Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Demonstrating advantages of dynamic quantum circuits on a hybrid superconducting qubit-cavity processor

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two physical systems run three quantum algorithms on one processor, including Shor factoring 15.

desk verdict Solid experimental benchmark with a fixable overclaim in the Shor 'all coprime bases' wording. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04780 v1 pith:PVZ2W5PN submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Hongbo Wu , Ling Hu , Jiasheng Mai , Munan Zhang , Libo Zhang , Yanyan Cai , Xiaowei Deng , Pan Zheng
show 5 more authors
Zhongchu Ni Song Liu Kun Fang Dapeng Yu Yuan Xu
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords dynamicquantumcircuitsmid-circuitmeasurementqubitresetandreuseclassicalfeed-forwardcontrolhybridqubit-cavityprocessorBernstein–VaziranialgorithmphaseestimationShor's
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

Dynamic quantum circuits replace many idle physical qubits with mid-circuit measurements, fast reset, and classical feed-forward. This paper claims that a hybrid processor built from just two physical systems—a long-lived microwave cavity whose Fock states form the computational register and a single transmon ancilla that is measured, reset, and reused—can run a hierarchy of algorithms on the same device. The reported results are a 10-bit Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm with 82% average success probability, an 8-bit quantum phase-estimation protocol with errors below $10^{-3}$, and a dynamic-circuit Shor's algorithm that factors 15 with squared statistical overlap above 99.8% for the six coprime bases that require order finding. The point is that dynamic circuits are not only a compilation trick: the same small programmable device sustains a consistent performance advantage over static and prior dynamic implementations, which is what a scalable architecture would need.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the hybrid qubit–cavity processor: a long-lived 3D microwave cavity (single-photon lifetime about 0.64 ms) stores the computational register as Fock states $\lvert n\rangle$, and a transmon ancilla dispersively coupled to it at $\chi_{QC}/2\pi = 2.59$ MHz is measured, reset, and reused between rounds. Each dynamic cycle applies a conditional unitary to the cavity, measures the ancilla, actively resets it, and uses the measurement outcome to choose the next gate; in the phase-estimation and Shor circuits, the accumulated conditional phases are compressed into a single virtual phase rotation. For Shor's modular-exponentiation unitaries, the controlled operations are synthesized by numerically optimized control pulses restricted to the actual physical input states reached after feed-forward, which compresses the search space of the pulse optimization.

What would settle it

Run the Shor order-finding circuit for base $a=14$ on the same device and compare the squared statistical overlap of the measured distribution with the reported values above 0.998; if the overlap falls substantially, the claim that the implementation covers all coprime bases is falsified as stated. A complementary check is process tomography of each controlled modular-exponentiation unitary on input states $\lvert n\rangle$ for $n=0,\ldots,14$, locating where the fidelity drops.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On one hybrid device—a 3D microwave cavity encoding a high-dimensional qudit in Fock states $\lvert n\rangle$, dispersively coupled to a transmon ancilla—the paper demonstrates three dynamic quantum circuits. In the Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm, ten rounds of conditional operations, mid-circuit measurements, and resets recover any hidden 10-bit string, with measured squared statistical overlap averaging 82% over all 1024 oracle functions and remaining above the 2/3 bounded-error threshold for every string. In quantum phase estimation, eight adaptive measurement rounds with classically conditioned virtual phase rotations estimate target phases $\theta\in[0.1,1.05]$ to 8-bit precision, with estimation errors below $10^{-3}$ at a fixed measurement-resource budget of $R=200$. In Shor's algorithm, the cavity register's Fock states directly encode the modular-exponentiation basis states, and three adaptive measurement rounds factor 15 over bases $a\in\{2,4,7,8,11,13\}$ with squared statistical overlap values between 0.9977 and 0.9988. The paper presents these as the first demonstration of consistent dynamic-circuit advantage across an algorithmic ladder on a single programmable hybrid superconducting processor.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerically optimized pulses for the modular-exponentiation unitaries remain accurate on every Fock state in $\{0,\ldots,14\}$; the paper's own supplementary characterization shows control fidelity degrading as the Fock number grows, and the one coprime base that would require the highest state, $a=14$, is excluded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A full 10-bit Bernstein–Vazirani search over all 1024 oracle functions runs on two physical systems, with every instance above the 2/3 bounded-error quantum-computation threshold.
  • The 8-bit phase-estimation protocol achieves errors below $10^{-3}$ with a single reusable ancilla and a fixed measurement budget of $R=200$, indicating that dynamic compilation converts ancilla count into measurement rounds without losing precision.
  • Shor's algorithm factors 15 on a superconducting platform with dynamic circuits for the first time, with squared statistical overlap above 0.998 for all six nontrivial coprime bases.
  • The same hybrid processor executes all three algorithms without reconfiguration, establishing a programmability benchmark for dynamic quantum circuits.
  • Because the cavity register is high-dimensional, the physical-qubit count is decoupled from algorithm width; the scaling limit becomes the fidelity with which control pulses can address higher Fock states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-system dynamic layout should generalize to any algorithm built from controlled unitaries on a register plus feed-forward phases; quantum counting and linear-systems circuits are natural next candidates, though the paper does not implement them.
  • A boundary test of the 'all coprime bases' claim would be to run the order-finding circuit for base $a=14$, which requires the cavity in Fock state $\lvert14\rangle$; the paper excludes this case because $a^2\equiv 1\pmod{15}$, so no order-finding is needed.
  • If control-pulse fidelity can be extended to higher Fock states, the same long-lived cavity memory becomes a candidate platform for bosonic quantum error correction, since the register is the kind of memory such codes require.
  • The error budget implies that shortening the roughly 700 ns classical feed-forward latency should directly reduce ancilla decay during the loop, translating into lower quantum-phase-estimation errors.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports dynamic quantum circuit (DQC) implementations on a hybrid superconducting qubit–cavity processor. The device uses a high-coherence cavity qudit as the computational register and a single transmon ancilla that is repeatedly measured, reset, and reused. The authors demonstrate a 10-bit Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm with an average squared statistical overlap of 82%, an 8-bit iterative quantum phase estimation protocol with claimed estimation errors below 10^-3, and a dynamic-circuit Shor's algorithm that factors 15 with SSO values above 99.8% for six bases. The experimental distributions are compared with ideal textbook targets and with Lindblad simulations using independently measured coherence times, thermal populations, and readout parameters. The paper argues that these results establish the hybrid qubit–cavity architecture as a hardware-efficient platform for dynamic quantum computation.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a notable experimental benchmark: the same programmable two-physical-system processor executes three algorithm families of increasing complexity, with dynamic qubit reuse throughout. The strengths of the paper include the use of fixed, independently characterized noise parameters in the simulations, SSO and success probabilities evaluated against ideal distributions rather than fitted targets, explicit error bars for the BV and Shor data, and quantitative comparison with prior dynamic and static implementations. The reported BV scale and performance, the QPE precision, and the Shor SSO values would each be state-of-the-art if fully supported. However, two headline claims need tightening: the 'all coprime bases' statement is not literally true as written, and the QPE error bars supporting the 10^-3 claim are not shown. These issues are local and reparable, and they do not, on the evidence in the paper, undermine the underlying experimental distributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section II.D, Footnote [78]] The claim that Shor's algorithm factors 15 'over all coprime bases' is contradicted by the experimental set. The coprime residues modulo 15 are {1,2,4,7,8,11,13,14}, but the paper reports data only for {2,4,7,8,11,13}. Footnote [78] justifies excluding a=14 by saying that a^2 ≡ 1 (mod 15), 'hence a has order 2, and no order-finding algorithm is required.' That rationale is incomplete because a=4 and a=11 also have order 2 and are included. The operative criterion is that a=14 ≡ -1 (mod 15) gives a^{r/2} ≡ -1, so the classical gcd step yields no nontrivial factor; a=1 likewise cannot factor 15. The claim should be rewored as 'all nontrivial useful coprime bases' or the explicit selection criterion should be stated in the main text.
  2. [Supplementary Section II.B and Section III.C] The all-coprime-bases claim is further weakened by the control-fidelity evidence in Supplementary Fig. 7, which shows that the GRAPE-optimized controlled unitaries degrade as the mappings involve higher Fock states. The excluded base a=14 would require the register state |14>, the highest Fock state in the computational space, precisely where the characterization indicates degraded control fidelity. Section III.C attributes the remaining experimental errors to 'control non-idealities in the GRAPE-based manipulation of high-photon-number states.' The manuscript should either present data for a=14 or explicitly restrict the claim to the six bases actually demonstrated; as written, the headline overstates the generality of the Shor result.
  3. [Section II.C and Fig. 3d] The abstract and main text claim that the QPE estimation errors remain below 10^-3 for all target phases, but Fig. 3d does not show error bars: the text states that the error bars are smaller than the symbol size and 'thus are not shown.' Since this quantitative claim is a headline result, the paper should provide the error-bar values (or a table of the estimated phases and uncertainties) and specify precisely how the phase estimate and its error are computed from the 1800 independent trials, including the weighted-average estimator over the two neighboring bitstrings.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in 'SW AP gates' in the second paragraph of the Introduction; it should read 'SWAP gates.'
  2. [Section II.B] The word 'implementions' in the first paragraph of Section II.B should be 'implementations.'
  3. [Supplementary Fig. 9 caption] The label 'No Cops' is unexplained jargon; the caption should define it as 'no collapse operators' or use a clearer name such as 'No Decoherence.'
  4. [References] Reference [18] and reference [70] appear to be the same paper (Ni et al., Nature 616, 56 (2023)) and should be consolidated to avoid duplication.
  5. [Section II.D] The notation |1> is used for a Fock state in Eqs. (2)–(6) while |g> and |e> denote qubit states; this is understandable in context but would be clearer if the Fock-state notation were introduced consistently, for example as |n> with n=0,1,...
  6. [Section II.D] The phrase 'faithful implementation' is stronger than what is demonstrated, because the first measurement round is omitted using U_a^4 = I and the modular exponentiation is implemented with optimal-control pulses optimized for the specific fixed input states of this factoring problem; the text does acknowledge this, but the wording should be qualified to avoid implying fully generic modular exponentiation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all headline numbers are measured against ideal textbook distributions, and the GRAPE-optimized pulses are gate calibrations, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental benchmarking study. The central quantities—BV success probability (82%), QPE estimation errors (<10^-3), and Shor SSO values (>99.8%)—are each computed by comparing measured output probability distributions to ideal distributions defined by the textbook algorithms (Eqs. (2)-(6) and Figs. 2-4). No parameter appearing in the headline result is fitted to the headline result. GRAPE optimization (Supplementary Sec. II-B) is used to implement the controlled modular-exponentiation unitaries; this is control-pulse calibration, and the resulting SSO is a fidelity test of the calibrated gates against the ideal unitary maps, not a prediction derived from those maps. The noise-model simulations (Supplementary Sec. III) use independently measured T1, T2, thermal populations, and readout fidelities, and they are used to explain, not to generate, the reported numbers. The only concern in the manuscript is the accuracy of the phrase 'all coprime bases': footnote [78] excludes a=14, but this is an overclaim or missing-criterion issue, not a circularity. Self-citations (Refs. [15], [70], [71], [76]) are present but not load-bearing; the two-physical-qubit BV compilation claim is also supported by the independent Ref. [48], and the device references merely describe similar hardware. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central claims rest on standard cQED modeling, QND measurement, and a Lindblad noise model; the only questionable entry is the ad hoc exclusion of base 14 from the Shor benchmark set.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dispersive Hamiltonian with cross-Kerr couplings (Eq. 1)
    Underlies all pulse calibration and state evolution; higher-order terms beyond the listed chi'_QC could corrupt GRAPE pulses at high Fock states.
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with measured T1, T2, and thermal populations captures dominant errors
    Used to identify error contributions; assumes Markovian, uncorrelated noise.
  • domain assumption Mid-circuit transmon measurements are QND and leave the cavity state intact
    Required for qubit reuse; measured QND fidelity 99.09% and readout fidelity 99.65% support but do not guarantee this for all repeated-measurement sequences.
  • standard math U_a^4 = I for N=15
    Mathematical fact that lets the first measurement round be omitted.
  • ad hoc to paper The set {2,4,7,8,11,13} constitutes all coprime bases for factoring 15
    Excludes a=14 despite a=4 and a=11 also having order 2, likely due to reduced GRAPE fidelity at Fock state |14>.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demonstrating advantages of dynamic quantum circuits on a hybrid superconducting qubit-cavity processor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVZ2W5PN

@misc{pith2026260804780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demonstrating advantages of dynamic quantum circuits on a hybrid superconducting qubit-cavity processor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVZ2W5PN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04780}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic quantum circuits (DQCs) provide a hardware-efficient route to quantum computing by reducing physical-qubit overhead and compressing circuit topology through mid-circuit measurements, qubit reset and reuse, and classical feed-forward control. Here, we demonstrate the advantages of DQCs on a single hybrid superconducting qubit-cavity processor by implementing a hierarchy of algorithms with increasing complexity. This hybrid architecture consists of a high-dimensional cavity qudit serving as the computational register and a dispersively coupled superconducting transmon ancilla that is repeatedly measured, reset, and reused to enable dynamic control. Using this device, we implement a 10-bit Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm with an average success probability of 82%, surpassing state-of-the-art dynamic and static implementations in both scale and performance; an 8-bit quantum phase-estimation protocol with estimation errors below 10-3; and the first dynamic-circuit implementation of Shor's algorithm on a superconducting platform, factoring 15 over all coprime bases with squared statistical overlap values above 99.8%. These results provide concrete benchmarks for future DQC implementations and highlight the versatile advantages of DQCs with the hybrid qubit-qudit architecture, establishing it as a promising route toward scalable, programmable quantum computation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [78]

    No qubit decay

    Note that whena=N−1, we always havea 2 ≡1(modN). Hence,ahas order 2, and no order-finding algorithm is re- quired. Consequently, the casea=14 is excluded here. 9 Data availability All data generated or analysed during this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information. Further source data will be made available on reasonable reque...

    work page

  2. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  3. [2]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring,

    P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring,” inProceedings 35th Annual Sympo- sium on F oundations of Computer Science(1994) pp. 124–134

    work page 1994

  4. [3]

    Universal quantum simulators,

    S. Lloyd, “Universal quantum simulators,” Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  5. [4]

    Quantum machine learning,

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,” Nature549, 195 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Demonstration of a small pro- 6 grammable quantum computer with atomic qubits,

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, “Demonstration of a small pro- 6 grammable quantum computer with atomic qubits,” Nature536, 63 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Qubit allocation as a combination of subgraph iso- morphism and token swapping,

    M. Y . Siraichi, V . F. d. Santos, C. Collange, and F. M. Q. Pereira, “Qubit allocation as a combination of subgraph iso- morphism and token swapping,” Proc. ACM Program. Lang.3, 120 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Symmetry-based quantum circuit map- ping,

    D. Yu and K. Fang, “Symmetry-based quantum circuit map- ping,” Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 024029 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    Challenges and opportunities for quantum infor- mation hardware,

    D. D. Awschalom, H. Bernien, R. Hanson, W. D. Oliver, and J. Vuckovic, “Challenges and opportunities for quantum infor- mation hardware,” Science390, 1004 (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quantum algorithm with superconducting qubits,

    A. D. C ´orcoles, M. Takita, K. Inoue, S. Lekuch, Z. K. Minev, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quantum algorithm with superconducting qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 100501 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    Quantum circuits as- sisted by local operations and classical communication: trans- formations and phases of matter,

    L. Piroli, G. Styliaris, and J. I. Cirac, “Quantum circuits as- sisted by local operations and classical communication: trans- formations and phases of matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 220503 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    Measure- ment as a shortcut to long-range entangled quantum matter,

    T.-C. Lu, L. A. Lessa, I. H. Kim, and T. H. Hsieh, “Measure- ment as a shortcut to long-range entangled quantum matter,” PRX Quantum3, 040337 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Constant-depth preparation of matrix product states with adaptive quantum circuits,

    K. C. Smith, A. Khan, B. K. Clark, S. M. Girvin, and T.-C. Wei, “Constant-depth preparation of matrix product states with adaptive quantum circuits,” PRX Quantum5, 030344 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Efficient long-range en- tanglement using dynamic circuits,

    E. B ¨aumer, V . Tripathi, D. S. Wang, P. Rall, E. H. Chen, S. Ma- jumder, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, “Efficient long-range en- tanglement using dynamic circuits,” PRX Quantum5, 030339 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    CaQR: A compiler-assisted approach for qubit reuse through dynamic circuit,

    F. Hua, Y . Jin, Y . Chen, S. Vittal, K. Krsulich, L. S. Bishop, J. Lapeyre, A. Javadi-Abhari, and E. Z. Zhang, “CaQR: A compiler-assisted approach for qubit reuse through dynamic circuit,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM International Confer- ence on Architectural Support for P...

    2023

  8. [15]

    Dynamic quantum cir- cuit compilation,

    K. Fang, M. Zhang, R. Shi, and Y . Li, “Dynamic quantum cir- cuit compilation,” IEEE Trans. Comput.75, 748 (2026)

    2026

  9. [16]

    Experimental demonstration of the advantage of adaptive quantum circuits,

    M. Foss-Feig, A. Tikku, T.-C. Lu, K. Mayer, M. Iqbal, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, N. Hewitt, C. V . Horst, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, B. Neyenhuis, H. Dreyer, D. Hayes, T. H. Hsieh, and I. H. Kim, “Experimental demonstration of the advantage of ...

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Non- Abelian topological order and anyons on a trapped-ion proces- sor,

    M. Iqbal, N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Verresen, S. L. Campbell, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, J. Johansen, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, A. Ransford, M. Rowe, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, M. Foss-Feig, A. Vishwanath, and H. Dreyer, “Non- Abelian topological order an...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Encoding a magic state with beyond break-even fi- delity,

    R. S. Gupta, N. Sundaresan, T. Alexander, C. J. Wood, S. T. Merkel, M. B. Healy, M. Hillenbrand, T. Jochym-O’Connor, J. R. Wootton, T. J. Yoder, A. W. Cross, M. Takita, and B. J. Brown, “Encoding a magic state with beyond break-even fi- delity,” Nature625, 259 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold,

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, “Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold,” Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    A fault- tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum com- putation,

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, M. Cain, an...

    2026

  14. [22]

    Realization of a scalable Shor algorithm,

    T. Monz, D. Nigg, E. A. Martinez, M. F. Brandl, P. Schindler, R. Rines, S. X. Wang, I. L. Chuang, and R. Blatt, “Realization of a scalable Shor algorithm,” Science351, 1068 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Experimental realization of Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm using qubit recycling,

    E. Mart´ın-L´opez, A. Laing, T. Lawson, R. Alvarez, X.-Q. Zhou, and J. L. O’Brien, “Experimental realization of Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm using qubit recycling,” Nat. Photonics6, 773 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Quantum Fourier transform using dynamic circuits,

    E. B ¨aumer, V . Tripathi, A. Seif, D. Lidar, and D. S. Wang, “Quantum Fourier transform using dynamic circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150602 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quan- tum processors: simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,

    E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. K¨uhn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, A. Schuckert, and S. M. Girvin, “Hybrid oscillator-qubit quan- tum processors: simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,” arXiv:2409.03747 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Experimental imple- mentation of a qubit-efficient variational quantum eigensolver with analog error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor,

    Y . Ma, W. Wang, X. Mu, W. Cai, Z. Hua, X. Pan, D.-L. Deng, R. Wu, C.-L. Zou, L. Wang, and L. Sun, “Experimental imple- mentation of a qubit-efficient variational quantum eigensolver with analog error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. A...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: instruction set architec- tures, abstract machine models, and applications,

    Y . Liu, S. Singh, K. C. Smith, E. Crane, J. M. Martyn, A. Eick- busch, A. Schuckert, R. D. Li, J. Sinanan-Singh, M. B. Soley, T. Tsunoda, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, and S. M. Girvin, “Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: instruction set architec- tures, abstract machine m...

    2026

  20. [28]

    Quantum complexity theory,

    E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, “Quantum complexity theory,” SIAM J. Comput.26, 1411 (1997)

    1997

  21. [29]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabi- lizer problem,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Quantum measurements and the abelian stabi- lizer problem,” arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 (1995)

    1995 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum com- puter,

    K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. M. Amini, Y . Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, K. M. Hudek, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Wong-Campos, S. Allen, J. Apisdorf, P. Solomon, M. Williams, A. M. Ducore, A. Blinov, S. M. Kreikemeier, V . Chaplin, M. ...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Cir- cuit quantum electrodynamics,

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, “Cir- cuit quantum electrodynamics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Quantum information pro- cessing with bosonic qubits in circuit QED,

    A. Joshi, K. Noh, and Y . Y . Gao, “Quantum information pro- cessing with bosonic qubits in circuit QED,” Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 033001 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Bosonic quantum error correction codes in superconducting quantum circuits,

    W. Cai, Y . Ma, W. Wang, C.-L. Zou, and L. Sun, “Bosonic quantum error correction codes in superconducting quantum circuits,” Fundam. Res.1, 50 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Quantum memory with millisecond coherence in circuit QED,

    M. Reagor, W. Pfaff, C. Axline, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Sliwa, E. Holland, C. Wang, J. Blumoff, K. Chou, M. J. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Quantum memory with millisecond coherence in circuit QED,” Phys. Rev. B94, 014506 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    An architecture for integrating planar and 3D cQED devices,

    C. Axline, M. Reagor, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, C. Wang, K. Shain, W. Pfaff, Y . Chu, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “An architecture for integrating planar and 3D cQED devices,” Appl. Phys. Lett.109, 042601 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Universal control of an oscillator with dispersive coupling to a qubit,

    S. Krastanov, V . V . Albert, C. Shen, C.-L. Zou, R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. Jiang, “Universal control of an oscillator with dispersive coupling to a qubit,” Phys. Rev. A92, 040303 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator,

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. 7 Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator,” Nat. Commun. 8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit,

    A. Eickbusch, V . Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, “Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit,” Nat. Phys.18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Conditional-not displacement: fast mul- tioscillator control with a single qubit,

    A. A. Diringer, E. Blumenthal, A. Grinberg, L. Jiang, and S. Hacohen-Gourgy, “Conditional-not displacement: fast mul- tioscillator control with a single qubit,” Phys. Rev. X14, 011055 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Fast sideband control of a multi- mode cavity memory with weak dispersive coupling to a trans- mon,

    J. Huang, T. J. DiNapoli, G. Rockwood, M. Yuan, P. Narasimhan, E. Gupta, M. Bal, F. Crisa, S. Garattoni, Y . Lu, L. Jiang, and S. Chakram, “Fast sideband control of a multi- mode cavity memory with weak dispersive coupling to a trans- mon,” Phys. Rev. X16, 011058 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    Transport implementation of the Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm with ion qubits,

    S. D. Fallek, C. D. Herold, B. J. McMahon, K. M. Maller, K. R. Brown, and J. M. Amini, “Transport implementation of the Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm with ion qubits,” New J. Phys.18, 083030 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Experimen- tal comparison of two quantum computing architectures,

    N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, “Experimen- tal comparison of two quantum computing architectures,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, 3305 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Programmable superconducting processor with na- tive three-qubit gates,

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, “Programmable superconducting processor with na- tive three-qubit gates,” Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014072 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Comparison of cloud-based ion trap and superconducting quantum computer architectures,

    S. Blinov, B. Wu, and C. Monroe, “Comparison of cloud-based ion trap and superconducting quantum computer architectures,” A VS Quantum Sci.3, 034101 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Demonstration of algorithmic quantum speedup,

    B. Pokharel and D. A. Lidar, “Demonstration of algorithmic quantum speedup,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 210602 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Experimental benchmarking of an auto- mated deterministic error-suppression workflow for quantum algorithms,

    P. S. Mundada, A. Barbosa, S. Maity, Y . Wang, T. Merkh, T. M. Stace, F. Nielson, A. R. R. Carvalho, M. Hush, M. J. Bier- cuk, and Y . Baum, “Experimental benchmarking of an auto- mated deterministic error-suppression workflow for quantum algorithms,” Phys. Rev. A20, 024034 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Fault- tolerant quantum computation with a neutral atom processor,

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. van Dam, M. B. Hastings, R. V . Mishmash, A. Paz, M. P. da Silva, A. Sun- daram, K. M. Svore, A. Vaschillo, Z. Wang, M. Zanner, W. B. Cairncross, C.-A. Chen, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. M. ...

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and re- set,

    M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, “Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and re- set,” Phys. Rev. X13, 041057 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Implementation of the semiclassical quantum Fourier transform in a scalable system,

    J. Chiaverini, J. Britton, D. Leibfried, E. Knill, M. D. Barrett, R. B. Blakestad, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Oz- eri, T. Schaetz, and D. J. Wineland, “Implementation of the semiclassical quantum Fourier transform in a scalable system,” Science308, 997 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Quantum count- ing,

    G. Brassard, P. HØyer, and A. Tapp, “Quantum count- ing,” inAutomata, Languages and Programming, ICALP 1998 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998) pp. 820–831

    1998

  43. [51]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    Ar- bitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: a two-qubit benchmark,

    M. Dob ˇs´ıˇcek, G. Johansson, V . Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, “Ar- bitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: a two-qubit benchmark,” Phys. Rev. A76, 030306 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Efficient Z gates for quantum computing,

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Efficient Z gates for quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. A96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Experimental realization of Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance,

    L. M. K. Vandersypen, M. Steffen, G. Breyta, C. S. Yannoni, M. H. Sherwood, and I. L. Chuang, “Experimental realization of Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance,” Nature414, 883 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Experimental demonstration of a compiled version of Shor’s algorithm with quantum entanglement,

    B. P. Lanyon, T. J. Weinhold, N. K. Langford, M. Barbieri, D. F. V . James, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, “Experimental demonstration of a compiled version of Shor’s algorithm with quantum entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 250505 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    Demon- stration of a compiled version of Shor’s quantum factoring al- gorithm using photonic qubits,

    C.-Y . Lu, D. E. Browne, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, “Demon- stration of a compiled version of Shor’s quantum factoring al- gorithm using photonic qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 250504 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    Shor’s quan- tum factoring algorithm on a photonic chip,

    A. Politi, J. C. F. Matthews, and J. L. O’Brien, “Shor’s quan- tum factoring algorithm on a photonic chip,” Science325, 1221 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Comput- ing prime factors with a Josephson phase qubit quantum pro- cessor,

    E. Lucero, R. Barends, Y . Chen, J. Kelly, M. Mariantoni, A. Megrant, P. O’Malley, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. White, Y . Yin, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, “Comput- ing prime factors with a Josephson phase qubit quantum pro- cessor,” Nat. Phys.8, 719 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: de- sign of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms,

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr ¨uggen, and S. J. Glaser, “Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: de- sign of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms,” J. Magn. Reson.172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of millisec- onds single-photon coherence time,

    O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi, D. Chausovsky, N. Kahn, E. C ¸ ifty¨urek, F. Lafont, and S. Rosen- blum, “Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of millisec- onds single-photon coherence time,” PRX Quantum4, 030336 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Millisecond lifetimes and coherence times in 2D transmon qubits,

    M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. G. C. Martinez, P. H. Prestegaard, B. M. Smitham, A. Joshi, E. Hedrick, S. Kumar, A. Yang, A. C. Pakpour-Tabrizi, A. Jindal, R. D. Chang, G. Cheng, N. Yao, R. J. Cava, N. P. De Leon, and A. A. Houck, “Millisecond lifetimes and coherence times in 2D ...

    2025

  54. [62]

    Quantum metrology with a continuous-variable system,

    M. Fadel, N. Roux, and M. Gessner, “Quantum metrology with a continuous-variable system,” Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 106001 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Simulating chemistry on bosonic quantum devices,

    R. Dutta, D. G. A. Cabral, N. Lyu, N. P. Vu, Y . Wang, B. Allen, X. Dan, R. G. Corti ˜nas, P. Khazaei, M. Sch ¨afer, A. C. C. D. Albornoz, S. E. Smart, S. Nie, M. H. Devoret, D. A. Mazziotti, P. Narang, C. Wang, J. D. Whitfield, A. K. Wilson, H. P. Hen- drickson, D. A. Lidar, ...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Coherent cou- pling and non-destructive measurement of trapped-ion mechan- ical oscillators,

    P.-Y . Hou, J. J. Wu, S. D. Erickson, D. C. Cole, G. Zarantonello, A. D. Brandt, S. Geller, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, A. C. Wilson, D. H. Slichter, and D. Leibfried, “Coherent cou- pling and non-destructive measurement of trapped-ion mechan- ical oscillators,” Nat. ...

    2024

  57. [65]

    Squeezing, trisqueezing and quadsqueezing in a hybrid oscillator–spin system,

    O. B ˘az˘avan, S. Saner, D. J. Webb, E. M. Ainley, P. Drmota, 8 D. P. Nadlinger, G. Araneda, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, and R. Srinivas, “Squeezing, trisqueezing and quadsqueezing in a hybrid oscillator–spin system,” Nat. Phys.22, 757 (2026)

    2026

  58. [66]

    Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits,

    Y . Chu, P. Kharel, W. H. Renninger, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits,” Science358, 199 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons,

    K. J. Satzinger, Y . P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bi- enfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y . Cleland, C. R. Conner, ´E. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, “Quantum control of surface a...

    2018

  60. [68]

    Coherent coupling between a ferromagnetic magnon and a superconducting qubit,

    Y . Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y . Nakamura, “Coherent coupling between a ferromagnetic magnon and a superconducting qubit,” Science 349, 405 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Quantum control of a single magnon in a macroscopic spin system,

    D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, H.-K. Li, Y .-C. Weng, Y .-P. Wang, J. Li, H. Wang, S.-Y . Zhu, and J. Q. You, “Quantum control of a single magnon in a macroscopic spin system,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 193603 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Beating the break-even point with a discrete- variable-encoded logical qubit,

    Z. Ni, S. Li, X. Deng, Y . Cai, L. Zhang, W. Wang, Z.-B. Yang, H. Yu, F. Yan, S. Liu, C.-L. Zou, L. Sun, S.-B. Zheng, Y . Xu, and D. Yu, “Beating the break-even point with a discrete- variable-encoded logical qubit,” Nature616, 56 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Quantum-enhanced metrology with large Fock states,

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y . Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou, S. Liu, F. Yan, Y . Xu, and D. Yu, “Quantum-enhanced metrology with large Fock states,” Nat. Phys.20, 1874 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box,

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box,” Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  65. [73]

    New material platform for supercon- ducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds,

    A. P. M. Place, L. V . H. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. M. Smitham, M. Fitzpatrick, Z. Leng, A. Premkumar, J. Bryon, A. Vraji- toarea, S. Sussman, G. Cheng, T. Madhavan, H. K. Babla, X. H. Le, Y . Gang, B. J¨ack, A. Gyenis, N. Yao, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and A. A. Houck, “New ma...

    2021

  66. [74]

    Rapid driven reset of a qubit readout res- onator,

    D. T. McClure, H. Paik, L. S. Bishop, M. Steffen, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Rapid driven reset of a qubit readout res- onator,” Phys. Rev. Appl.5, 011001 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Observation of quan- tum jumps in a superconducting artificial atom,

    R. Vijay, D. H. Slichter, and I. Siddiqi, “Observation of quan- tum jumps in a superconducting artificial atom,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 110502 (2011)

    2011

  68. [76]

    Quantum error correction and universal gate set operation on a binomial bosonic logical qubit,

    L. Hu, Y . Ma, W. Cai, X. Mu, Y . Xu, W. Wang, Y . Wu, H. Wang, Y . P. Song, C.-L. Zou, S. M. Girvin, L.-M. Duan, and L. Sun, “Quantum error correction and universal gate set operation on a binomial bosonic logical qubit,” Nat. Phys.15, 503 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, “QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,” Com- put. Phys. Commun.184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.