Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Noise-aware emulation and cross-device validation of neutral atom analog quantum processing units

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 noise model calibrated on one neutral-atom quantum processor, applied without device-specific refitting, reproduces the measured annealing and post-quench observables on all three devices of the same generation.

desk verdict A genuinely useful open-source noise emulator for neutral-atom QPUs, but the headline 'single model, no refitting' claim needs a qualifier because one detuning offset was fitted to FC1. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28364 v1 pith:SBDVE4YB submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Constantin Dalyac , Sergi Julià-Farré , Lucas Leclerc , Vittorio Vitale , Boris Albrecht , Lucas Béguin , Kemal Bidzhiev , Petru Borta
show 21 more authors
Clémence Briosne-Frejaville Daniel J. Campbell Dorian Claveau Makrem Chatti Antoine Cornillot Julius de Hond Anita Devi Thomas Eritzpokhoff Gaétan Hercé Fergus Hayes Soufiane Kaghad Arun Kumar Abhimanyu Lucas Lassablière Mauro Mendizabal Anton Quelle Julien Ripoll Henrique Silvério Joseph Vovrosh Guillaume Villaret Adrien Signoles Alexandre Dauphin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords neutral-atomquantumcomputingRydbergarraysnoise-awareemulationannealingpost-quenchdynamicscross-devicevalidationMonteCarlowavefunctionsamplingmatrixproductstates
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 sets out to show that analog neutral-atom quantum processors can be described by one portable noise model: a parameter set calibrated on a single device predicts what the other devices of the same generation will measure. The authors build an emulator that pushes the dominant hardware noise sources through the full computation cycle and test it on 36 atoms arranged on a $6\times 6$ square lattice, running both an antiferromagnetic annealing protocol and a post-quench Ising dynamics protocol on three machines. The measured staggered magnetization and Rydberg population curves fall inside the emulator's uncertainty envelopes for all three devices, with the same parameters used throughout. The practical stake is that a device's output can be interpreted as the programmed Hamiltonian plus known, transferable noise, rather than as an idiosyncratic machine artifact.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is Monte Carlo wavefunction sampling over a stochastic distribution of Hamiltonian parameters, implemented in the open-source Pulser library with the emu-mps matrix-product-state backend. Each trajectory draws atom-specific positions, Rabi frequency and detuning corrections, preparation errors, and Lindblad jumps, then evolves the state with the time-dependent variational principle; observables are estimated from the trajectory ensemble, and the uncertainty envelope is the 2.5th--97.5th percentile spread across trajectories, interpreted as shot-to-shot hardware variability rather than the sampling error of the mean. This construction lets the same parameter table act as a predictive model of the QPU cycle end to end.

What would settle it

Run the post-quench protocol at $\Omega/U = 1.1$ with a bond dimension 1024 emulation; if the connected correlation $C_n(t)$ shifts by more than the noise-envelope width at times beyond about 1000 ns, the agreement between QPU data and the envelope does not establish the noise model. A separate device-level check would be to calibrate the parameter set on FC1, then measure the same protocols on a fourth same-generation machine with a deliberately different trap temperature: if the data fall outside the predicted envelope, the transferability claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the dominant noise mechanisms of a Rydberg QPU--thermal motion and Doppler shifts, laser intensity and phase fluctuations, state preparation and measurement errors, and effective decay and dephasing channels--can be collected into a single parameter set whose Monte Carlo emulation reproduces hardware observables quantitatively. The central assertion is cross-device transfer: parameters calibrated on the FC1 machine, without refitting, produce envelopes that contain the data from SA1 and Ruby in both protocols. For annealing, the framework captures the growth and saturation of the staggered magnetization as a function of the final ramp-down duration; for post-quench dynamics, it captures the weakly interacting Rabi oscillations and the depressed plateau in the strongly interacting regime, and it reproduces the connected nearest-neighbor correlations where the classical simulation is converged. Residual discrepancies are explained as static detuning offsets beyond calibration precision, and a control experiment with a deliberately programmed offset supports that explanation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the classical matrix-product-state emulation, which truncates the quantum state to a maximum bond dimension of 512 with 5 ns time steps and 100 Monte Carlo trajectories, is accurate enough to serve as the reference when judging whether the hardware data match the noise model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single calibration campaign on one device can serve as a portable description of same-generation hardware, so cross-device comparisons can separate reproducible physics from machine-specific deviations.
  • The per-regime noise budget identifies which hardware upgrades matter: thermal positional disorder dominates the strongly interacting quench, decoherence dominates long annealing ramps, and laser fluctuations are comparatively benign for adiabatic preparation.
  • Protocol parameters such as the annealing ramp-down time can be optimized in emulation before running hardware, giving a quantitative trade-off between diabatic errors at short times and noise degradation at long times.
  • The framework can be extended to regimes beyond classical reach by validating the model where simulations exist, then using the same parameter set to assess larger systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the transferability claim survives recalibration and drift tests, the recurring cost of validating analog QPUs shifts from per-device noise characterization to one-time calibration plus periodic drift checks.
  • The residual detuning-offset result suggests that routine online measurement of the effective detuning before each protocol could tighten the envelopes; the paper does not itself propose this procedure.
  • Because connected correlations in the strong-interaction regime are not fully converged at bond dimension 512, the strongest test of the noise model in that regime would come from improved classical tensor-network simulations rather than from the current correlation data.
  • A natural stress test would be to change a single noise parameter, such as the trap temperature, and verify that the emulator envelope moves in the predicted direction.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a noise-aware emulation framework for neutral-atom analog quantum processing units, implemented in the open-source Pulser/emu-mps toolchain. The framework propagates thermal, laser, SPAM, decoherence, and systematic-bias noise through Monte Carlo wavefunction trajectories and predicts observables for two benchmark protocols: antiferromagnetic quantum annealing and post-quench Rydberg population dynamics. The authors validate the model against measurements on three Pasqal QPUs (FC1, SA1, Ruby) and claim that a single noise model, calibrated on FC1, reproduces the behavior of all three devices without device-specific refitting. They also decompose the noise budget by mechanism, analyze residual systematic detuning offsets, and discuss the convergence limits of the matrix-product-state emulations.

Significance. If the central transfer claim holds, the paper is valuable: it provides a concrete, open-source path from microscopic hardware parameters to quantitative predictions of observables on analog neutral-atom devices, and it explicitly tests cross-device reproducibility, which is often only assumed. The manuscript is unusually careful in several respects: it distinguishes Monte Carlo estimation error from trajectory-to-trajectory variability, reports a detailed noise parameter table with physically motivated values, checks bond-dimension convergence in Appendix E, and openly acknowledges residual discrepancies and the post hoc nature of the detuning offset. These practices raise the standard for validation studies in this area. The stress-test concern about the a posteriori detuning offset is real and load-bearing, and the convergence caveat for the strong-interaction correlation data is also central to the validation claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI.C and Fig. 4] The residual detuning offset δ0/(2π) = −0.2 MHz is explicitly stated to be 'inferred a posteriori from the comparison itself,' and its magnitude is twice the calibration precision quoted in Table II (≈100 kHz). This is an additional free parameter selected on FC1 post-quench data, so the abstract, introduction, and conclusion claim that a single noise model was 'calibrated on one device' overstates the predictive content of the FC1 agreement. The paper should either restate the claim as 'one model with one parameter fitted to FC1 transfers to SA1 and Ruby,' or show quantitatively that the SA1/Ruby agreement in Fig. 1(b)–(d) is insensitive to removing or varying this offset. The deliberately programmed +0.67 MHz test is a good consistency check of the mechanism, but it does not establish the uniqueness or necessity of the −0.2 MHz value.
  2. [Sec. VI.D and Appendix E, Fig. 8(d)] The bond-dimension scaling in Appendix E shows that the connected correlations Cn in the strong-interaction regime are not converged at χ=512 already at t ≈ 1000 ns, and the text itself states that these simulations 'remain valuable for assessing qualitative trends.' Since the conclusion claims the framework captures 'both local observables and connected two-body correlations,' the validation of Cn in Fig. 5(b) is not established by the current classical reference. The manuscript needs either a converged reference for the strong-interaction correlation data or a documented convergence-induced error bar on the noise envelope before claiming that the QPU correlation measurements are consistent with the noise model in that regime.
  3. [Fig. 1(b)–(d) and Sec. III] The central cross-device claim rests primarily on visual agreement between experimental markers and shaded uncertainty envelopes; no quantitative statistic is reported, such as the fraction of data points outside the 2.5–97.5 percentile envelope, per-device normalized residuals, or a goodness-of-fit measure for each protocol. Given that the paper's headline result is that a single calibrated model transfers across three QPUs, the manuscript should quantify the agreement per device and per protocol, and discuss any systematic per-device trends that may be hidden by the envelope width.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix E] 'we use a smalldtas a time step' should read 'a small dt as a time step'; there is also a typo 'asessing' in Sec. VI.D.
  2. [Sec. IIIA and Appendix E1] The main text states that n_shots = 300 bitstrings are used for the annealing observable, while Appendix E1 states N_shots = 10^3; these numbers should be reconciled.
  3. [References [15], [25]] The emulator is cited via documentation URLs rather than a versioned release; please provide a stable version or DOI so that the numerical results are reproducible.
  4. [Fig. 5(b)] For the strong-interaction correlation panel, it would be helpful to show the χ=128 and χ=256 curves in the same figure, or at least to state in the caption that the envelope is not converged with respect to bond dimension.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

FC1 post-quench agreement is partly a fit: the −0.2 MHz detuning offset is inferred a posteriori from the same FC1 comparison, while the SA1/Ruby transfer and the +0.67 MHz programmed offset retain genuine predictive content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI.C ('Accounting for residual systematic offsets in QPU–noise model comparisons'), Fig. 4]
    "We observe that the early-time discrepancy between the noise model and the QPU data is compatible with the presence of a Δδ/(2π) = −0.2 MHz offset. ... Since the value δ0/(2π) = −0.2 MHz is inferred a posteriori from the comparison itself, we performed an independent consistency check of this interpretation: we deliberately programmed a detuning offset, δ0/(2π) = +0.67 MHz, much larger than both the typical calibration precision (≈100 kHz, Tab. II) and the inferred residual bias and repeated the experiment."

    The paper's headline validation is that a single noise model calibrated on one device reproduces the behavior of all three QPUs, with FC1 shown in Figs. 1–4. The −0.2 MHz detuning bias is not taken from the Table II calibration precision (≈100 kHz); it is introduced after seeing the FC1 post-quench data to remove the early-time discrepancy. The FC1 data points lying inside the 'All noise with δ0/(2π) = −0.2 MHz' envelope are therefore not an independent prediction of the model: one free parameter was adjusted to the same comparison that is then presented as agreement. The deliberately programmed +0.67 MHz experiment is a genuine out-of-sample consistency check, and the SA1/Ruby comparisons were not used to set parameters, so the cross-device claim retains independent content.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained: the noise parameters in Table II come from hardware calibration (laser stability, temperature, SPAM rates, Lindblad channels), not from fitting the benchmark observables; SA1 and Ruby data were not used to set any noise parameter; and the deliberately programmed +0.67 MHz detuning offset tests the model's sensitivity in a new experimental condition. The MPS bond-dimension non-convergence in the strong-interaction correlation regime (Appendix E, Sec. VI.D) is a classical-simulation accuracy caveat, not a circularity. The one load-bearing circular element is the −0.2 MHz detuning offset in Sec. VI.C: the paper explicitly states it is 'inferred a posteriori from the comparison itself,' i.e. chosen to remove the residual early-time mismatch between the full-noise emulator and the FC1 post-quench data. Because the same FC1 data are then reported as falling within the emulator envelope, that specific agreement is partly a fit rather than a prediction. This does not invalidate the central cross-device transfer claim—the offset is a single scalar applied uniformly, and the SA1/Ruby data are genuinely out-of-sample—but it means the clean 'single noise model, calibrated on one device' statement should be qualified as 'a single model with one parameter fitted to FC1 benchmark data transfers to the other devices.' Overall, the paper is honest about the a posteriori nature of this parameter, and the independent +0.67 MHz experiment and the SA1/Ruby predictions provide enough independent anchoring that the circularity is partial, not total. Score 4.0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a calibrated set of hardware noise values, the transferability of those values across devices, and several modeling approximations. None of these are derived from first principles in this paper. The most fragile items are noise transferability across devices and MPS convergence in the strong interaction regime, both of which are load-bearing for the validation.

free parameters (10)
  • Laser Rabi fluctuation sigma_Omega = approximately 0.3 percent of Omega (Table II)
    Shot to shot laser intensity noise, calibrated on FC1 and applied to all devices.
  • Detuning fluctuation sigma_delta = approximately 8 kHz (Table II)
    Shot to shot laser phase and intensity fluctuations affecting the effective detuning.
  • In-sequence phase noise delta_HF(t) = PSD-based realization from FC1 laser noise (Table II)
    Time dependent detuning noise during the pulse sequence, sampled from a measured frequency noise PSD.
  • Spatial Rabi waist w_Omega = approximately 141 micrometers (Table II)
    Gaussian transverse profile of the excitation beam, producing inhomogeneous Rabi frequency across the array.
  • Trap temperature and trap parameters T, w_trap, U_trap = T approximately 20 microkelvin, w_trap approximately 0.84 micrometer, U_trap approximately 70 microkelvin
    Set thermal positional disorder and Doppler detuning spreads; calibrated on FC1.
  • Decoherence rates gamma_1, gamma_2 = gamma_1 approximately 0.01 per microsecond, gamma_2 approximately 0.05 per microsecond
    Effective Rydberg decay and dephasing rates used in the Lindblad channels.
  • SPAM rates eta, epsilon, epsilon_prime = eta approximately 1.8 percent, epsilon approximately 1 percent, epsilon_prime approximately 7 percent
    State preparation error and asymmetric readout misclassification probabilities.
  • Systematic Hamiltonian biases Delta_Omega, Delta_delta, Delta_r = Delta_Omega/Omega approximately 1 percent, Delta_delta/(2pi) approximately 100 kHz, Delta_r/r approximately 1 percent
    Calibration limited offsets in Rabi frequency, detuning, and interatomic spacing.
  • Residual detuning offset delta_0 = -0.2 MHz in the strong interaction post-quench regime
    Inferred a posteriori in Sec. VI.C to explain early time discrepancy; this is a fitted parameter, not a predicted one.
  • MPS truncation parameters dt, chi, n_MC = dt = 5 ns or 10 ns, chi at most 512, n_MC = 100 trajectories for the full model
    Chosen for numerical tractability; the strong interaction correlation results are not fully converged at these values.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Two-photon Rydberg excitation reduces to an effective two-level system
    App. A; underlies Eq. (1) and all emulations. Adiabatic elimination is assumed valid, and leakage beyond the two-level manifold is neglected.
  • domain assumption Open-system dynamics are described by a Markovian local Lindblad master equation
    Eq. (7), Sec. IV.D; assumes local decay and dephasing jump operators capture the environment.
  • ad hoc to paper FC1 noise parameters transfer to SA1 and Ruby without device specific refitting
    Sec. III; this transferability is the central empirical claim, but it is assumed rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper MPS simulations with the chosen bond dimension and time step are accurate ground truth
    App. E and Sec. VI.D; the paper admits the strong interaction correlation results are not fully converged at chi = 512.
  • domain assumption The Monte Carlo trajectory percentile spread represents hardware shot to shot variability
    Sec. IV.E; the paper notes this interpretation can break down for correlated or slowly varying noise.
  • domain assumption Leakage channels beyond the qubit manifold are negligible for these observables
    Table II marks the irreversible decay channels outside the |g>, |r> manifold as not included in the numerical emulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The post hoc detuning offset is a real hardware bias rather than an arbitrary fitting knob
    Sec. VI.C; the independent check with a programmed +0.67 MHz offset supports this interpretation, but the -0.2 MHz value itself is inferred from the data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise-aware emulation and cross-device validation of neutral atom analog quantum processing units." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBDVE4YB

@misc{pith2026260728364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise-aware emulation and cross-device validation of neutral atom analog quantum processing units},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBDVE4YB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28364}
}
read the original abstract

Analog quantum processors based on Rydberg atom arrays are a powerful platform for many-body quantum simulation, combinatorial optimization, and graph machine learning. As these devices become increasingly accessible, establishing confidence in their outputs requires predictive models that quantitatively connect microscopic hardware imperfections to empirical results. Here, we present a noise-aware emulation framework that propagates the dominant noise mechanisms throughout the full computation cycle to predict device behavior. We validate the framework by benchmarking two representative protocols, quantum annealing and post-quench dynamics, on three Pasqal quantum processors where classical simulations still provide ground truth. Across all three devices, the measured observables fall within the uncertainty envelopes predicted by the emulator. Beyond reproducing the data, the framework isolates which physical mechanism dominates in each operating regime, provides quantitative guidance for algorithm design and hardware improvements, and establishes a foundation for verifying analog processors in regimes beyond classical reach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Analog Rydberg QPU cycle and benchmark protocols. (a), Schematic of the QPU cycle for a register of two-level atoms with ground state |g⟩ and Rydberg state |r⟩ driven by a global Rabi frequency Ω(t) and detuning δ(t), with interactions Uij set by the geometry and atomic spacing R. After the programmed evolution, projective readout in the z basis is obtained from fluorescence imaging. Bitstrings over nshots repetitio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Annealing noise-budget decomposition. (a), Staggered magnetization mstag versus final ramp-down duration tfall. Noiseless emulation (black dashed), single￾noise contributions—laser (blue), detection (pink), thermal (orange), decoherence (green), —and full noise model (black, with shaded Monte Carlo envelope), compared to FC1 exper￾imental data (markers with shot-noise error bars). (b), Out￾come distribution of bitst… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Noise-emulation methodology for the post￾quench dynamics protocol. Dynamics of the mean Ry￾dberg population, n(t), in a 6×6 square lattice. We compare the Pasqal FC1 data (white marker with shot-noise error bars) against emu-mps emulators of the ideal Hamiltonian (dashed black line), the full noise model (solid green line, with con￾fidence area), and marginal noise models with effects from: lasers (solid blue line),… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of systematic experimental para￾meter biases in post quench-dynamics. Dynamics of the mean Rydberg population, n(t), in a 6 × 6 square lattice (strong interaction regime Ω/U = 1.1). Emulations of the full noise model with emu-mps, including different systematic …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Noiseless MPS-simulated staggered magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Noiseless behavior of observables during post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thermal noise In this section, we focus on the impact of finite temper- ature on the system dynamics and on its numerical mod- eling. Although the atoms are confined within optical 14 Parameter units Value Parameter units Value C6/ℏ rad·µs −1·µm 6 865723.02r ij µm5≤r ij <100 U≡ 1 ℏ C6 r6 ij rad·µs −1 0<U≤2π·8.8t µst≤6 Ω rad·µs −1 0≤Ω≤2π·2N -≲256 δ rad·µs ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Reduced 1

    Conversely, the "Reduced 1" and "Reduced 2" noise levels are obtained by settingα= 1/2,1/4, respectively. In the next sections, we thoroughly link the noise sources listed in Tab. II to the physical mechanism at their origin. Appendix D: Noise description

    work page

  3. [3]

    These fluctuations can be separated into slow (low-frequency) and fast (high-frequency) contributions

    Controls Real lasers are not perfectly stable and exhibit both in- tensity and phase fluctuations [27, 28], which can signific- antly affect driven atomic dynamics. These fluctuations can be separated into slow (low-frequency) and fast (high-frequency) contributions. High-frequency noise oc- curs on timescales comparable to or shorter than the pulse durat...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For completeness, let us note that one can talk about fre- quency and phase noise interchangeably, since the PSDs are simply related through the relationSν(f) =f 2Sϕ(f)

    work page

  5. [5]

    This coupling leads to decoherence, which limits the fidel- ity and coherence time of quantum operations

    Effective couplings Like any many-body quantum system, atoms are also inherently coupled to environmental degrees of freedom not explicitly included in the system Hamiltonian. This coupling leads to decoherence, which limits the fidel- ity and coherence time of quantum operations. Here we list several physical mechanisms that contribute to this effect. Ry...

    work page

  6. [6]

    State preparation errors -They occur when an atom is initially pumped into an unwanted hyperfine ground state that is not coupled to the Rydberg state by the two-photon transition

    SPAM errors a. State preparation errors -They occur when an atom is initially pumped into an unwanted hyperfine ground state that is not coupled to the Rydberg state by the two-photon transition. We denote the probability of this occurring per site and per shot asη. In simulations, this can be implemented by randomly selecting sites that are neglected in ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Systematic off-sets and biases Systematic errors arise from our inability to perfectly control the Hamiltonian parameters in both space and time. Physically, they correspond, for instance, to (constant) spatial inhomogeneities or deviations in the time-dependence of the effective Hamiltonian parametersΩ,δ, and the interaction strength. They remain constan...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Annealing protocols For the annealing protocol, the relevant quantity is the ordered bitstring prepared at the end of the se- quence rather than the transient dynamics. We therefore sampleN shots = 10 3 bitstrings from the final matrix- product state of each trajectory, reproducing the pro- jective readout of the QPU, and estimate the staggered magnetizat...

    work page

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    For computational efficiency, we estimate the latter dir- ectly from end-time trajectory wavefunctions

    Post-quench protocols For the post-quench protocol, the relevant quantities are expectation values of physical observables over time. For computational efficiency, we estimate the latter dir- ectly from end-time trajectory wavefunctions. That is, we avoid sampling bitstrings a...

    1936

  2. [10]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    A. J. Menssen, T. Wang, M. Gullans, T. Manovitz, J. M. Taylor, J. Cong, J. Sinclair, Z. Aqua, D. J. Blu- menthal, J. P. B. Ataides, J. Borregaard, A. Browaeys, P. Cappellaro, S. Choi, A. Cooper, R. Côté, J. P. Covey, A. Dauphin, I. Dimitrova, M. Eichenfield, D. Englund, J. Fre...

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dalyac, L

    C. Dalyac, L. Leclerc, L. Vignoli, M. Djellabi, W. d. S. Coelho, B. Ximenez, A. Dareau, D. Dreon, V. E. Elfv- ing, A. Signoles, L.-P. Henry, and L. Henriet, Graph al- gorithms with neutral atom quantum processors, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 177 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Vovrosh, S

    J. Vovrosh, S. Julià-Farré, W. Krinitsin, M. Kaicher, F. Hayes, E. Gottlob, A. Kshetrimayum, K. Bidzhiev, S. B. Jäger, M. Schmitt, J. Tindall, C. Dalyac, T. Mendes-Santos, and A. Dauphin, Simulating dynam- ics of the two-dimensional transverse-field Ising model: A comparative ...

    2026

  8. [16]

    Leclerc, S

    L. Leclerc, S. Julià-Farré, G. S. Freitas, G. Villaret, B. Albrecht, L. Béguin, L. Bourachot, C. Briosne- Frejaville, D. Claveau, A. Cornillot, J. d. Hond, D. Di- allo, C. Dupays, R. Dupont, T. Eritzpokhoff, E. Gottlob, L. Henriet, M. Kaicher, L. Lassablière, A. Lindberg, Y. M...

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    De Léséleuc, D

    S. De Léséleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Analysis of imperfections in the coher- ent optical excitation of single atoms to Rydberg states, Phys. Rev. A97, 053803 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Wurtz, A

    J. Wurtz, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, J. Amato- Grill, S. H. Cantu, F. Huber, A. Lukin, F. Liu, P. Weinberg, J. Long, S.-T. Wang, N. Gemelke, and A. Keesling, Aquila: QuEra’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer (2023), arXiv:2306.11727 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. L. Shaw, Z. Chen, J. Choi, D. K. Mark, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, A. Elben, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Bench- marking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator, Nature628, 71 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. Läuchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of Rydberg atoms, Nature595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Trivedi, A

    R. Trivedi, A. Franco Rubio, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum advantage and stability to errors in analogue quantum simulators, Nat. Commun.15, 6507 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Flannigan, N

    S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, G. H. Low, A. Buyskikh, I. Bloch, P. Zoller, M. Troyer, and A. J. Daley, Propaga- tion of errors and quantitative quantum simulation with quantum advantage, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 045025 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    readthedocs.io/en/stable/(2026)

    Pasqal, Pulser documentation,https://pulser. readthedocs.io/en/stable/(2026)

    2026

  16. [24]

    Pasqal, Pasqal analog emulators (emu-mps),https: //pasqal-io.github.io/emulators/latest/emu_mps/ (2026)

    2026

  17. [25]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, and W. W. Ho, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, K. Boothby, F. Altomare, M. Asad, A. J. Berkley, M. Boschnak, K. Chern, H.Christiani, S.Cibere, J.Connor, M.H.Dehn, R.Desh- pande, S. Ejtemaee, P. Farre,...

    2025

  19. [27]

    F. Fang, K. Wang, V. S. Liu, Y. Wang, R. Cimmino, J. Wei, M. Bintz, A. Parr, J. Kemp, K.-K. Ni, and N. Y. Yao, Probing critical phenomena in open quantum sys- tems using atom arrays, Science390, 601 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    X. Sun, Y. Le, S. Naus, R. B.-S. Tsai, L. R. B. Picard, S. Murciano, M. Knap, J. Alicea, and M. Endres, Ex- perimental observation of conformal field theory spectra (2026), arXiv:2601.16275 [quant-ph]

    2026

  21. [29]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J. Liu, R. Sama- jdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, QuantumOp...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Leclerc, C

    L. Leclerc, C. Dalyac, P. Bendotti, R. Griset, J. Mikael, and L. Henriet, Implementing transferable annealing pro- tocols for combinatorial optimization on neutral-atom quantum processors: A case study on smart charging of electric vehicles, Phys. Rev. A111, 032611 (2025). 21

    2025

  23. [31]

    Bapst, L

    V. Bapst, L. Foini, F. Krzakala, G. Semerjian, and F. Zamponi, The quantum adiabatic algorithm applied to random optimization problems: The quantum spin glass perspective, Physics Reports523, 127 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    M. H. S. Amin, Consistency of the Adiabatic Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 220401 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Silvério, S

    H. Silvério, S. Grijalva, C. Dalyac, L. Leclerc, P. J. Karalekas, N. Shammah, M. Beji, L.-P. Henry, and L.Henriet,Pulser: Anopen-sourcepackageforthedesign of pulse sequences in programmable neutral-atom arrays, Quantum6, 629 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Bidzhiev, S

    K. Bidzhiev, S. Grava, P. l. Henaff, M. Mendizabal, E. Merhej, and A. Quelle, Efficient Emulation of Neutral Atom Quantum Hardware (2025), arXiv:2510.09813

    2025

  27. [35]

    Scholl,Quantum simulation of spin models with large arrays of Rydberg atoms, Ph.D

    P. Scholl,Quantum simulation of spin models with large arrays of Rydberg atoms, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris- Saclay (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    G. M. Stéphan, Laser line shape and spectral density of frequency noise, Phys. Rev. A71, 043809 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    G. D. Domenico, S. Schilt, and P. Thomann, Simple ap- proach to the relation between laser frequency noise and laser line shape, Applied Optics49, 4801 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    A. J. Ferris and G. Vidal, Perfect sampling with unitary tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B85, 165146 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    C.Tuchendler,Energydistributionandcoolingofasingle atom in an optical tweezer, Phys. Rev. A78, 033425 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidemüller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Op- tical dipole traps for neutral atoms, Advances in Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics42, 95 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Scott, M. Friesen, and M. Saffman, Sensitiv- ity of quantum gate fidelity to laser phase and intensity noise, Phys. Rev. A107, 042611 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Cladé,Oscillations de Bloch d’atomes ultrafroids et mesure de la constante de structure fine, Theses, Uni- versité Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI (2005)

    P. Cladé,Oscillations de Bloch d’atomes ultrafroids et mesure de la constante de structure fine, Theses, Uni- versité Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    M. L. Day, P. J. Low, B. White, R. Islam, and C. Senko, Limits on atomic qubit control from laser noise, npj Quantum Inf8, 72 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Advances in Physics63, 77 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,Concepts and Meth- ods in the Theory of Open Quantum Systems, edited by F. Benatti and R. Floreanini (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2003)

    2003

  38. [46]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schirò, Many- body open quantum systems, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 099 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Cazals, A

    P. Cazals, A. François, L. Henriet, L. Leclerc, M. Marin, Y. Naghmouchi, W. d. S. Coelho, F. Sikora, V. Vitale, R. Watrigant, M. W. Garzillo, and C. Dalyac, Identifying hard native instances for the maximum independent set problem on neutral atoms quantum processors (2025), ar...

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    E. B. Saleh and M. C. Teich,Fundamentals of Photonics (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    Català-Castro and E

    F. Català-Castro and E. Martín-Badosa, Positioning Ac- curacy in Holographic Optical Traps, Micromachines12, 559 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Engström, M

    D. Engström, M. Persson, J. Bengtsson, and M. Gok- sör, Calibration of spatial light modulators suffering from spatially varying phase response, Opt. Express, OE21, 16086 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Barredo, V

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, S. de Léséleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Synthetic three-dimensional atomic struc- tures assembled atom by atom, Nature561, 79 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de Léséleuc, T. Macrì, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single Rydberg atoms for realizing quantum Ising models, Nature534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    J. E. Curtis, B. A. Koss, and D. G. Grier, Dynamic holo- graphic optical tweezers, Optics Communications207, 169 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    Maydan, Acoustooptical pulse modulators, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics6, 15 (1970)

    D. Maydan, Acoustooptical pulse modulators, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics6, 15 (1970)

    1970

  47. [55]

    Hecht,Optics(Pearson Education, Incorporated, 2017)

    E. Hecht,Optics(Pearson Education, Incorporated, 2017)

    2017

Pith tools

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