. Brown, J. Sebby-Strabley, W. D. Phillips, and J. V. Porto, “Controlled exchange interaction between pairs of neutral atoms in an optical lattice,” Nature448, 452 (2007)

2007
[34]

Time-resolvedobservationandcon- trol of superexchange interactions with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,

S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S. Fölling, M. Feld, U. Schnor- rberger, A. M. Rey, A. Polkovnikov, E. A. Demler, M. D. Lukin, andI.Bloch,“Time-resolvedobservationandcon- trol of superexchange interactions with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Science319, 295 (2008)

2008
[35]

Scalable multipartite entanglement created by spin exchange in an optical lattice,

W.-Y. Zhang, M. Zhou, Y.-B. Tang, S. Wu, S.-C. Ji, and J.-W. Pan, “Scalable multipartite entanglement created by spin exchange in an optical lattice,” Physical Review Letters131, 073401 (2023)

2023
[36]

Fast universal two-qubit gate for neutral fermionic atoms in optical tweezers,

J. Nemirovsky and Y. Sagi, “Fast universal two-qubit gate for neutral fermionic atoms in optical tweezers,” Physical Review Research3, 013113 (2021)

2021
[37]

Quantum logic via the exchange blockade in ultracold collisions,

D. Hayes, P. S. Julienne, and I. H. Deutsch, “Quantum logic via the exchange blockade in ultracold collisions,” Physical Review Letters98, 070501 (2007)

2007
[38]

at all times, V(x, τ) =V S(τ) cos 2 πx ax +V L(τ) sin 2 πx 2ax ,(1) whereV S andV L denote the short- and long-lattice depths, respectively, andax is the short-lattice constant. A straightforward extension of our previous approach would be to completely turn off the short latt...
[39]

Optical superlat- tice for engineering hubbard couplings in quantum simu- lation,

T. Chalopin, P. Bojović, D. Bourgund, S. Wang, T. Franz, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, “Optical superlat- tice for engineering hubbard couplings in quantum simu- lation,” Physical Review Letters134, 053402 (2025)

2025
[40]

Two cold atoms in a harmonic trap,

T. Busch, B. G. Englert, K. Rzażewski, and M. Wilkens, “Two cold atoms in a harmonic trap,” Foundations of Physics28, 549 (1998)

1998
[41]

Fes- hbach resonances in ultracold gases,

C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, “Fes- hbach resonances in ultracold gases,” Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1225 (2010)

2010
[42]

The beam propagation method: an analysis of its applicability,

L. Thylen, “The beam propagation method: an analysis of its applicability,” Optical and quantum electronics15, 433 (1983)

1983
[43]

Optimizing two-qubit gates for ultracold fermions in optical lattices,

J. A. P. Reuter, J. Singh, T. Calarco, F. F. Motzoi, and R. Zeier, “Optimizing two-qubit gates for ultracold fermions in optical lattices,” (2025), arXiv:2512.03647 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms,

P. Bojović, T. Hilker, S. Wang, J. Obermeyer, M. Baren- dregt, D. Tell, T. Chalopin, P. M. Preiss, I. Bloch, and T. Franz, “High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms,” (2025), arXiv:2506.14711 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Ising formulations of many np problems,

A. Lucas, “Ising formulations of many np problems,” Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014)

2014

[3] [2]

Warm-starting quantum optimization,

D. J Egger, J. Mareček, and S Woerner, “Warm-starting quantum optimization,” Quantum5, 479 (2021)

2021

[4] [3]

Best practices for portfolio optimization 9 by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices,

G. Buonaiuto, F. Gargiulo, G. De Pietro, M. Esposito, and M. Pota, “Best practices for portfolio optimization 9 by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices,” Scientific Reports13, 19434 (2023)

2023

[5] [4]

Polynomial-time algorithms for prime fac- torization and discrete logarithms on a quantum com- puter,

P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime fac- torization and discrete logarithms on a quantum com- puter,” SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484 (1997)

1997

[6] [5]

D. J. Bernstein, J. Buchmann, and E. Dahmen, eds., Post-Quantum Cryptography(Springer, 2009)

2009

[7] [6]

Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies,

A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, “Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies,” Science309, 1704 (2005)

2005

[8] [7]

Quantum computational chemistry,

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, “Quantum computational chemistry,” Re- views of Modern Physics92, 015003 (2020)

2020