Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Revealing Noise in Axial Motion Through Quantum Noise Spectroscopy on a Trapped Ion Processor

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that thermal axial motion of a trapped ion couples to the local curvature of its addressing beam and shows up as low-frequency amplitude control noise that dephasing-robust quantum noise spectroscopy can separate…

desk verdict A solid, worth-engaging extension of the Cetina et al. axial-motion noise model to frequency-resolved DR-QNS, with a qualitatively well-supported central claim and quantitative estimates that rest on an untested position-independence assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04089 v1 pith:YSHB32DA submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Vivian Maloney , Matthew Chow , Leigh Norris , Melissa Revelle , Daniel Lobser , Brian McFarland , Edward Tortorici , Christopher Yale
show 2 more authors
Susan Clark Gregory Quiroz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumnoisespectroscopytrapped-ionprocessorcontrolaxialmotionbeamcurvaturedephasing-robustwaveformsmotional-modecharacterizationmulti-qubitdiagnostics
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 claims that thermal motion of a trapped ion along the axis perpendicular to its addressing laser beam turns into effective amplitude control noise through the local curvature of the beam profile, and that dephasing-robust quantum noise spectroscopy can isolate that contribution from the ion's native laser noise. The central result is a decomposition of the measured decay factor into a curvature-independent part (the native control-noise spectrum) and a curvature-dependent part proportional to the square of the local beam curvature, appearing at low frequencies as a Lorentzian peak whose width carries the axial-mode linewidth. By sweeping the ion across the beam profile and fitting this decomposition, they extract the axial center-of-mass mode occupation and linewidth without any dedicated beam that has a component along the axial direction. If correct, this gives a frequency-resolved, register-parallel diagnostic for position-dependent control noise and identifies beam inflection points as operating positions that suppress motion-induced errors at a modest cost in Rabi rate. A sympathetic reader would care because it opens a way to measure a motional degree of freedom that is otherwise hard to access and to separate noise sources that usually masquerade as the same coherence loss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dephasing-robust control waveform $\Omega_{\mathrm{DR}}(t)=\Omega_0\sin(\lambda t)$ with $\lambda=2\pi k/T$ and $J_0(\Omega_0/\lambda)=0$, which suppresses low-frequency dephasing to fourth order in the Magnus expansion while retaining sensitivity to amplitude noise. The argument is carried by the spectral reduction $S(\omega)\approx S_\eta(\omega)+d^2\sum_m A_m^2 L(2\gamma_m,\omega)$ and by the closed-form overlap integral $I(\gamma,\lambda,T)=\Omega_0^2[\gamma T(\lambda^2+\gamma^2)+2\lambda^2(1-e^{-\gamma T})]/[2(\lambda^2+\gamma^2)^2]$ between the DR filter and the zero-frequency axial Lorentzian. This identity makes the curvature-squared dependence explicit and lets the axial linewidth be read from the modulation-frequency falloff of the curvature-dependent decay.

What would settle it

Place the ion at two different beam locations that have the same local curvature but different absolute intensity or slope, and compare the reconstructed curvature-independent part $\xi_\eta(\lambda)$ at both spots; if the spectra differ beyond the reported uncertainties, the native laser noise is position-dependent and the split $\chi=\xi_\eta(\lambda)+d^2\xi_{\mathrm{axial}}(\lambda)$ is not valid. A second check is to compare the extracted axial occupation and linewidth with an independent sideband-based measurement with axial resolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a second-order Taylor expansion of the beam intensity sampled by the ion, $f(x)\propto a+bx+dx^2$, thermal axial motion $x(t)$ enters the qubit Hamiltonian as multiplicative amplitude noise. The paper shows that in the dephasing-robust filter passband, the effective control-noise spectrum reduces to $S(\omega)\approx S_\eta(\omega)+d^2\sum_m A_m^2 L(2\gamma_m,\omega)$: the linear-in-displacement and off-diagonal quadratic branches sit near the MHz axial mode frequencies and are filtered out, while the diagonal difference branch of the quadratic term becomes a zero-frequency Lorentzian of width $2\gamma_m$ whose amplitude is set by the participation-weighted thermal factor $A_m=b_m^2/(\beta M\omega_m^2)$. Consequently the decay exponent factorizes as $\chi=[\xi_\eta(\lambda)+d^2\xi_{\mathrm{axial}}(\lambda)]\Omega_0^2$, and measurements across Rabi rates, beam positions, and modulation frequencies jointly determine the native control-noise spectrum $S_\eta(\omega)$, the local beam curvature $d$, and the axial mode occupation and linewidth. Fitting this model to the measured decay factors across nearly three orders of magnitude gives a center-of-mass occupation of $205\pm49$ quanta, a temperature of $0.32\pm0.08$ mK, and a linewidth of $0.165\pm0.112$ kHz, consistent in order of magnitude with an independent sideband estimate, and the protocol is demonstrated in parallel on a four-ion register.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the laser's own intensity noise is identical at every ion position inside the beam, so any position-dependent change in the measured decay can be blamed entirely on the beam curvature and the ion's thermal jiggling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operating near a beam inflection point ($d\approx0$) should suppress axial-motion-induced control noise by about an order of magnitude on the testbed used here while reducing the Rabi rate by only about a factor of two, giving a practical operating region for high-fidelity gates.
  • Because the reconstructed native control-noise spectrum is concentrated at low frequencies, standard mitigation such as dynamical decoupling, composite pulses, or low-frequency pulse shaping should be effective against this residual amplitude noise.
  • The protocol extracts axial-mode occupation and linewidth without a dedicated beam with an axial propagation component, so it can serve as a motional diagnostic on platforms where conventional sideband spectroscopy is not available.
  • Running the protocol in parallel on a four-ion register shows that position-dependent control noise can be characterized across multiple qubits simultaneously, supporting register-level noise mapping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The curvature-squared decomposition may generalize to any qubit platform where a tightly focused control beam has a spatial intensity profile and the qubit has residual thermal motion, such as neutral-atom arrays with optical tweezers; DR-QNS could there separate motional noise from laser noise in the same way.
  • Because the axial linewidth controls the modulation-frequency falloff of $\xi_{\mathrm{axial}}(\lambda)$, sampling more DR modulation frequencies could resolve multiple axial modes or mode-frequency shifts, extending the current single-Lorentzian fit.
  • A practical diagnostic use not developed in the paper: monitoring the decay factor over time at a fixed beam position would track slow beam drift or heating of the axial mode, turning the QNS measurement into a continuous thermometer and alignment sensor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical model in which thermal axial motion of a trapped ion perpendicular to an addressing beam is converted into effective amplitude control noise through the local curvature of the beam profile. Using dephasing-robust quantum noise spectroscopy (DR-QNS) on the QSCOUT testbed, the authors measure decay factors as functions of Rabi rate, DR modulation frequency, and ion position within the beam. They separate a curvature-independent native control-noise contribution from a curvature-dependent axial-motion contribution, extract the axial center-of-mass mode occupation n0=205±49 and linewidth γ=0.165±0.112 kHz, reconstruct the native control-noise spectrum, and demonstrate the protocol in parallel on a four-ion register. The paper argues that operating at beam inflection points suppresses axial-motion-induced noise at the cost of reduced Rabi rate.

Significance. If the central separation is valid, the work provides a frequency-resolved, beam-based method for axial thermometry and control-noise decomposition that requires no additional beam with an axial propagation component. The theoretical derivation is careful and explicit about its approximations (second-cumulant truncation, high-temperature limit, low-frequency reduction, and a closed-form filter overlap integral), and the data analysis is statistically detailed, including binomial maximum-likelihood fits, Wilson confidence intervals, and Deming regression. The four-ion parallel demonstration is a genuine falsifiable check of the inflection-point prediction. However, the quantitative extraction of n0, γ, and the native spectrum rests on at least one load-bearing assumption that is not independently verified, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.F/III.D (Eq. (31))] The separation ξ(λ,d)=ξη(λ)+d²ξaxial(λ) in Eq. (31) relies on the native control-noise spectrum Sη(ω) being independent of ion position. This assumption is load-bearing and is not independently verified. To keep the Rabi rate Ω0 fixed as the ion is moved through the beam profile, the AOM drive amplitude and delivered optical power must be adjusted to compensate the local intensity, and relative intensity noise and AOM-driver amplitude noise generally depend on the setpoint. If Sη is position-dependent, the global fit can absorb the position dependence into the d² slope, biasing the extracted n0 and γ; the observed minimum near d=0 is supporting evidence but not proof, because a native component that is even in d or correlated with local intensity would survive that test. I recommend a control measurement: perform DR-QNS at two or more positions with d≈0 but different local intensity and Rabi calibration, such as the left and right inflection points, and verify that the inferred ξη is the same within errors, while also reporting the AOM drive levels at each position.
  2. [§III.C/III.D (Deming regression)] The Deming regression in §III.C/D simultaneously optimizes corrected curvature values and model parameters, so the reported uncertainties on n0=205±49 and γ=0.165±0.112 kHz do not include systematic errors in the skew-Gaussian beam-profile model. The text itself notes that for several points near the far left side the global fit favored curvatures inconsistent with the skew-Gaussian ensemble, which shows that the latent-variable channel is actively absorbing beam-profile misfit. Please report the distribution of Deming-corrected versus measured curvatures, the number of points whose corrected values move by more than one standard deviation, and repeat the global fit with alternative beam-profile parameterizations, such as a cubic spline or local second-difference estimates, to bound the systematic bias on n0, γ, and the reconstructed Sη.
  3. [§II.B/Appendix A (curvature normalization)] The curvature d entering the model is the temperature-normalized coefficient d/(a+d⟨x²⟩) from Appendix A, which depends on the unknown thermal variance and hence on n0. The paper mentions a roughly 4% phase-advance correction to the curvatures but does not state whether this correction used a fixed independent value of σ² or was iterated to self-consistency with the fitted n0. If the fitted n0 was used to normalize the curvatures, the extraction is self-referential; if a separate estimate was used, it should be stated. A 4% curvature systematic translates to roughly 8% in the d² axial term, which is a non-negligible fraction of the 24% statistical uncertainty quoted on n0, so the procedure must be documented and the associated uncertainty propagated.
  4. [§III.D (independent temperature estimate)] The independent quadrupole-based temperature estimate gives n0≈120 with no stated uncertainty, while the model fit gives n0=205±49. Calling this order-of-magnitude consistent overstates the agreement: the factor of roughly 1.7 difference is large relative to the 24% fit error and is exactly the kind of discrepancy one would expect if the position-independence assumption in Eq. (31) is violated. Please either provide a more reliable independent estimate with error bars and discuss the discrepancy, or explicitly frame the n0 result as a demonstration requiring further validation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that error bars indicate fit uncertainty from binomial shot noise but does not define the confidence level; please specify whether these are 68% or 95% intervals.
  2. [§II.I] The reconstruction uses piecewise-constant basis functions matched to the filter bandwidth, but the conditioning of the matrix W in Eq. (36) is not reported; please provide the condition number or a resolution check for the non-negative least-squares inversion.
  3. [Appendix C 3] The claim that the mixed quadratic term χmix is below 1% of χη is asserted without a numerical estimate; please include the calculation or a bound using the fitted γ and Sη so that the reduction leading to Eq. (25) can be verified.
  4. [§III.A] Minor typographical issues: 'Yb-171' should be '171Yb+', and 'roughly a0.8µm 1/e2 intensity waist' should read 'roughly a 0.8 µm 1/e² intensity waist'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central model is fitted to data and independently cross-checked, not derived from its own output.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that curvature-dependent axial-motion noise can be separated from curvature-independent native control noise using the decomposition ξ(λ,d)=ξη(λ)+d²ξ_axial(λ) [Eq. (31)]. This decomposition is not circular: it follows from a derived low-frequency reduction of the effective spectrum [Eq. (25)], and ξaxial and ξη are then estimated by fitting the d² model to independently measured decay factors and beam-profile curvatures. The motional parameters ⟨n0⟩ and γ are parameters of that fit, and the paper does not label them as parameter-free predictions; moreover, the extracted ⟨n0⟩=205±49 is compared with an independent quadrupole-sideband extrapolation of about 120 quanta, providing an external check. The native spectrum Sη is obtained by regularized inversion of the fitted intercepts ξη(λ), which is the intended use of QNS rather than a tautology. The DR-QNS formalism is cited from the authors' prior work [24], but that prior work is a published, parameter-free derivation with stated assumptions, so the citation is independent support rather than circularity. The assumption that native laser-amplitude noise is independent of ion position is physically nontrivial and untested, but an unverified assumption is a correctness risk, not a circularity; the paper does not define axial-motion noise in terms of the measured decay or reconstruct the data from the fitted parameters by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model adds two motional fit parameters (occupation n0, linewidth gamma), a reconstructed native-noise spectrum (9 bins), and latent corrected curvature values through Deming regression. It also relies on several physics assumptions: weakly damped harmonic oscillator modes, independent stationary Gaussian laser and axial processes, quadratic beam-profile expansion, second-order cumulant truncation, and position-independent native control noise. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • COM axial mode occupation <n0> = 205 ± 49 (temperature 0.32 ± 0.08 mK)
    Fitted in the global model to the curvature- and frequency-dependent decay factors; independent sideband estimate gives about 120 quanta (factor 1.7 lower).
  • axial mode linewidth gamma = 0.165 ± 0.112 kHz
    Fitted to the falloff of the axial overlap integral with DR modulation frequency; no independent measurement available.
  • native control-noise spectral bins s_k (k=1,...,9) = reconstructed via non-negative least squares, plotted in Fig. 7
    Fitted to the curvature-independent decay factors ξη(λ); the reconstruction is the goal rather than a benchmarked prediction.
  • corrected beam-curvature values per ion position (37 positions, Deming latent variables) = not tabulated; ensemble mean and 95% CI shown in Fig. 4
    Deming regression jointly optimizes corrected curvatures with global model parameters, adding latent degrees of freedom that absorb beam-profile model error.
  • skew-Gaussian beam profile parameters per calibration (center, amplitude, width, skewness) = varied per scan; width and skewness constrained near initial values
    Each position sweep is fitted independently (Section III C) to estimate local curvature d; systematic error from fine structure is acknowledged.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Axial modes are weakly damped quantum harmonic oscillators with a Lindblad master equation and thermal steady state; quantum regression theorem applies.
    Used in Section II C and Appendix A for C_x(t); standard open-quantum-systems treatment.
  • domain assumption Laser-amplitude fluctuation eta(t) and axial displacement x(t) are independent stationary Gaussian processes.
    Used in Section II F to factor the effective spectrum into S_eta, S_x, S_xx and convolutions.
  • domain assumption The axial gain is a quadratic Taylor expansion f(x)=1+b x+d(x^2-sigma^2) with mean normalized to 1, and the linear term's spectrum lies outside the filter passband.
    Adopted from Ref [7]; used in Section II B and II F to reduce S(omega) to S_eta + d^2 sum A_m^2 L(2 gamma_m, omega).
  • domain assumption Second-order cumulant truncation of the time-ordered exponentials is valid for the multiplicative noise (weak-noise approximation).
    Used in Section II D and Appendix B; non-Gaussian terms are dropped.
  • domain assumption High-temperature limit n_m >> 1 so (n_m+1/2) approximately 1/(beta hbar omega_m) and the imaginary component of C_x is negligible.
    Used in Sections II C and II F and Appendix C to obtain Lorentzian spectra.
  • ad hoc to paper The native control-noise spectrum S_eta(omega) is independent of ion position d.
    Needed for the clean separation xi=xi_eta+d^2 xi_axial in Eq. (31); not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing Noise in Axial Motion Through Quantum Noise Spectroscopy on a Trapped Ion Processor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSHB32DA

@misc{pith2026260804089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing Noise in Axial Motion Through Quantum Noise Spectroscopy on a Trapped Ion Processor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSHB32DA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04089}
}
read the original abstract

Native noise processes in quantum processors are often difficult to isolate because multiple error mechanisms contribute to the same measured loss of coherence. Here we use dephasing-robust quantum noise spectroscopy to identify and characterize control noise induced by axial motion in an individually-addressed trapped-ion processor. When the ion motion is transverse to the addressing beam, thermal axial motion couples to the beam profile and produces effective amplitude control noise. We show that this noise is governed primarily by the local beam curvature and appears as a low-frequency contribution to the reconstructed control-noise spectrum. By varying the ion position within the beam profile, we separate curvature-dependent axial-motion noise from curvature-independent native control noise and extract motional parameters that are otherwise difficult to access on this platform. We also apply the protocol in parallel to a four-ion register, demonstrating a spectroscopic method for simultaneous characterization of position-dependent control noise across multiple qubits. The results of this study identify beam inflection points as operating regions that suppress axial-motion-induced noise at the cost of reduced Rabi rate, as found in PRX Quantum 3, 010334 (2022).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Beam-profile calibrations used to determine the ion position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The infidelity curve for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Decay factors extracted from DR-QNS measurements as a function of axial ion offset from the beam center. Each point shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Beam-profile curvature used in the axial-motion noise model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Global fit of the axial-motion noise model to experimentally extracted DR-QNS decay factors. Points show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. DR filter overlap with the thermal Lorentzian axial-motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Alignment calibration data (top) and noise spectra (bottom) of four data ions in four individual addressing beams. (top) A six-ion chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This allows data taken at multi- ple drive amplitudes to be combined in a single estimate of ξ(λ, d)for each beam position and associated curvature. I. QNS Spectral Reconstruction The native control-noise spectrumS η(ω)is not knowna priori. However, Eq. (32) shows that each measuredξη(λ)is a linear functional ofS η(ω). Because the DR FFsF(ω,1, λ, T) are p...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (12) in terms of the laser-amplitude noise and axial displacement cumu- lants

    Effective-Gain Correlation Function We first express the cumulant function in Eq. (12) in terms of the laser-amplitude noise and axial displacement cumu- lants. The normalized axial gain may be written as f(ˆx(t))=1+bˆx(t)+d [ˆx2(t)−σ 2] ,(C1) wherebandddenote the normalized linear and quadratic co- efficients as described in Appendix A. Due to stationari...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Axial Displacement and Quadratic Spectra We now evaluate the axial spectra appearing in Eq. (C19). The symmetrized displacement correlation is C sym x (t)= ∑ m ̵hb2 m 2M ωm (2nm+1)e−γm∣t∣/2 cos(ωmt),(C21) as follows from Eqs. (8) and (C11). Its Fourier transform de- fines the displacement spectrum, Sx(ω)= ∫ ∞ −∞ dt e−iωtC sym x (t).(C22) Using the Lorentz...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Low-Frequency Reduction and Mixed Terms We now identify the terms in the full effective spectrum that contribute appreciably to the filter overlap in Eq. (22). Treat- ing the laser-amplitude noise and axial motion as independent stationary Gaussian processes, the effective spectrum is given by Eq. (23). For the DR waveforms used here,F(ω, T)is concentrate...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computing with trapped ions: The walking cat archi- tecture,

    F. Tripier, W. C. Chung, J. Young, S. Alam, B. Bjork, A. Bro- dutch, F. L. Buessen, N. J. Coble, T. Dellaert, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, E. Tham, M. Webster, M. Ye, J. Gamble, A. Maksymov, J. P. Marceaux, and N. Delfosse, “Fault-tolerant quantum computing with trapped ions: The walking cat archi- tecture,” (2026), arXiv:2604.19481 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    He- lios: A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer,

    A. Ransford, M. S. Allman, J. Arkinstall,et al., “He- lios: A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer,” (2025), arXiv:2511.05465 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Bonus, C

    F. Bonus, C. Knapp, C. H. Valahu, M. Mironiuc, S. Weidt, and W. K. Hensinger, Nature Physics21, 1189 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    P. A. Ivanov, N. V . Vitanov, and K. Singer, Scientific Reports 6, 28078 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 033201 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Cetina, L

    M. Cetina, L. Egan, C. Noel, M. Goldman, D. Biswas, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, and C. Monroe, PRX Quantum3, 010334 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    D. J. Berkeland, J. D. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Journal of Applied Physics83, 5025 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    C. F. Roos,Controlling the quantum state of trapped ions, Ph.D. thesis, University of Innsbruck (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    Ibaraki, U

    Y . Ibaraki, U. Tanaka, and S. Urabe, Appl. Phys. B105(2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    G. A. ´Alvarez and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 230501 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, Y . Cory, David G.and Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Nat. Phys.7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, L. M. Norris, and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. A95, 022121 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    L. M. Norris, G. A. Paz-Silva, and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 150503 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, L. M. Norris, F. Beaudoin, and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. A100, 042334 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    V . Frey, L. M. Norris, L. Viola, and M. J. Biercuk, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 024021 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Amezcua, L

    M. Amezcua, L. Norris, T. Gilliss, R. Sitler, J. Shackford, G. Quiroz, and K. Schultz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19373 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    L. M. Norris, D. Lucarelli, V . M. Frey, S. Mavadia, M. J. Bier- cuk, and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. A98, 032315 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    G. A. Paz-Silva, L. M. Norris, F. Beaudoin, and L. Viola, Phys- ical Review A100, 042334 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    von L ¨upke, F

    U. von L ¨upke, F. Beaudoin, L. M. Norris, Y . Sung, R. Winik, J. Y . Qiu, M. Kjaergaard, D. Kim, J. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, L. Viola, and W. D. Oliver, PRX Quantum1, 010305 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Z. Zhou, R. Sitler, Y . Oda, K. Schultz, and G. Quiroz, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210802 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Y . Sung, A. Veps¨al¨ainen, J. Braum ¨uller, F. Yan, J. I.-J. Wang, M. Kjaergaard, R. Winik, P. Krantz, A. Bengtsson, A. J. Melville,et al., Nature communications12, 967 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    V . Frey, S. Mavadia, L. M. Norris, W. de Ferranti, D. Lucarelli, L. Viola, and M. J. Biercuk, Nature Communications8, 2189 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Maloney, Y

    V . Maloney, Y . Oda, G. Quiroz, B. D. Clader, and L. M. Norris, Phys. Rev. A106, 022425 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    M. N. H. Chow, M. Revelle, A. D. Burch, C. W. Hogle, M. K. Ivory, D. Lobser, T. L. Redhouse, B. Ruzic, C. G. Yale, and S. M. Clark,Quantum Scientific Computing Open User Testbed, Tech. Rep. (Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albu- querque, NM (United States), 2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    S. M. Clark, D. Lobser, M. C. Revelle, C. G. Yale, D. Bossert, A. D. Burch, M. N. Chow, C. W. Hogle, M. Ivory, J. Pehr, B. Salzbrenner, D. Stick, W. Sweatt, J. M. Wilson, E. Winrow, and P. Maunz, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Soare, H

    A. Soare, H. Ball, D. Hayes, J. Sastrawan, M. C. Jarratt, J. J. McLoughlin, X. Zhen, T. J. Green, and M. J. Biercuk, Nature Physics10, 825 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Brownnutt, M

    M. Brownnutt, M. Kumph, P. Rabl, and R. Blatt, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 1419 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Teller, D

    M. Teller, D. A. Fioretto, P. C. Holz, P. Schindler, V . Messerer, K. Sch¨uppert, Y . Zou, R. Blatt, J. Chiaverini, J. Sage, and T. E. Northup, Physical Review Letters126, 230505 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    D. An, C. Matthiesen, E. Urban, and H. H ¨affner, Physical Re- view A100, 063405 (2019). 15

    2019

  27. [35]

    D. F. V . James, Appl. Phys. B66, 181 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Ball and M

    H. Ball and M. J. Biercuk, EPJ Quantum Technology2(2015), 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-015-0022-4

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    T. J. Green, J. Sastrawan, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk, New Journal of Physics15, 095004 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Jaqalpaw: A guide to defining pulses and waveforms for jaqal,

    D. Lobser, J. Goldberg, A. J. Landahl, P. Maunz, B. C. A. Mor- rison, K. Rudinger, A. Russo, B. Ruzic, D. Stick, J. V . D. Wall, and S. M. Clark, “Jaqalpaw: A guide to defining pulses and waveforms for jaqal,” (2023), arXiv:2305.02311 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. E. Deming,Statistical adjustment of data.(wiley, 1943)

    1943

  32. [40]

    C. J. Trout, K. Schultz, P. Titum, L. Norris, G. Quiroz,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.06741 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.