pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.13225 · v1 · pith:6P3V5AV6new · submitted 2025-03-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Optimizing the frequency positioning of tunable couplers in a circuit QED processor to mitigate spectator effects on quantum operations

S. Vall\'es-Sanclemente , T. H. F. Vroomans , T. R. van Abswoude , F. Brulleman , T. Stavenga , S. L. M. van der Meer , Y. Xin , A. Lawrence
show 3 more authors
V. Singh M. A. Rol L. DiCarlo
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 23:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords flux-tunable couplersspectator effectsresidual ZZ couplingexchange couplingcontrolled-Z gatescircuit QEDtransmon qubitsparity measurements
0
0 comments X

The pith

Flux-tunable couplers positioned at specific frequencies null residual ZZ and exchange couplings to reduce spectator effects on gates and readout, though not simultaneously.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that flux-tunable couplers in a superconducting processor can be frequency-optimized to minimize how spectator transmons disturb operations on target qubits. High-fidelity controlled-Z gates are demonstrated using only unipolar pulsing on the coupler, and the coupler can null both residual ZZ coupling and exchange couplings in the one- and two-excitation manifolds. Because these null points do not coincide, the work maps the resulting tradeoffs through targeted experiments on single-qubit gates, two-qubit gates, readout, and repeated parity measurements.

Core claim

By adapting a transmon-like tunable-coupling element and optimizing its frequency, residual ZZ coupling as well as exchange couplings in the one- and two-excitation manifolds can be nulled, mitigating spectator effects on single-qubit gates, two-qubit gates, and readout, although the nulling conditions cannot be satisfied at the same time.

What carries the argument

The flux-tunable coupler, whose frequency is set to control and null specific coherent interactions between transmons.

Load-bearing premise

The coupler frequencies and pulsing scheme chosen in the three-qubit testbed will continue to suppress spectator errors without new dominant channels appearing when more qubits and couplers are added.

What would settle it

A scaling experiment in which the same optimized coupler frequencies produce rising error rates on target operations once additional qubits introduce interactions not captured in the three-qubit device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.13225 by A. Lawrence, F. Brulleman, L. DiCarlo, M. A. Rol, S. L. M. van der Meer, S. Vall\'es-Sanclemente, T. H. F. Vroomans, T. R. van Abswoude, T. Stavenga, V. Singh, Y. Xin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Single-qubit gate performance as a function of tunable cou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Study of a CZ gate between Q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Study of spectator effects during repeated parity checks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We experimentally optimize the frequency of flux-tunable couplers in a superconducting quantum processor to minimize the impact of spectator transmons during quantum operations (single-qubit gates, two-qubit gates and readout) on other transmons. We adapt a popular transmon-like tunable-coupling element, achieving high-fidelity, low-leakage controlled-$Z$ gates with unipolar, fast-adiabatic pulsing only on the coupler. We demonstrate the ability of the tunable coupler to null residual $ZZ$ coupling as well as exchange couplings in the one- and two-excitation manifolds. However, the nulling of these coherent interactions is not simultaneous, prompting the exploration of tradeoffs. We present experiments pinpointing spectator effects on specific quantum operations. We also study the combined effect on the three types of operations using repeated quantum parity measurements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally optimizes the frequency positioning of flux-tunable couplers in a superconducting circuit QED processor to mitigate spectator transmon effects during single-qubit gates, two-qubit CZ gates, and readout. Using a three-qubit testbed, the authors adapt a tunable-coupling element to achieve high-fidelity CZ gates via unipolar fast-adiabatic pulsing on the coupler alone; they demonstrate the ability to null residual ZZ coupling as well as exchange couplings in the one- and two-excitation manifolds (though not simultaneously), explore the resulting tradeoffs, and test combined impacts via repeated parity measurements.

Significance. If the reported nulling and tradeoff results hold under the stated conditions, the work supplies concrete experimental evidence for a practical frequency-based strategy to suppress spectator-induced coherent errors, which is relevant for improving gate and readout fidelity in scaled processors. The use of a simple unipolar pulsing scheme and the explicit mapping of effects onto specific operations constitute useful contributions; the experimental character of the demonstrations (nulling measurements and parity tests) is a strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [three-qubit experimental results and scalability discussion] The central claim concerns mitigation of spectator effects 'in a circuit QED processor,' yet all data, optimizations, and the combined parity-measurement test are confined to a three-qubit device. No modeling, simulation, or additional measurements are supplied to show that the same static frequency offsets continue to suppress ZZ and exchange terms when a fourth qubit is introduced through a second tunable coupler, nor that the chosen tradeoff point does not activate new leakage or dephasing channels. This assumption is load-bearing for the broader applicability asserted in the abstract and introduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the work's significance and for the detailed feedback. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim concerns mitigation of spectator effects 'in a circuit QED processor,' yet all data, optimizations, and the combined parity-measurement test are confined to a three-qubit device. No modeling, simulation, or additional measurements are supplied to show that the same static frequency offsets continue to suppress ZZ and exchange terms when a fourth qubit is introduced through a second tunable coupler, nor that the chosen tradeoff point does not activate new leakage or dephasing channels. This assumption is load-bearing for the broader applicability asserted in the abstract and introduction.

    Authors: We agree that all presented data and optimizations are from a three-qubit testbed and that no modeling or simulations for a four-qubit extension (with an additional tunable coupler) are included. The manuscript uses this device to demonstrate the frequency-positioning approach and the resulting tradeoffs for the listed operations. We will revise the abstract and introduction to state explicitly that the results constitute a three-qubit demonstration and to qualify statements about applicability to scaled processors as a suggested strategy rather than a verified result. A short paragraph will be added to the conclusions discussing the need for further characterization when additional couplers and qubits are present. These changes are textual only. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental optimization with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes experimental optimization of flux-tunable coupler frequencies on a three-qubit superconducting processor to minimize spectator effects on gates and readout. All claims rest on direct measurements of residual ZZ and exchange couplings under different frequency settings and pulsing schemes. No equations, predictions, or uniqueness theorems are invoked that reduce to fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes; the work contains no derivation chain at all. The scalability concern raised by the skeptic is an external-validity issue, not a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is purely experimental optimization with no theoretical derivation. No free parameters are introduced in the sense of model fitting; the coupler frequencies are experimentally tuned. No new entities are postulated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5736 in / 1135 out tokens · 18036 ms · 2026-05-22T23:41:38.943191+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We demonstrate the ability of the tunable coupler to null residual ZZ coupling as well as exchange couplings in the one- and two-excitation manifolds. However, the nulling of these coherent interactions is not simultaneous

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Scalable Fluxonium Quantum Processors via Tunable-Coupler Architecture

    quant-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    A tunable-coupler unit cell for fluxonium qubits delivers parallel single-qubit gate fidelities near 99.99% and two-qubit CZ fidelities around 99%, validated by generating up to 10-qubit GHZ states in a 22-qubit processor.

  2. High-fidelity iSWAP gate with Double Transmon Coupler

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A double transmon coupler enables a parametric iSWAP gate with 99.827% fidelity in 40 ns between transmon qubits.

  3. Fast, High-Fidelity Erasure Detection of Dual-Rail Qubits with Symmetrically Coupled Readout

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Symmetrically coupled dispersive readout achieves 384 ns single-shot erasure detection on dual-rail qubits with 6.0(2)×10^{-4} residual error per check and enables parallel erasure checks during single-qubit gates wit...

  4. System-Level Design of Scalable Fluxonium Quantum Processors with Double-Transmon Couplers

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A system-level design methodology for scalable fluxonium processors with double-transmon couplers that supports high-fidelity gates, fast reset, and dispersive readout through frequency partitioning under realistic co...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. F. Marques, B. M. Varbanov, M. S. Moreira, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, C. Zachariadis, F. Battistel, M. Beek- man, N. Haider, W. Vlothuizen, A. Bruno, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Nat. Phys. 18, 80 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    E. J. Zhang, S. Srinivasan, N. Sundaresan, D. F. Bogorin, Y . Martin, J. B. Hertzberg, J. Timmerwilke, E. J. Pritchett, J.-B. Yau, C. Wang, W. Landers, E. P. Lewandowski, A. Narasgond, S. Rosenblatt, G. A. Keefe, I. Lauer, M. B. Rothwell, D. T. Mc- Clure, O. E. Dial, J. S. Orcutt, M. Brink, and J. M. Chow, Sci. Adv. 8, eabi6690 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    T. Hime, P. A. Reichardt, B. L. T. Plourde, T. L. Roberson, C.-E. Wu, A. V . Ustinov, and J. Clarke, Science314, 1427 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Bertet, C

    P. Bertet, C. Harmans, and J. Mooij, Phys. Rev. B 73, 064512 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    A. O. Niskanen, K. Harrabi, F. Yoshihara, Y . Nakamura, S. Lloyd, and J. S. Tsai, Science 316, 723 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    S. H. W. van der Ploeg, A. Izmalkov, A. M. van den Brink, U. Hübner, M. Grajcar, E. Il’ichev, H.-G. Meyer, and A. M. Zagoskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 057004 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Harris, A

    R. Harris, A. Berkley, M. Johnson, P. Bunyk, S. Govorkov, M. Thom, S. Uchaikin, A. Wilson, J. Chung, E. Holtham,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 177001 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    M. S. Allman, F. Altomare, J. D. Whittaker, K. Cicak, D. Li, A. Sirois, J. Strong, J. D. Teufel, and R. W. Simmonds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 177004 (2010)

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Bialczak, M

    R. Bialczak, M. Ansmann, M. Hofheinz, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 060501 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Srinivasan, A

    S. Srinivasan, A. Hoffman, J. Gambetta, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 083601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Y . Yin, Y . Chen, D. Sank, P. J. J. O’Malley, T. C. White, R. Barends, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, A. Megrant, C. Neill, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cle- land, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 107001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Peropadre, D

    B. Peropadre, D. Zueco, F. Wulschner, F. Deppe, A. Marx, R. Gross, and J. J. García-Ripoll, Phys. Rev. B 87, 134504 (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    I.-C. Hoi, A. F. Kockum, T. Palomaki, T. M. Stace, B. Fan, L. Tornberg, S. R. Sathyamoorthy, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and C. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 053601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Pierre, I.-M

    M. Pierre, I.-M. Svensson, S. Raman Sathyamoorthy, G. Jo- hansson, and P. Delsing, App. Phys. Lett. 104, 232604 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Y . Chen, C. Neill, P. Roushan, N. Leung, M. Fang, R. Barends, J. Kelly, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    D. C. McKay, S. Filipp, A. Mezzacapo, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. App.6, 064007 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    S. J. Weber, G. O. Samach, D. Hover, S. Gustavsson, D. K. Kim, A. Melville, D. Rosenberg, A. P. Sears, F. Yan, J. L. Yoder, et al., Phys. Rev. App. 8, 014004 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Y . Lu, S. Chakram, N. Leung, N. Earnest, R. K. Naik, Z. Huang, P. Groszkowski, E. Kapit, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Kounalakis, C

    M. Kounalakis, C. Dickel, A. Bruno, N. K. Langford, and G. A. Steele, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, et al., Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    F. Yan, D. Campbell, P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, D. Kim, J. L. Yoder, D. Hover, A. Sears, A. J. Kerman, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 260504 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Rosenblum, Y

    S. Rosenblum, Y . Y . Gao, P. Reinhold, C. Wang, C. J. Axline, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. De- voret, et al., Nat. Commun. 9, 652 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Y . Y . Gao, B. J. Lester, K. S. Chou, L. Frunzio, M. H. De- voret, L. Jiang, S. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 566, 509 (2019)

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Mundada, G

    P. Mundada, G. Zhang, T. Hazard, and A. Houck, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 054023 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    M. C. Collodo, J. Herrmann, N. Lacroix, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, J.-C. Besse, T. Walter, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Foxen, C

    B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 120504 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Y . Xu, J. Chu, J. Yuan, J. Qiu, Y . Zhou, L. Zhang, X. Tan, Y . Yu, S. Liu, J. Li, F. Yan, and D. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    X. Li, T. Cai, H. Yan, Z. Wang, X. Pan, Y . Ma, W. Cai, J. Han, Z. Hua, X. Han, Y . Wu, H. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Song, L. Duan, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. App. 14, 024070 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    X. Han, T. Cai, X. Li, Y . Wu, Y . Ma, Y . Ma, J. Wang, H. Zhang, Y . Song, and L. Duan, Phys. Rev. A102, 022619 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    et al., Nature 595, 383 (2021)

    Google Quantum A.I. et al., Nature 595, 383 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Y . Sung, L. Ding, J. Braumüller, A. Vepsäläinen, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. McNally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021058 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Stehlik, D

    J. Stehlik, D. M. Zajac, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, M. Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 080505 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    E. A. Sete, A. Q. Chen, R. Manenti, S. Kulshreshtha, and S. Po- letto, Phys. Rev. App. 15, 064063 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Y . Ye, S. Cao, Y . Wu, X. Chen, Q. Zhu, S. Li, F. Chen, M. Gong, C. Zha, H.-L. Huang, et al. , Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 100301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    P. Zhao, Y . Zhang, G. Xue, Y . Jin, and H. Yu, App. Phys. Lett. 121, 032601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grig- orev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V . Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 130 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Goto, Phys

    H. Goto, Phys. Rev. App. 18, 034038 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Marxer, A

    F. Marxer, A. Vepsäläinen, S. W. Jolin, J. Tuorila, A. Landra, C. Ockeloen-Korppi, W. Liu, O. Ahonen, A. Auer, L. Belzane, et al., PRX Quantum 4, 010314 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Kubo and H

    K. Kubo and H. Goto, App. Phys. Lett. 122, 064001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    D. L. Campbell, A. Kamal, L. Ranzani, M. Senatore, and M. D. LaHaye, Phys. Rev. App. 19, 064043 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    et al., Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    Google Quantum A.I. et al., Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y . Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, et al. , Phys. Rev. X 13, 031035 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Križan, J

    C. Križan, J. Biznárová, L. Chen, E. Hogedal, A. Osman, C. W. Warren, S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, T. Abad, A. Aggarwal, et al. , arXiv:2412.15022 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    K. Kubo, Y . Ho, and H. Goto, Phys. Rev. App. 22, 024057 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    et al., Nature 638, 920 (2025)

    Google Quantum A.I. et al., Nature 638, 920 (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Liu, B.-J

    H.-T. Liu, B.-J. Chen, J.-C. Zhang, Y .-X. Xiao, T.-M. Li, K. Huang, Z. Wang, H. Li, K. Zhao, Y . Xu, et al. , arXiv:2501.18319 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Zhang, X

    X. Zhang, X. Zhang, C. Chen, K. Tang, K. Yi, K. Luo, Z. Xie, Y . Chen, and T. Yan, arXiv:2501.13646 (2025). 6

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    R. Li, K. Kubo, Y . Ho, Z. Yan, S. Inoue, Y . Nakamura, and H. Goto, arXiv:2503.03053 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    See supplemental material for additional information support- ing statements and claims made in the main text

    work page

  51. [51]

    Negîrneac, H

    V . Negîrneac, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, F. Battistel, R. Sagastizabal, M. S. Moreira, J. F. Marques, W. J. Vlothuizen, M. Beekman, C. Zachariadis, N. Haider, A. Bruno, and L. Di- Carlo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 220502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    E. H. Chen, T. J. Yoder, Y . Kim, N. Sundaresan, S. Srinivasan, M. Li, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 110504 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 123602 (2005)

    work page 2005

  54. [54]

    Thorbeck, Z

    T. Thorbeck, Z. Xiao, A. Kamal, and L. C. Govia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 090602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    M. A. Rol, F. Battistel, F. K. Malinowski, C. C. Bultink, B. M. Tarasinski, R. V ollmer, N. Haider, N. Muthusubrama- nian, A. Bruno, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 120502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    J. M. Martinis and M. R. Geller, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022307 (2014)

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042311 (2012)

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    C. J. Wood and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032306 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012)

    work page 2012

  60. [60]

    McEwen, D

    M. McEwen, D. Kafri, Z. Chen, J. Atalaya, K. Satzinger, C. Quintana, P. V . Klimov, D. Sank, C. Gidney, A. Fowler,et al., Nat. Commun. 12, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, et al., Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Besedin, M

    I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, J. Knoll, I. Hesner, L. Bödeker, L. Colmenarez, L. Hofele, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, et al., arXiv:2501.04612 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    OPTIMIZING THE FREQUENCY POSITIONING OF TUNABLE COUPLERS IN A CIRCUIT QED PROCESSOR TO MITIGA TE SPECTA TOR EFFECTS ON QUANTUM OPERA TIONS

    L. Heunisch, C. Eichler, and M. J. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. App. 20, 064037 (2023). 7 SUPPLEMENTARY MA TERIAL FOR “OPTIMIZING THE FREQUENCY POSITIONING OF TUNABLE COUPLERS IN A CIRCUIT QED PROCESSOR TO MITIGA TE SPECTA TOR EFFECTS ON QUANTUM OPERA TIONS” This supplementary material provides additional informa- tion supporting the claims and figures of the mai...

    work page arXiv 2023