Cited by 24Quantum Information and CryptographyCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein CondensatesQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture

Photon scattering errors during stimulated Raman transitions in trapped-ion qubits

Open access
Moore, I. D., Campbell, W. C., Hudson, E. R., Boguslawski, M. J., Wineland, D. J., Allcock, D. T. C.·2023·Physical Review A

Abstract

We study photon scattering errors in stimulated Raman driven quantum logic gates. For certain parameter regimes, we find that previous simplified models of the process significantly overestimate the gate error rate due to photon scattering. This overestimate is shown to be due to previous models neglecting the detuning dependence of the scattered photon frequency and Lamb-Dicke parameter, a second scattering process, interference effects on scattering rates to metastable manifolds, and the counterrotating contribution to the Raman transition rate. The resulting improved model shows that there is no fundamental limit on gate error due to photon scattering for electronic ground-state qubits in commonly used trapped-ion species when the Raman laser beams are red detuned from the main optical transition. Additionally, photon scattering errors are studied for qubits encoded in the metastable ${D}_{5/2}$ manifold, showing that gate errors below ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}4}$ are achievable for all commonly used trapped ions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.107.032413

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The leakage errors arise from both spontaneous emission error, measured to be 1.0(2) × 10−4 in agreement with the model in ref. 96, and from the leakage memory error.

    “The leakage errors arise from both spontaneous emission error, which we measure to be 1.0(2) × 10−4 in agreement with the model in ref. 96, and from the leakage memory error (discussed in the section ‘Memory errors’).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, I. D., Campbell, W. C., Hudson, E. R., Boguslawski, M. J., Wineland, D. J., & Allcock, D. T. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Physical Review A
Published
2023-03-15
Volume
107
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-9926
  • 2469-9934
OpenAlex
W4324353099
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-20-1-0037)
  • National Science Foundation (2016244, OMA-2016245, PHY-1912555)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Cold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Keywords
stimulated Raman transitions, trapped-ion qubits, quantum gates, gate error rates, Lamb-Dicke parameter, detuning dependence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review