Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 105 references

Applications of Spin-Dependent Generalized Squeezing in Hybrid Spin-Oscillator Quantum Processors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Spin-dependent generalized squeezing produces a Fock-dependent geometric phase that speeds up two-qubit gates and, on the same footing, enables N-body interactions, thermometry, and oscillator state preparation.

desk verdict Clean Magnus treatment of generalized-squeezing gates, with a real but explicitly owned gap in the N-body section. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04197 v1 pith:SQPJNDWO submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Kai Shinbrough , Donovan J. Webb , Iver R. {O}vergaard , Oana Băzăvan , Sebastian Saner , Christopher J. Ballance , Raghavendra Srinivas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords generalizedsqueezinggeometricphasegateshybridspin-oscillatorprocessorsN-bodyinteractionsbosonicthermometryFockstatepreparationSchrödingercatstatesMagnusexpansion
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 tries to establish that spin-dependent generalized squeezing — interactions of the form $\hat H(t)=(\hbar\Omega/2)\hat J_{\theta,\phi}(\hat a^k e^{i\delta t}+\hat a^{\dagger k}e^{-i\delta t})$ — is a single resource for hybrid spin-oscillator quantum processors. The load-bearing effect is a geometric phase that is nonlinear in the oscillator Fock number and in the interaction order $k$; from it the paper derives faster two-qubit entangling gates, direct N-body spin couplings, phonon thermometry via spin readout, and the preparation of Fock and Schr\"odinger cat states through mid-circuit measurement. A sympathetic reader would care because these four capabilities are usually treated as separate protocols, and the paper traces them all to one mechanism, with analytic gate times and fidelities. If correct, it would let a single platform switch between fast discrete-variable computation, many-body simulation, and continuous-variable sensing by re-tuning one interaction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin-dependent generalized squeezing Hamiltonian of order $k$, $\hat H(t)=(\hbar\Omega/2)\hat J_{\theta,\phi}(\hat a^k e^{i\delta t}+\hat a^{\dagger k}e^{-i\delta t})$, a spin-conditioned drive that generates powers of oscillator creation and annihilation operators. The analytical engine is the Magnus expansion of the time evolution operator; its second-order term carries the commutator $[\hat a^k,\hat a^{\dagger k}]$, whose Fock-state expectation value is what makes the geometric phase nonlinear in $n_i$ and $k$. For state preparation, the same phase enters the diagonal Fock transfer function $t_n=1+e^{-i\theta_d}\sin\phi_r$ that each projective spin measurement applies to the oscillator.

What would settle it

A direct numerical scan of the effective 4-body Hamiltonian under Assignment strategy (2) with detunings $(13,16,4,1)\Delta$: if the leftover spin-population error does not decrease as $\Delta$ grows, or if realistic finite-rise pulse shapes create resonances at lower order, the claim that arbitrary-order N-body interactions can be built from $k=2$ squeezing alone fails. The paper's own Appendix D already shows the error at the chosen parameters, so a reader could quantify it at larger $\Delta$ and longer ramp durations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the second-order Magnus term of a generalized squeezing interaction, $\Phi_2(t)=-\frac{i\Omega^2}{4\delta^2}\hat J_{\theta,\phi}^2[\hat a^k,\hat a^{\dagger k}](\delta t-\sin\delta t)$, is the common engine behind four applications. For a maximally entangling two-spin gate at interaction order $k$, the detuning $\delta=2\Omega^{(k)}\sqrt{K\langle[\hat a^k,\hat a^{\dagger k}]\rangle}$ gives a gate duration $t_g^{(k)}$ and a speedup $S^{(k)}=\sqrt{(n_i+1)^k-n_i^k}$ relative to the $k=1$ geometric phase gate; for $k=2$, $t_g^{(2)}=\pi\sqrt{K}/[\Omega^{(2)}\sqrt{2(2n_i+1)}]$ with Bell fidelity near unity for each initial Fock state. The same Fock-dependent phase appears in a Ramsey sequence for thermometry, in individually addressed squeezing patterns that produce genuine N-body spin interactions, and in a projective-measurement transfer function $t_n=1+e^{-i\theta_d}\sin\phi_r$ that distills Fock states and cat states from thermal or coherent oscillator distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The N-body construction relies on the unproven assumption that the chosen frequency detunings cancel every unwanted lower-order interaction; the paper verifies this numerically only up to 100 spins, and its 4-spin example shows a visible population error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-qubit entangling gate mediated by order-$k$ squeezing gets faster as the oscillator occupation grows; the speedup is superexponential in $k$ and polynomial in $n_i$, with the largest gap at $n_i=0$ given by $\sqrt{k!}$.
  • Individually addressed generalized squeezing can produce genuine $N$-body interactions continuously in time, replacing a CNOT ladder of $2(N-1)$ two-qubit gates and $2N+1$ single-qubit gates for an $N$-body X-type interaction.
  • The same Fock-dependent phase gives a Ramsey thermometry scheme whose precision-time tradeoff is linear in mean phonon number for $k=2$, quadratic for $k=3$, and cubic for $k=4$; Fock occupation amplitudes are recoverable by Fourier transform of the Ramsey scan.
  • Repeated squeezing with mid-circuit spin measurement can prepare Fock states from a thermal distribution with infidelity $\lesssim 10^{-5}$ after ten rounds, and can distill a 4-component Schr\"odinger cat state from a coherent state with infidelity below $10^{-2}$.
  • All four applications are corollaries of one geometric-phase mechanism, so a platform with order-$k$ squeezing can switch between them by tuning $\Omega$, $\delta$, and the readout phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the speedup formula $S^{(k)}=\sqrt{(n_i+1)^k-n_i^k}$ holds beyond the two-spin setting, then preparing the oscillator in high Fock states before a gate could become a deliberate resource for faster two-qubit operations, rather than a noise source to be cooled away.
  • The diagonal Fock transfer function suggests a general distillation toolbox: any target oscillator state whose support is a periodic subset of Fock space (including binomial states or GKP-like states) could be prepared by choosing $k$, $\kappa$, and readout phases, even though the paper only demonstrates Fock and 4-component cat states.
  • Assignment strategy (2) is the least secure part of the N-body claim: it lacks a rigorous proof of spurious-resonance avoidance, and the paper's own 4-body example shows significant population error, so an adaptive or multimode detuning strategy may be needed before the resource-efficient N-body construction is practical.
  • The thermometry and state-preparation protocols could be run in a closed loop: use squeezing-mediated Ramsey fringes to estimate the phonon distribution, then apply the state-preparation rounds to cool or re-shape it, using the same hardware and the same geometric phase.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes four applications of spin-dependent generalized squeezing, described by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), in hybrid spin-oscillator quantum processors. Section II derives analytic gate durations and speedups for two-qubit geometric phase gates mediated by generalized squeezing of order k, obtaining S^(k) = sqrt((n_i+1)^k - n_i^k) relative to the k=1 gate, and verifies the k=2 case against full Schrödinger-equation integration. Section III presents two detuning assignment strategies for engineering genuine N-body spin interactions from individually addressed generalized squeezing interactions, with numerical demonstrations for three-body and four-body cases. Section IV develops a Ramsey-type thermometry scheme based on the Fock-state-dependent geometric phase, and Section V uses the projective-measurement backaction of the same sequence to prepare Fock states and four-component cat states. The paper argues that generalized squeezing provides a unifying geometric-phase resource for fast entangling gates, many-body quantum simulation, thermometry, and bosonic state preparation.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a useful unifying perspective: the same spin-dependent generalized squeezing interaction, through its Magnus-expansion commutator structure, generates geometric phase gates, N-body spin interactions, thermometry signals, and state-preparation filters. The two-qubit gate analysis is a genuine generalization of the well-known Mølmer-Sørensen geometric phase gate, and the analytic speedup formula is concrete and testable. The thermometry and state-preparation protocols are also concrete, with numerical Wigner-function and fidelity evidence. The strongest aspect is that the analytic Magnus results for the two-qubit gates are checked against direct numerical integration to about 1e-3 in fidelity, so the core derivations are not circular with respect to the gate-fidelity claims. The main weakness is the general-N-body interaction claim, which rests on an explicitly unproven resonance-avoidance assumption and on a four-body example that shows significant population error.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Assignment strategy (2)] The claim that the detuning assignment δ_j = 2^{2(N-j)}Δ for j=2,...,N with δ_1 = Σ_{j=2}^N δ_j (-1)^j suppresses every spurious lower-order resonance is explicitly unproven; the text states 'we leave a rigorous proof of spurious resonance avoidance for this strategy to future work' and relies on numerical confirmation up to N=100. This assumption is load-bearing for the advertised resource-efficient route to genuine N-body interactions using only k=2 squeezing. If any proper signed subset of the detunings also sums to zero, the effective evolution contains fewer-than-N-body terms and the engineered Hamiltonian (6) is not the intended product interaction. A numerical scan is not a substitute for a proof or for a quantitative bound on residual lower-order terms, and the general-N claim should be qualified until such support is supplied.
  2. [Appendix D, Fig. 5(d)] The only fully simulated implementation of strategy (2) for N=4 exhibits 'significant population error', attributed to finite ramp duration and interaction strength, but no error budget or pulse-shaping analysis is provided. Because the analytic effective Hamiltonian (6) is derived in the limit of large detuning and slow ramps, it is essential to show that the observed error can be systematically reduced by increasing Δ or by lengthening the ramp duration. As written, the numerical evidence for strategy (2) demonstrates a failure mode rather than a controlled validation of the general-N claim.
  3. [Section III, after Eq. (6)] The statement that 'All terms higher and lower in order than N can be attenuated via pulse shaping of the interaction through the time-dependence of each Ω_j' needs support in the context of strategy (2). Pulse shaping can suppress terms with distinct frequency content, but the spurious-resonance condition is a property of the detuning set, and no analysis is given to show that the residual lower-order terms from near-resonant subsets scale to zero with increasing Δ for the proposed assignments. Without this, the conclusion that the procedure 'leads to high-fidelity, genuine N-body interactions' is stronger than the evidence presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'Pulse duration (units of )' with an empty unit; please specify whether the unit is 1/Ω_eff, 2π/Ω_eff, or another quantity.
  2. [Reference [48]] The journal name 'Nature Communnications' is misspelled and should be 'Nature Communications'.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (22)] The term 'superexponential in k' is used without a definition; for n_i=0 the scaling is sqrt(k!), which is asymptotically faster than exponential, but for the small k values in Fig. 1(e) it would be clearer to say 'grows faster than exponential in k' or to define the asymptotic sense explicitly.
  4. [Figure 1(d)] The caption says the gate parameters are 'optimizing over δ and t_g for each average thermal occupation', but the optimization objective, constraints, and method are not described; please specify the figure of merit and the parameter ranges used.
  5. [Section III, assignment strategy (1)] The condition that 'all sum and difference terms involving fewer than N detunings be non-zero' should be stated more precisely as a condition on signed sums of subsets, and the verification of this condition for the base-case detunings in strategy (1) should be shown explicitly rather than only asserted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: core phase/speedup formulas follow from Magnus expansion and are numerically checked; cited generalized squeezing is external experimental support.

full rationale

The core derivations are self-contained. The Magnus expansion in Eqs. (2)-(4) is fed by the stated Hamiltonian (1); the gate duration t_g^(2), the condition δ=2Ω^(k)√(K⟨[a^k,a^†k]⟩), and the speedup S^(k)=√((n_i+1)^k−n_i^k) are obtained algebraically from Φ2, with no fitted parameters, and the paper separately checks them against full numerical integration of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (Fig. 1(c)). The thermometry result Eq. (7) and θ_d=2πK⟨[a^k,a^†k]⟩/κ likewise follow from the same second-order Magnus term, and the state-preparation transfer function t_n=1+e^{−iθ_d} sin φ_r is a direct consequence of the Ramsey circuit. The only citations that carry the existence of experimental generalized squeezing ([25,26]) and the non-commuting spin-dependent-force framework ([23]) are external experimental/theoretical results, not assumptions of the target gate/protocol outputs. The unproven detuning resonance-avoidance for Assignment strategy (2) in Sec. III and the finite-error 4-body numerics in Appendix D are acknowledged limitations and an open correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the claim does not define the N-body interaction in terms of the target output, and the paper explicitly leaves the proof to future work. No step renames a fitted parameter as a prediction or imports a self-citation uniqueness theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; its central derivations use the established Hamiltonian Eq. (1). The main unpaid inputs are the convergence of the truncated Magnus expansion, the unproven N-body resonance avoidance for strategy (2), and the experimental demonstration of the underlying interaction. The reported state preparation fidelities depend on genetically optimized control parameters, so they are best-case numerical demonstrations.

free parameters (2)
  • Optimized per-round controls {phi_r, k, kappa} = Not reported as fixed values; varies by target state and round
    In Section V, a genetic algorithm is trained to minimize state preparation infidelity over these control parameters with fixed K=1; the reported O(10^-5) and 1e-2 infidelities are outcomes of this optimization, not parameter-free predictions.
  • Detuning and gate duration per thermal occupation in Fig. 1(d) = Optimized separately for each mean phonon number nbar
    The Bell-state fidelity curve for thermal initial states is computed after optimizing delta and t_g for each nbar, so it is a best-case response rather than a single fixed protocol.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Higher-order Magnus terms beyond Phi_2 can be neglected for the analytic predictions.
    All analytic gate durations, speedups, thermometry phases, and transfer functions use only the first two Magnus terms. The paper states these can be made arbitrarily small with appropriate Rabi frequency and detuning, and the numerics show residual deviations at small n_i and K.
  • ad hoc to paper Detuning assignment strategy (2) suppresses all spurious lower-order resonances for arbitrary N.
    The paper says this is confirmed numerically up to N=100 but a rigorous proof is left for future work. Appendix D shows significant population error for the 4-body strategy-(2) case, so this assumption is load-bearing and not fully justified.
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is a valid description of the recently demonstrated spin-dependent generalized squeezing interaction.
    The paper imports this Hamiltonian from Refs [25,26] by the same group; the applications inherit the validity of that experimental claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Applications of Spin-Dependent Generalized Squeezing in Hybrid Spin-Oscillator Quantum Processors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQPJNDWO

@misc{pith2026260804197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Applications of Spin-Dependent Generalized Squeezing in Hybrid Spin-Oscillator Quantum Processors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQPJNDWO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04197}
}
read the original abstract

Generalized squeezing interactions are foundational to quantum optics, and have recently come under experimental control in hybrid spin-oscillator quantum processors [O. B\u{a}z\u{a}van, et al., Nat. Phys. 22, 757 (2026); S. Saner, et al., Phys. Rev. X 16, 021049 (2026)]. These interactions open the door for new applications in the processing of discrete- and continuous-variable quantum information, four of which we propose and investigate in this work: geometric phase gates mediated by spin-dependent generalized squeezing acting on two spins and a common oscillator; genuine N-body spin interactions mediated by individually addressed spin-dependent generalized squeezing; oscillator thermometry via spin readout; and the preparation of high-fidelity quantum states of the oscillator via spin-dependent generalized squeezing and mid-circuit measurement. A unifying feature of these applications is the geometric phase induced by generalized squeezing interactions, which is nonlinear in the Fock occupation of the oscillator and the interaction order of the generalized squeezing. This work provides a foundation for fast, high-fidelity discrete- and continuous-variable quantum computation and sensing in the hybrid spin-oscillator platform via generalized squeezing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04197 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Squeezing-mediated geometric phase gates. Wigner function trajectories for one gate duration are shown for spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Squeezing-mediated 3-body spin interactions. Spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Squeezing-mediated thermometry. (a) Circuit dia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Squeezing-mediated bosonic state preparation. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Squeezing-mediated 4-body spin interactions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In this case, we consider the assignment strategyδ j = 2 2(N−j) ∆ for j= 2,...,N, andδ 1 = PN j=2δj(−1)j in order to ful- fill theN-body resonance condition

    Again we impose the constraint that sum and differ- ence terms involving fewer thanNdetunings should be non-zero in order to suppress spurious lower-order in- teractions involving fewer thanNions. In this case, we consider the assignment strategyδ j = 2 2(N−j) ∆ for j= 2,...,N, andδ 1 = PN j=2δj(−1)j in order to ful- fill theN-body resonance condition. Al...

  2. [2]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology103, 259 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Physical Review A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Clarke and F

    J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting quantum bits, Nature453, 1031 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconducting circuits for quantum information: an outlook, Science 339, 1169 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, and C. A. Regal, Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its quantum ground state, Physical Review X2, 041014 (2012)

    2012

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules, Nature Physics17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Lienhard, R

    V. Lienhard, R. Martin, Y. T. Chew, T. Tomita, K. Ohmori, and S. de L´ es´ eleuc, Generation of motional squeezed states for neutral atoms in optical tweezers, Physical Review Letters135, 253404 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    P. C. Haljan, K.-A. Brickman, L. Deslauriers, P. J. Lee, and C. Monroe, Spin-dependent forces on trapped ions for phase-stable quantum gates and entangled states of spin and motion, Physical Review Letters94, 153602 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Majer, J

    J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Coupling superconduct- ing qubits via a cavity bus, Nature449, 443 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, J. I. Park, and R. W. Simmonds, Co- herent quantum state storage and transfer between two phase qubits via a resonant cavity, Nature449, 438 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    A. F. Van Loo, A. Fedorov, K. Lalumiere, B. C. Sanders, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Photon-mediated interac- tions between distant artificial atoms, Science342, 1494 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Cavity carving of atomic bell states, Physical Review Letters118, 210503 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Photon-mediated quantum gate between two neutral atoms in an optical cavity, Physical Review X8, 011018 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Physical Review Letters 82, 1971 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    C. R. Clark, H. N. Tinkey, B. C. Sawyer, A. M. Meier, K. A. Burkhardt, C. M. Seck, C. M. Shappert, N. D. Guise, C. E. Volin, S. D. Fallek, H. T. Hayden, W. G. Rellergert, and K. R. Brown, High-fidelity bell-state preparation with 40ca+ optical qubits, Physical Review Letters12...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Srinivas, S

    R. Srinivas, S. C. Burd, H. M. Knaack, R. T. Suther- land, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, A. C. Wilson, D. T. C. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, High-fidelity laser-free universal con- trol of trapped ion qubits, Nature597, 209 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. L¨ oschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland, Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with>99.99% fidelity without ground-state cool- ing, arXiv:2510.17286 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Ransford, M

    A. Ransford, M. Allman, J. Arkinstall, J. Campora, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, A. Hall,et al., A 98-qubit trapped-ion quan- tum computer with all-to-all connectivity, Nature655, 81 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    P. O. Schmidt, T. Rosenband, C. Langer, W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland, Spectroscopy using quantum logic, Science309, 749 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    M. C. Marshall, D. A. R. Castillo, W. J. Arthur- Dworschack, A. Aeppli, K. Kim, D. Lee, W. Warfield, J. Hinrichs, N. V. Nardelli, T. M. Fortier, J. Ye, D. R. Leibrandt, and D. B. Hume, High-stability single-ion clock with 5.5×10 −19 systematic uncertainty, Physical Review Lett...

    2025

  16. [24]

    R. T. Sutherland and R. Srinivas, Universal hybrid quantum computing in trapped ions, Physical Review A104, 032609 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Z. Lin, S. Li, J. Feng, V. Ivannikov, M. Fadel, and T. Byrnes, Preparing squeezed, cat and gkp states with parity measurements, arXiv:2602.08209 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B˘ az˘ avan, S

    O. B˘ az˘ avan, S. Saner, D. J. Webb, E. M. Ainley, P. Dr- mota, D. P. Nadlinger, G. Araneda, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, and R. Srinivas, Squeezing, trisqueezing and quadsqueezing in a hybrid oscillator–spin system, Na- ture Physics22, 757 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    Saner, O

    S. Saner, O. B˘ az˘ avan, D. J. Webb, G. Araneda, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, and R. Srinivas, Generating arbi- trary superpositions of nonclassical quantum harmonic oscillator states, Physical Review X16, 021049 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    Y. Liu, S. Singh, K. C. Smith, E. Crane, J. M. Mar- tyn, A. Eickbusch, A. Schuckert, R. D. Li, J. Sinanan- Singh, M. B. Soley, T. Tsunoda, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, and S. M. Girvin, Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum pro- cessors: Instruction set architectures, abstract machine mo...

    2026

  21. [29]

    Crane, K

    E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. K¨ uhn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, A. Schuckert, and S. M. Girvin, Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulat- ing fermions, bosons, and gauge fields, arXiv:2409.03747 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bˇ azˇ avan, S

    O. Bˇ azˇ avan, S. Saner, E. Tirrito, G. Araneda, R. Srini- vas, and A. Bermudez, Synthetic z 2 gauge theories based on parametric excitations of trapped ions, Com- munications Physics7, 229 (2024). 12

    2024

  23. [31]

    Saner, O

    S. Saner, O. B˘ az˘ avan, D. J. Webb, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, and A. Berm´ udez, Real-time observation of aharonov-bohm interference in aZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a hybrid qubit-oscillator quantum computer, arXiv:2507.19588 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. Y. Araz, M. Grau, J. Montgomery, and F. Ringer, Hy- brid quantum simulations with qubits and qumodes on trapped-ion platforms, Physical Review A112, 012620 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Nobakht and I

    M. Nobakht and I. Kassal, Noise reduction for uni- versal hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum computation, arXiv:2604.19163 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    O. Katz, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, N-body interac- tions between trapped ion qubits via spin-dependent squeezing, Physical Review Letters129, 063603 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Rojkov, M

    I. Rojkov, M. Simoni, E. Zapusek, F. Reiter, and J. Home, Stabilization of cat-state manifolds using non- linear reservoir engineering, Physical Review X16, 011056 (2026)

    2026

  28. [36]

    Shapira, S

    Y. Shapira, S. Cohen, N. Akerman, A. Stern, and R. Ozeri, Robust two-qubit gates for trapped ions us- ing spin-dependent squeezing, Physical Review Letters 130, 030602 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    L. J. Bond, C. H. Valahu, A. Shankar, T. R. Tan, and A. Safavi-Naini, Optimal displacement sensing with spin-dependent squeezed states, arXiv:2510.25870 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Ab- bott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari,et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo grav- itational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics7, 613 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    C. A. Casacio, L. S. Madsen, A. Terrasson, M. Waleed, K. Barnscheidt, B. Hage, M. A. Taylor, and W. P. Bowen, Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy, Na- ture594, 201 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    S. Burd, R. Srinivas, J. Bollinger, A. Wilson, D. Wineland, D. Leibfried, D. Slichter, and D. Allcock, Quantum amplification of mechanical oscillator motion, Science364, 1163 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    S. C. Burd, H. M. Knaack, R. Srinivas, C. Arenz, A. L. Collopy, L. J. Stephenson, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, J. J. Bollinger, D. T. C. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, Experimental speedup of quantum dynamics through squeezing, PRX Quantum5, 020314 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    S. C. Burd, R. Srinivas, H. M. Knaack, W. Ge, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, J. J. Bollinger, D. Allcock, and D. Slichter, Quantum amplification of boson-mediated interactions, Nature Physics17, 898 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    W. Ge, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, K. Jacobs, J. J. Bollinger, and M. Foss-Feig, Trapped ion quantum in- formation processing with squeezed phonons, Physical Review Letters122, 030501 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    W. Ge, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, K. Jacobs, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Stroboscopic ap- proach to trapped-ion quantum information processing with squeezed phonons, Physical Review A100, 043417 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    S. L. Braunstein and R. I. McLachlan, Generalized squeezing, Physical Review A35, 1659 (1987)

    1987

  38. [46]

    Ashhab and M

    S. Ashhab and M. Ayyash, Properties and dynamics of generalized squeezed states, New Journal of Physics27, 054104 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Ozeri, The trapped-ion qubit tool box, Contempo- rary Physics52, 531 (2011)

    R. Ozeri, The trapped-ion qubit tool box, Contempo- rary Physics52, 531 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    C. S. Chang, C. Sab´ ın, P. Forn-D´ ıaz, F. Quijandr´ ıa, A. Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, G. Johansson, and C. Wil- son, Observation of three-photon spontaneous paramet- ric down-conversion in a superconducting parametric cavity, Physical Review X10, 011011 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    A. M. Eriksson, T. S´ epulcre, M. Kervinen, T. Hillmann, M. Kudra, S. Dupouy, Y. Lu, M. Khanahmadi, J. Yang, C. Castillo-Moreno, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, Universal control of a bosonic mode via drive-activated native cubic interactions, Nature Communnications15, 2512 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Kr¨ amer, D

    S. Kr¨ amer, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, Quantumoptics.jl: A julia framework for sim- ulating open quantum systems, Computer Physics Com- munications227, 109 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Commun

    W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Commun. Pure Appl. Math.7, 649 (1954)

    1954

  44. [52]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and quan- tum computation with ions in thermal motion, Physical Review A62, 022311 (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    Milburn, S

    G. Milburn, S. Schneider, and D. James, Ion trap quan- tum computing with warm ions, Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics48, 801 (2000)

    2000

  46. [54]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Bar- rett, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovi´ c, C. Langer, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Experimental demonstration of a robust, high-fidelity geometric two ion-qubit phase gate, Nature422, 412 (2003)

    2003

  47. [55]

    Walls and G

    D. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, 3rd ed. (Springer, 2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Rasmusson, M

    A. Rasmusson, M. D’Onofrio, Y. Xie, J. Cui, and P. Richerme, Optimized pulsed sideband cooling and en- hanced thermometry of trapped ions, Physical Review A104, 043108 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    de Neeve, T.-L

    B. de Neeve, T.-L. Nguyen, A. Ferk, T. Behrle, F. Lan- cellotti, M. Simoni, S. Welte, and J. Home, Modular variable laser cooling for efficient entropy extraction, Physical Review Letters134, 203603 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    D. F. Locher, J. Old, K. Brechtelsbauer, J. Holschbach, H. P. B¨ uchler, S. Weber, and M. M¨ uller, Multi- qubit rydberg gates for quantum error correction, arXiv:2512.00843 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Zhang, A

    H. Zhang, A. Chu, C. Luo, C. Maruko, E. A. Bohr, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Collective three- body interactions enable a robust quantum speedup, arXiv:2512.06170 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    O. Katz, L. Feng, A. Risinger, C. Monroe, and M. Cetina, Demonstration of three- and four-body inter- actions between trapped-ion spins, Nature Physics19, 1452 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    M. C. de Oliveira, Simplification of symbolic polynomi- als on non-commutative variables, Linear Algebra and its Applications437, 1734 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    C. F. Roos, Ion trap quantum gates with amplitude- modulated laser beams, New Journal of Physics10, 013002 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge University Press, 2010). 13

    2010

  56. [64]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum compu- tation, Physical Review A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  57. [65]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    C. Luo, H. Zhang, C. Maruko, E. A. Bohr, A. Chu, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Realization of three- and four-body interactions between momentum states in a cavity, Science390, 925 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    O. Katz, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Programmable n- body interactions with trapped ions, PRX Quantum4, 030311 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    C. F. Roos, M. Riebe, H. Haffner, W. Hansel, J. Ben- helm, G. P. Lancaster, C. Becher, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Control and measurement of three-qubit entangled states, Science304, 1478 (2004)

    2004

  61. [69]

    Bermudez, D

    A. Bermudez, D. Porras, and M. Martin-Delgado, Com- peting many-body interactions in systems of trapped ions, Physical Review A79, 060303 (2009)

    2009

  62. [70]

    T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. H¨ ansel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, 14-qubit entanglement: Creation and coherence, Physical Review Letters106, 130506 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Shapira, R

    Y. Shapira, R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, N. Akerman, L. Pe- leg, L. Gazit, R. Ozeri, and A. Stern, Theory of robust multiqubit nonadiabatic gates for trapped ions, Physical Review A101, 032330 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    J. D. Arias Espinoza, K. Groenland, M. Mazzanti, K. Schoutens, and R. Gerritsma, High-fidelity method for a single-step n-bit toffoli gate in trapped ions, Phys- ical Review A103, 052437 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Andrade, Z

    B. Andrade, Z. Davoudi, T. Graß, M. Hafezi, G. Pagano, and A. Seif, Engineering an effective three-spin hamilto- nian in trapped-ion systems for applications in quantum simulation, Quantum Science & Technology7, 034001 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Go- ing beyond bell’s theorem, inBell’s theorem, quantum theory and conceptions of the universe(Springer, 1989) pp. 69–72

    1989

  67. [75]

    Mallweger, M

    M. Mallweger, M. Guevara-Bertsch, B. T. Torosov, R. Thomm, N. Kuk, H. Parke, C. F. Roos, G. Hig- gins, M. Hennrich, and N. V. Vitanov, Motional-state analysis of a trapped ion by ultranarrowband composite pulses, Physical Review A110, 053103 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Mallweger, M

    M. Mallweger, M. H. de Oliveira, R. Thomm, H. Parke, N. Kuk, G. Higgins, R. Bachelard, C. J. Villas-Boas, and M. Hennrich, Single-shot measurements of phonon number states using the autler-townes effect, Physical Review Letters131, 223603 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    X.-Q. Li, Y. Tao, T. Chen, W. Wu, Y. Xie, C.-W. Wu, and P.-X. Chen, Thermometry of trapped ions based on bichromatic driving, arXiv:2407.15182 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bonetto, N

    M. Bonetto, N. A. N. Barreto, C. T. Schmiegelow, and C. Cormick, Numerical modeling for trapped-ion thermometry using dark resonances, Physical Review A 112, 023117 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    R. T. Sutherland, Q. Yu, K. M. Beck, and H. H¨ affner, One- and two-qubit gate infidelities due to motional er- rors in trapped ions and electrons, Physical Review A 105, 022437 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyen- huis, Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture, Nature592, 209 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  74. [82]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode, Physical Review X6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  75. [83]

    A. L. Grimsmo, J. Combes, and B. Q. Baragiola, Quan- tum computing with rotation-symmetric bosonic codes, Physical Review X10, 011058 (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Gutman, E

    N. Gutman, E. Blumenthal, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, A. Orda, and I. Kaminer, Squeezed-vacuum bosonic codes, arXiv:2511.06108 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Rainaldi, V

    T. Rainaldi, V. Ale, M. Grau, D. Kharzeev, E. Rico, F. Ringer, P. Shome, and G. Siopsis, Trigonometric continuous-variable gates and hybrid quantum simula- tions of the sine-gordon model, J. High Energy Physics 2026, 125 (2026)

    2026

  78. [86]

    Chalermpusitarak, K

    T. Chalermpusitarak, K. Schwennicke, I. Kassal, and T. R. Tan, Programmable generation of arbitrary continuous-variable anharmonicities and nonlinear cou- plings, arXiv:2511.22286 (2025)

    2025

  79. [87]

    McGarry, T

    C. McGarry, T. Chalermpusitarak, K. Schwennicke, F. Scuccimarra, M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, P. Nagpal, H.-K. Chan, H. L. Nourse, I. Kas- sal, and T. R. Tan, Programmable quantum simulation of anharmonic dynamics, arXiv:2603.04744 (2026)

    2026

  80. [88]

    Navickas, R

    T. Navickas, R. J. MacDonell, C. H. Valahu, V. C. Olaya-Agudelo, F. Scuccimarra, M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, H. L. Nourse, A. D. Rao, M. J. Biercuk, C. Hempel, I. Kassal, and T. R. Tan, Experimen- tal quantum simulation of chemical dynamics, J. Am. Chem. Soc.147, 23566 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    V. C. Olaya-Agudelo, B. Stewart, C. H. Valahu, R. J. MacDonell, M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, F. Scuc- cimarra, T. R. Tan, and I. Kassal, Simulating open- system molecular dynamics on analog quantum com- puters, Physical Review Research7, 023215 (2025)

    2025

  82. [90]

    P.-Y. Hou, J. J. Wu, S. D. Erickson, D. C. Cole, G. Zarantonello, A. D. Brandt, S. Geller, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, A. C. Wilson, D. H. Slichter, and D. Leibfried, Coherent coupling and non- destructive measurement of trapped-ion mechanical os- cillators, Nature Ph...

    2024

  83. [91]

    Leghtas, G

    Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory pro- tection, Physical Review Letters111, 120501 (2013)

    2013

  84. [92]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, Dynam- ically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for univer- sal quantum computation, New Journal of Physics16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  85. [93]

    A. Conn, N. Gould, and P. Toint, A globally conver- gent lagrangian barrier algorithm for optimization with general inequality constraints and simple bounds, Math. Comput.66, 261 (1997)

    1997

  86. [94]

    B. C. Sanders, Entangled coherent states, Physical Re- view A45, 6811 (1992). 14

    1992

  87. [95]

    schr¨ odinger cat

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, and D. J. Wineland, A “schr¨ odinger cat” superposition state of an atom, Science272, 1131 (1996)

    1996

  88. [96]

    M. Bild, M. Fadel, Y. Yang, U. Von L¨ upke, P. Mar- tin, A. Bruno, and Y. Chu, Schr¨ odinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator, Science380, 274 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, and S. Glancy, Quantum computation with optical co- herent states, Physical Review A68, 042319 (2003)

    2003

  90. [98]

    Fong and H.-K

    P.-T. Fong and H.-K. Lau, Engineering non-gaussian bosonic gates through quantum signal processing, arXiv:2508.20261 (2025)

    2025

  91. [99]

    W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, G. J. Milburn, and S. L. Braunstein, Weak-force detection with superposed co- herent states, Physical Review A66, 023819 (2002)

    2002

  92. [100]

    Kasri, K

    A. Kasri, K. Park, and R. Filip, Nonlinear phase gates beyond the lamb-dicke regime, arXiv:2602.15619 (2026)

    2026

  93. [101]

    Cheng, I

    X.-H. Cheng, I. Arrazola, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, X. Chen, and E. Solano, Nonlinear quantum rabi model in trapped ions, Physical Review A97, 023624 (2018)

    2018

  94. [102]

    R. L. de Matos Filho and W. Vogel, Nonlinear coherent states, Physical Review A54, 4560 (1996)

    1996

  95. [103]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Robust and deterministic preparation of bosonic logical states in a trapped ion, Physical Review Letters133, 050602 (2024)

    2024

  96. [104]

    M. J. Millican, V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, L. J. Bond, and T. R. Tan, Engineering continuous- variable entanglement in mechanical oscillators with optimal control, Physical Review Letters135, 233604 (2025)

    2025

  97. [105]

    V. G. Matsos, C. Valahu, M. J. Millican, T. Navickas, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Uni- versal quantum gate set for gottesman–kitaev–preskill logical qubits, Nature Physics21, 1664 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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