MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019655243 · doi:10.1103/physreva.83.062330

Decoherence and dephasing errors caused by the dc Stark effect in rapid ion transport

2011· article· en· W2019655243 on OpenAlexaff
Hoi-Kwan Lau, Daniel F. V. James

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDephasingQuantum decoherencePhysicsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)IonQubitStark effectAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumElectric fieldComputational physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the error due to the dc Stark effect for quantum information processing for trapped ion quantum computers using the scalable architecture proposed in D. Wineland et al. [J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259 (1998)] and D. Kielpinski et al. [Nature (London) 417, 709 (2002)]. As the operational speed increases, dephasing and decoherence due to the dc Stark effect become prominent as a large electric field is applied for rapidly transporting ions. We estimate the relative significance of the decoherence and dephasing effects and find that the latter is dominant. We find that the minimum possible dephasing is quadratic in the length of a trap and an inverse cubic in the operational time scale. From these relations, we obtain the operational speed range at which the shifts, caused by the dc Stark effect, are no longer negligible, no matter on which trajectory the ion is transported. Without phase correction, the shortest time a qubit can be transferred across a 100-micrometer-long trap, without excessive error, is about 10 ns for a ${}^{40}{\mathrm{Ca}}^{+}$ ion and 50 ps for a ${}^{9}{\mathrm{Be}}^{+}$ ion. In practice, the accumulated error is difficult to track and to calculate; thus, our paper gives an estimate for the range of the speed limit imposed by the dc Stark effect.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207