
and duration of the atom-light coupling, while ϕis determined by, and very sensitive to
the relative phase between the atomic dipole and the optical field at the position of the
atom.
To realize the transformation (1)one can resonantly drive the atoms by two counter
propagating optical fields with the same amplitude and phase forming optical standing
wave (OSW). The drive Hamiltonian in the rotating wave approximation can be written
ˆ
Hd=~
2Ω1(t)eikx + Ω2(t)e−ikx|1ih0|+h.c (2)
where Ωα(t) = |Ωα(t)|eiϕα(t)are the complex valued Rabi frequencies of the two drive lasers
with wavevectors ±k, at the position of the atom x. For OSW gates Ω1(t)=Ω2(t) = Ω(t)
is assumed.
This Hamiltonian allows to realize arbitrary phase controlled single qubit gates which
are mostly insensitive to local optical phase noise and atomic position fluctuations. While
an optical travelling wave (OTW) has a phase that is a linearly varying function of position
∝kx, an OSW on the other hand interferes to produce a field with a spatially uniform
phase which steps between ϕand ϕ+πbetween adjacent nodes (Fig. 1b). The atoms are
assumed to be localized close to the antinodes of the OSW, either by making the atom
array commensurate with the standing wave (Fig. 1c) or by shifting the relative phase of
the drive fields between gates to address specific atoms. In this way it is possible to realize
phase-controlled quantum operations that are mostly insensitive to the precise positions
or velocities of the atoms. Instead the atom experiences a spatially varying intensity
∝cos2(kx). But by tailoring the time-dependence of |Ω(t)|and ϕ(t)(e.g., using electro-
optic or acousto-optic modulators which can act on the timescale of several nanoseconds)
it is possible to realize different quantum gates that also correct for associated intensity
noise (or Rabi frequency) errors.
To assess the advantage of OSW fields over OTW fields the achievable gate fidelity
for three different gate protocols will be compared. The OTW-1 gate consists of a drive
pulse Ω1(t) = Asin(πt/T )and Ω2(t)=0with A=π2/(4T)(Fig. 2a). The corresponding
OSW-1 gate has Ω1(t) = Ω2(t) = (A/2) sin(πt/T )(note that the total required intensity
for the OSW-1 gate is half that of OTW-1 for the same gate duration due to construc-
tive interference). These simple parametric pulse shapes are favorable for experimental
implementations, particularly for fast gates where bandwidth of the control systems might
be limited. Finally the OTW-1 and OSW-1 gates are compared with a gate based on a
four pulse BB1 sequence [19] (OSW-BB1, see Fig. 2b) which additionally suppresses sen-
sitivity to Rabi frequency errors. In the absence of noise all three gates perfectly realize
aRx(θ=π/2) gate, equivalent to a √Xgate within a global phase factor, which is a
basic operation for realising more complex multiqubit gates and quantum circuits. See
Appendix Afor generalizations to Uxy(θ, φ)rotation gates according to Eq. (1). Several
Uxy(θ, φ)gates can be concatenated to realize arbitrary single qubit control using OSW
fields.
Figure 2c shows the gate infidelity = 1 −Fas a function of the local optical phase kx
assuming the atom is at rest during the gate time. Fis estimated by simulating the time-
evolution operator ˆ
Uas a sequence of 400 piecewise constant segments and calculating
F=|Tr(ˆ
U†
target ˆ
U)|2/4, where ˆ
Utarget = ((1,−i),(i, 1))/√2. The simulations show the
OTW-1 gate is most sensitive to the local optical phase with quadratic dependence on kx
with > 0.1for |kx|= 0.5. In contrast the OSW-1 gate exhibits a less sensitive quartic
dependence on |kx|with = 0.01 for |kx|= 0.5. The residual infidelity in the OSW
configuration can be attributed to the spatial varying intensity, which can be corrected
Accepted in Quantum 2023-03-03, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 3