Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Cavity-mediated cross-cross-resonance gate

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Driving two transmon qubits near a common cavity resonance yields a controlled-phase gate through closed circular motion of the cavity in phase space.

desk verdict Solid two-qubit gate derivation with a clever error-cancellation scheme; the multi-pair metamaterial claim is explicitly deferred to future work. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03239 v1 pith:32O2GD23 submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Alexey V. Gorshkov , Daniel Cohen , Arbel Haim , Amit Rotem , Or Golan , Gihwan Kim , Andreas Butler , Connor T. Hann
show 3 more authors
Oskar Painter Fernando G.S.L. Brandão Alex Retzker
This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V8081Q93
keywords cross-cross-resonancegatetransmonqubitscavity-mediatedtwo-qubitcontrolled-phasedispersivecouplingcancellationdynamicaldecouplingphase-spacecavitymetamaterial
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

The paper proposes a two-qubit gate for superconducting transmon qubits: drive both qubits at a frequency near the cavity resonance rather than at each other's frequency. After dressing each qubit, the cavity feels a state-dependent force $M(b+b^\dagger)$ with $M=\frac12(g_1 Z_1\sin\theta_1+g_2 Z_2\sin\theta_2)$, so in phase space the cavity traces a circle whose area encodes the two-qubit state. At a time $\tau$ satisfying $\epsilon\tau=2\pi n$ the circle closes and the only remnant is the conditional phase $U(\tau)=e^{iM^2\tau/\epsilon}$, which can be tuned to produce a CZ gate up to single-qubit $Z$ rotations. The paper claims the dominant error, the dispersive coupling that makes the cavity frequency depend on the qubit state, is exactly canceled by either an integer-commensurability condition or a $\pi$-pulse dynamical-decoupling 'flowers' sequence. The same construction extends to arrays of coupled cavities, enabling simultaneous long-range two-qubit gates between multiple pairs of qubits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective coupling $H=\epsilon b^\dagger b+M(b+b^\dagger)$ with $M=\frac12\sum_j g_j Z_j\sin\theta_j$, obtained by going to each qubit's dressed basis and dropping off-resonant flip-flop terms. Everything else follows from the displacement identity $b(t)=b(0)+\frac{M}{\epsilon}(1-e^{i\epsilon t})$: the cavity moves on a circle of radius $M/\epsilon$, and when $\epsilon\tau=2\pi n$ the path closes so the propagator reduces to the purely qubit phase $e^{iM^2\tau/\epsilon}$. The flowers cancellation mechanism is a second load-bearing object: simultaneous $\pi$ pulses on both qubits flip the signs of $M$ and of the dispersive shift, so the phase-space trajectory is assembled from circle arcs into a closed even-petal flower ($P\ge4$), exactly canceling the dispersive coupling while leaving the desired conditional phase intact.

What would settle it

A targeted check is to drive two fixed-frequency transmons coupled to a cavity near the cavity frequency and measure the cavity displacement as a function of time via heterodyne or Wigner tomography; the claim predicts exactly $b(t)=b(0)+\frac{M}{\epsilon}(1-e^{i\epsilon t})$, closing to the vacuum at $\tau=2\pi/\epsilon$ only when the hierarchy $\sqrt{\Delta^2+\Omega^2}\gg g,\epsilon$ holds. Violating the hierarchy, or making $\epsilon\tau$ differ from $2\pi n$ by the dispersive shift, should leave a measurable photon population and drop the CZ fidelity, so observing the predicted closure and the predicted $e^{iM^2\tau/\epsilon}$ phase decides the matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two transmons driven at the same near-cavity frequency reduce, under the rotating-wave approximation and the hierarchy $\sqrt{\Delta_j^2+\Omega_j^2}\gg g_j,\epsilon$, to the exactly solvable Hamiltonian $H=\epsilon b^\dagger b+M(b+b^\dagger)$, with $M=\frac12\sum_j g_j Z_j\sin\theta_j$. The cavity displacement obeys $b(t)=b(0)+\frac{M}{\epsilon}(1-e^{i\epsilon t})$, a circle of radius $M/\epsilon$ in phase space. If the gate time satisfies $\epsilon\tau=2\pi n$, the displacement returns to its starting point and the unitary collapses to $U(\tau)=e^{iM^2\tau/\epsilon}$; choosing $2\tau g_1g_2\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2/\epsilon=\pi$ makes this, up to single-qubit $Z$ rotations, a CZ gate, with fastest time $\tau=\pi/\sqrt{g_1g_2\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2}$. The paper further claims the dispersive shift $H_{\rm disp}=\sum_i f_i Z_i b^\dagger b$---the dominant correction---can be canceled exactly by requiring $\epsilon\tau$, $f_1\tau$, and $f_2\tau$ to be integer multiples of $\pi$, or by inserting simultaneous $\pi$ pulses so that the phase-space trajectory becomes a closed even-petal 'flower'; this enables the same gate through cavity arrays, including simultaneous gates on up to $N/2$ qubit pairs via distinct eigenmodes.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme rests on the hierarchy $\sqrt{\Delta_j^2+\Omega_j^2}\gg g_j,\epsilon$ (together with the rotating-wave approximation), so that the off-resonant qubit-cavity flip-flop terms are negligible and the dynamics collapse to the simple displacement coupling $M(b+b^\dagger)$; if that hierarchy is not maintained, or if the cavity is significantly populated for times comparable to its decay time, the phase-space circles fail to close cleanly and residual qubit-photon entanglement appears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ideal gate time is $\tau=\pi/\sqrt{g_1g_2\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2}$, so near-resonant driving makes the gate faster than schemes that require adiabatic elimination of the cavity.
  • The $P=4$ flowers sequence cancels the dispersive coupling exactly and is only about 1.45 times slower than the ideal gate, while the integers approach is typically much slower because $f_i\ll\epsilon$ forces large integers.
  • In a metamaterial of $N$ coupled cavities, up to $N/2$ simultaneous two-qubit gates can be applied to arbitrary disjoint qubit pairs using distinct eigenmodes, provided the gate time obeys $\tau\gg N/J$ with $J$ the nearest-neighbor cavity coupling.
  • With $P\ge4$ flowers, the error from spectator qubits coupled to the same mode scales as the fourth power of $N g^2/(\Delta\epsilon)$ rather than the square, so the flowers approach is markedly better than the integers approach in multi-qubit settings.
  • The offsets of the two flower schedules can cancel always-on $ZZ$ interactions on inactive bonds in a square-lattice architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to close the loop with a real-time feedback drive: since the phase-space radius is set by $M/\epsilon$, modulating $\epsilon$ or the Rabi frequencies mid-gate could compensate slow cavity-frequency drift without changing the final $\tau$.
  • The paper does not model cavity decay while the mode is significantly populated; a master-equation simulation at $\tau\approx 2\pi/\epsilon$ should reveal an infidelity contribution roughly proportional to $\kappa\tau\langle b^\dagger b\rangle$, which is a concrete quantity an experiment could measure.
  • The flowers sequence is a dynamical-decoupling control scheme, so its central prediction---residual photon population vanishes after the full pulse train---can be checked directly by Wigner tomography before undertaking full two-qubit process tomography.
  • Whether the simultaneous-gate schedule remains robust when spectator qubits are not dynamically decoupled is left open; the paper shows the multi-qubit error is higher order, but an explicit pulse schedule for arbitrary pairings would be needed to use the scheme as a compiler primitive.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-qubit controlled-phase gate between superconducting transmon qubits mediated by a cavity or by an array of coupled cavities (a 'metamaterial'), realized by driving both qubits near the cavity resonance ('cross-cross-resonance'). The core derivation (Sec. II) shows that, after dressing each qubit by its drive and applying a second rotating-wave approximation under the hierarchy sqrt(Delta_j^2 + Omega_j^2) >> g_j, epsilon, the dynamics reduce to H = epsilon b^dagger b + M(b + b^dagger) with M a state-dependent number. Because each qubit computational state experiences a different M, the oscillator traces phase-space circles of state-dependent area; at times satisfying epsilon tau = 2 pi n the oscillator returns to its initial state and the unitary is exp(i M^2 tau / epsilon), which yields a CZ gate up to single-qubit rotations when 2 tau g1 g2 sin(theta1) sin(theta2)/epsilon = pi. Two schemes are proposed to cancel the dominant correction, the dispersive shift sum_i f_i Z_i b^dagger b: the 'integers' approach, which requires simultaneously integer values of epsilon tau, f1 tau, f2 tau; and the 'flowers' approach, which applies P pairs of pi-pulses (P even, >=4) timed so that the phase-space trajectory closes even when the dispersive shift is present.

Significance. The central two-qubit construction is a genuine contribution: the derivation of the effective Z(b + b^dagger) Hamiltonian from a microscopic model is self-contained, the phase-space solution is exact and cleanly presented (Eqs. (20)-(26)), and the CZ parameter constraints (Eqs. (25), (29)-(31)) are concrete and checkable. The flowers approach transfers the trapped-ion dynamical-decoupling insight (Ref. [84]) to a cavity setting with a non-trivial extension to nonzero dispersive parameter x, including explicit area formulas (Eqs. (89)-(91)) and a stated gate-time formula (Eq. (95)). The transmon generalization yields closed-form expressions for both the desired interaction and the dispersive shift (Eqs. (47)-(51)), and the error-scaling estimates in Sec. VII.B.1 are transparently labeled as worst-case versus average-case. The paper is honest in flagging its own limitations, notably the deferral of simultaneous multi-pair analysis and of decoherence studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. VII; Sec. VIII] The abstract and Conclusions state that the gate 'allows one to realize simultaneous gates between multiple pairs of qubits coupled via the same metamaterial,' and the Conclusions repeat 'We showed that...'. The analysis in Sec. VII does not establish this. Sec. VII.B is titled 'Detailed analysis in the case of 2 driven qubits'; its two subsections treat N qubits with 1 photonic mode and 2 qubits with ~N photonic modes, i.e. in both cases only one pair is driven. In Sec. VII.B.2 the authors state that requiring every mode to return to its initial state (epsilon_k tau = 2 pi n_k for all k) is 'very challenging for a large number of modes' and 'We leave to future work to find whether such compensation is possible for large numbers of modes'; Sec. VIII likewise defers 'the case where multiple pairs of qubits are driven simultaneously' to future work. The condition in Eq. (128), g_{i,k} Omega_i / Delta_i << J/N, is derived for a single driven pair while neglecting the other modes; it does not bound the aggregate effect of N-1 spectator modes on the driven qubits, nor does it bound inter-pair crosstalk when N/2 pairs are driven simultaneously at different mode frequencies (each qubit is coupled to every mode through g_{i,k} = g_i eta_{i,k}). The advertised capability is therefore an assumption rather than a result. The fix is either to supply the multi-pair analysis, including an aggregate error bound, or to qualify or remove the claim from the abstract, introduction, and Conclusions and present the metamaterial scheme as an open proposal.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The practical claims for the flowers approach are derived assuming ideal instantaneous pi-pulses. Eq. (95) states that the P=4 gate is slower than the ideal gate by a factor of only 1.45, and the text concludes the flowers approach is 'likely more promising' than the integers approach. The treatment of non-ideal pulses is, however, only qualitative: the conditions (tau_pi)^{-1} >> epsilon, g Omega/Delta and (tau_pi)^{-1} << Delta^2/Omega are stated, and the dressing-misalignment error is said to be suppressed by Omega/Delta, but no estimate of the resulting infidelity is given, and the total pulse time P tau_pi is not added to T_tot in Eq. (95). Since each evolution interval is tau = 3 pi / (2 epsilon), a complete comparison needs at least an order-of-magnitude statement that tau_pi << tau is compatible with these inequalities for realistic parameters and an estimate of the pulse-induced phase error. I request a quantitative error budget for the pi-pulses or an explicit caveat that Eq. (95) is an ideal-pulse limit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.B and elsewhere] There are several typos: 'we we will discuss' (end of Sec. II.B), 'antisymmetic' (Sec. IV, below Eq. (97)), 'metameterial' and 'matamaterial' (Sec. VII opening and Sec. VIII), 'for large a large number of modes' (Sec. VII.B.3), and 'CMPG-like' for 'CPMG-like' (Sec. III.B). These should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. III.B and Sec. VIII] The claim that spin-locking suppresses the dispersive coupling is delegated to companion Ref. [91] ('In Ref. [91], we also show...'). As this support is not contained in the manuscript, the reference should be explicitly marked as a companion paper, or the argument should be summarized.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. II.A] The abstract and Sec. I describe the cavity as 'actively and significantly populated,' but for the fastest CZ gate (n=1, equal couplings and equal sin(theta)), the phase-space radius is M/epsilon = 1/2, giving a mean photon number of order 1/4 during the gate. The wording should be reconciled with these numbers.
  4. [Sec. VII opening paragraph] The sentence 'the condition in Eq. (128) enables the metamaterial to mediate up to N/2 simultaneous cross-cross-resonance two-qubit gates' states as a conclusion what is at best a necessary condition for a scheme whose multi-pair analysis is absent; this sentence should be rephrased as a proposal.
  5. [Sec. II.A (RIP comparison)] The speed comparison with the resonator-induced phase gate and with adiabatically eliminated resonator buses is qualitative; a concrete numerical example with typical transmon/cavity parameters would make the claimed speed advantage testable.
  6. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 3] The pulse-timing diagram in Fig. 3 does not indicate the pulse duration tau_pi or the idealization that pulses are instantaneous; the caption should state this assumption explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-qubit gate derivation is self-contained analytic; the metamaterial multi-pair claim is deferred, not derived by fiat.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from Eq. (1), a rotating-frame transformation and RWA give Eq. (2); the dressed-basis rotation gives Eq. (7), and the hierarchy sqrt(Delta_j^2+Omega_j^2) >> g_j, epsilon justifies the second RWA leading to Eq. (8), H = epsilon b†b + M(b+b†). The propagator for this Hamiltonian is solved exactly in Eqs. (9)-(26), with the phase-space closure condition epsilon tau = 2 pi n being a stated parameter condition, not an assumed consequence of the desired gate. The CZ condition (29) is likewise a constraint on tau, g1, g2, theta1, theta2, derived from Eq. (26). The dispersive-coupling error is modeled independently in Eqs. (36)-(38), and both cancellation schemes are constructed: the integers approach imposes integer conditions (55)-(58) as explicit tuning requirements, and the flowers approach proves closure in phase space via Eqs. (80)-(93), including nonzero x, so it does not reduce to an ansatz. The only self-citation of substantive content (Ref. [91], which concerns spin-locking and dual-rail suppression) is presented as an alternative or complementary approach, not as a premise of the two-qubit gate derivation. The abstract's claim that the gate allows simultaneous gates between multiple pairs of qubits coupled via the same metamaterial is stronger than what is demonstrated: Sec. VII B analyzes only the case where two qubits are driven, Sec. VII B.2 explicitly leaves the multi-mode compensation problem to future work, and the Conclusions state that extending the analysis to multiple simultaneously driven pairs is future work. That is an overreach or scope gap, not a circularity; no step of the central derivation is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol uses standard quantum-optics tools (RWA, perturbation theory, unitary transformations) and relies on regime assumptions about the transmon and resonator. No exotic physical entities are introduced; the 'metamaterial' is a known array of coupled cavities, and the gate is a new pulse protocol rather than a new physical object.

free parameters (3)
  • Integer numbers n_epsilon, n1, n2 in the integers approach = not fitted; user-chosen integers
    In Section III A, Eqs. (56-58), the approach requires epsilon tau = pi n_epsilon, f1 tau = pi n1, f2 tau = pi n2. These integers are hand-chosen to satisfy the phase closure conditions.
  • P, the number of petal pairs in the flowers approach = P = 4 for the fastest gate
    The flowers approach uses an even P >= 4; P = 4 gives the shortest gate time, larger P gives better noise suppression at the cost of speed.
  • Rabi frequencies Omega1, Omega2 = not fitted; user-tuned
    Omega1 and Omega2 control sin(theta1) and sin(theta2) and are used to satisfy the CZ phase condition (Eq. 60 or 93); they are not constrained by external data.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation (RWA)
    Used to derive Eq. (2) from Eq. (1); valid when the drive frequencies are near resonance and couplings are small compared to the qubit and cavity frequencies.
  • domain assumption Two-level (qubit) truncation of transmons
    The initial derivation in Section II A treats each transmon as a qubit; Section II C generalizes to anharmonicity. The qubit truncation is valid when anharmonicity is large enough to suppress leakage to higher levels during the gate.
  • domain assumption Neglect of decoherence
    The entire calculation assumes a closed quantum system; the paper mentions in Section VIII that decoherence will impose limits but does not include it in the gate model.
  • domain assumption Regime condition sqrt(Delta_j^2 + Omega_j^2) >> g_j, epsilon
    This hierarchy is required for the effective displacement Hamiltonian in Eq. (8); deviations break the model and introduce residual qubit-photon entanglement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cavity-mediated cross-cross-resonance gate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/32O2GD23

@misc{pith2026250603239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cavity-mediated cross-cross-resonance gate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/32O2GD23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03239}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a cavity-mediated gate between two transmon qubits or other nonlinear superconducting elements. The gate is realized by driving both qubits at a frequency that is near-resonant with the frequency of the cavity. Since both qubits are subject to a cross-resonant drive, we call this gate a cross-cross-resonance gate. In close analogy with gates between trapped-ion qubits, in phase space, the state of the cavity makes a circle whose area depends on the state of the two qubits, realizing a controlled-phase gate. We propose two schemes for canceling the dominant error, which is the dispersive coupling. We also show that this cross-cross-resonance gate allows one to realize simultaneous gates between multiple pairs of qubits coupled via the same metamaterial composed of an array of coupled cavities or other linear mediators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Cavity-mediated cross-cross-resonance gate. Two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time evolution, given in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The pulse sequence used in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: looks like a 4-petal flower. One might worry that, when x ̸= 0, the photonic state does not come back to the origin. However, we show in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Cross-cross-resonance gate mediated by two oscil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Cavity-mediated cross-cross-resonance gate in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. A square lattice of transmons (blue) coupled via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. The figure showing cancellation of always-on ZZ in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Time evolution of the real and imaginary parts of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_22.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Long-Range Entangling Operations via Josephson Junction Metasurfaces

    quant-ph 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A proposed metasurface-mediated coupling scheme claims centimeter-scale two-qubit entangling gates with over 98% simulated fidelity, but the supporting derivation and simulation details are not provided.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [84]

    K. N. Smith, G. S. Ravi, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, in2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microar- chitecture (MICRO)(IEEE, 2022) pp. 1092–1109

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    (B8) In this subsection, we present an alternative derivation of Eq

    Alternative derivation of Eq. (B8) In this subsection, we present an alternative derivation of Eq. (B8). We begin by rewriting our Hamiltonian as a sum of the quadratic partH 2 and the quartic partH 4: H=H 2 +H 4,(B9) H2 =νb †b+ X i ωic† i ci + X i gi(c† i b+h.c.),(B10) H4 =− ˜η 2 b†b†bb− X i ηi 2 c† i c† i cici.(B11) We now exactly diagonalizeH 2: H2 = ˜...

  3. [2]

    bad”) dispersive coupling can be suppressed relative to the desired (“good

    2 qubits and∼Nphotonic modes Having discussed the simple case ofNqubits and 1 photonic mode, let us describe another simple case of 2 qubits and∼Nphotonic modes. The Hamiltonian in Eqs. (135-137) then simplifies to H= X k h ϵk(1 +x k)b† kbk +M k(bk +b † k) i ,(166) xk = 1 ϵk 2X i=1 fi,kZi,(167) Mk = 1 2 2X i=1 gi,kZi sinθ i,(168) i.e., the dispersive coup...

  4. [3]

    As in Sec

    Derivation to second order inηand to all orders ing In this subsection, we deriveJ ZZ to second order inηand to all orders ing. As in Sec. B 1, we write our Hamiltonian as a sum of the quadratic partH 2 and the quartic partH 4: H=H 2 +H 4,(B33) H2 =νb †b+ X i ωic† i ci + X i gi(c† i b+h.c.) + ˜g(c† 1c2 +h.c.),(B34) H4 =− ˜η 2 b†b†bb− X i ηi 2 c† i c† i ci...

    2000

  5. [4]

    (B8) are affected by the presence of direct interaction between data qubits

    Including direct interaction between data qubits In this subsection, we analyze how ZZ interactions derived in Eq. (B8) are affected by the presence of direct interaction between data qubits. The Hamiltonian is now H=νb †b− ˜η 2 b†b†bb+ X i ωic† i ci − ηi 2 c† i c† i cici + X i gi(c† i b+h.c.) + ˜g(c† 1c2 +h.c.),(B23) where ˜gis the strength of the direct...

  6. [5]

    Notice that, when ˜g̸= 0, we have a term∼g 3

    + ∆2 1(g2 1 −g 2 2 + ˜g2)) ∆3 1(∆1 −∆ 2)3 , (B25) where ∆ i =ω i −ν. Notice that, when ˜g̸= 0, we have a term∼g 3. The expression forE 2 is the same except the subscripts 1 and 2 are swapped. To calculate the shiftE 12 of|1,1,0⟩to fourth order ing, we apply the Schrieffer-Wolff on the following Hamiltonian, written in the basis{|1,1,0⟩,|1,0,1⟩,|0,1,1⟩,|0,...

  7. [6]

    If ˜g≪g 2 1/∆, then the ZZ interaction is dominated by the ˜g= 0 answerJ (0) ZZ

  8. [7]

    We note that our expressions forJ (0) ZZ ,J (1) ZZ , andJ (2) ZZ are in agreement with Appendix D of Ref

    If ˜g≫g 2 1/∆, then the ZZ interaction is dominated by ˜g2 2(∆2−∆1+η1) + ˜g2 2(∆1−∆2+η2) fromJ (2) ZZ . We note that our expressions forJ (0) ZZ ,J (1) ZZ , andJ (2) ZZ are in agreement with Appendix D of Ref. [99]. In particular, using the dictionary U1 =−η 1, U2 =−η 2, Uc =−˜η, g12 = ˜g, g1c =g 1, g2c =g 2,∆ 12 =−∆ 21 = ∆1 −∆ 2,∆ 1c = ∆1,∆ 2c = ∆2,(B32)...

Show all 108 references
  1. [8]

    Y. Chen, C. Neill, P. Roushan, N. Leung, M. Fang, R. Barends, J. Kelly, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. M. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, M. R. Geller, A. N. Cleland, and J. M...

    2014

  2. [9]

    high energy

    + 2(∆2 1η1 + ∆2 2η2 + (∆1 + ∆2)η1η2)˜g2 −(η 1 +η 2)˜g4) 2(∆1 −∆ 2 −η 1)(∆1 −∆ 2 +η 2)(∆2 1 −˜g2)2(∆2 2 −˜g2)2 . (C4) Ifη 1 =η 2 =η, this simplifies to JZZ = ηg 2 1g2 2 ˜g2(∆4 2 + ∆4 1 +η(∆ 1 + ∆2)(∆2 1 + ∆2 2)−2(∆ 2 1 + ∆2 2 + (∆1 + ∆2)η)˜g2 + 2˜g4) 2(η2 −(∆ 1 −∆ 2)2)(∆2 1 −˜g...

  3. [10]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I. J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. M. Van Den Brink, and A. M. Zagoskin, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 127901 (2003)

    2003

  7. [14]

    R. C. Bialczak, M. Ansmann, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wenner, M. Steffen, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Nat. Phys.6, 409 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Dewes, F

    A. Dewes, F. R. Ong, V. Schmitt, R. Lauro, N. Boulant, P. Bertet, D. Vion, and D. Esteve, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 057002 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Natur...

    2014

  10. [17]

    Yamamoto, M

    T. Yamamoto, M. Neeley, E. Lucero, R. C. Bialczak, J. Kelly, M. Lenander, M. Mariantoni, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, Y. Yin, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. B82, 184515 (2010)

    2010

  11. [18]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. Campbell, J. I. J. Wang, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin,...

    2019

  13. [20]

    Majer, J

    J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature (London)449, 443 (2007)

    2007

  14. [21]

    This is the correct answer forJ ZZ to orderg 4 after it has also been expanded to first order inη, as one can check by expanding Eq

    (B18) =−˜η g2 1g2 2 2∆2 1∆2 2 −η 1 g2 1g2 2 2∆2 2(∆2 −∆ 1)2 −η 2 g2 1g2 2 2∆2 1(∆2 −∆ 1)2 (B19) =− (η1∆2 1 +η 2∆2 2 + ˜η(∆1 −∆ 2)2)g2 1g2 2 2∆2 1∆2 2(∆2 −∆ 1)2 ,(B20) where we plugged in expressions for matrix elements ofUthat are correct to lowest nonzero order ing. This is t...

  15. [22]

    J. M. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 030502 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

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

    2011

  17. [24]

    DiCarlo, J

    L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop, B. R. Johnson, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature (London)460, 240 (2009)

    2009

  18. [25]

    F. W. Strauch, P. R. Johnson, A. J. Dragt, C. J. Lobb, J. R. Anderson, and F. C. Wellstood, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 167005 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    DiCarlo, M

    L. DiCarlo, M. D. Reed, L. Sun, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature (London)467, 574 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    Neg ˆ ırneac, H

    V. Neg ˆ ırneac, 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. DiCarlo, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 220502 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    A. W. Cross and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. A91, 032325 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    Puri and A

    S. Puri and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 180501 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    H. Paik, A. Mezzacapo, M. Sandberg, D. T. McClure, B. Abdo, A. D. C´ orcoles, O. Dial, D. F. Bogorin, B. L. T. Plourde, M. Steffen, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, and J. M. Chow, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 250502 (2016)

    2016

  24. [31]

    Malekakhlagh, W

    M. Malekakhlagh, W. Shanks, and H. Paik, Phys. Rev. A105, 022607 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Kumph, J

    M. Kumph, J. Raftery, A. Finck, J. Blair, A. Carniol, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, V. Arena, S. Hall, D. McKay, and G. Stehlik, arXiv:2406.11770 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Huang, T

    Z. Huang, T. Kim, T. Roy, Y. Lu, A. Romanenko, S. Zhu, and A. Grassellino, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 034007 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    G. S. Paraoanu, Phys. Rev. B74, 140504 (2006)

    2006

  28. [35]

    Rigetti and M

    C. Rigetti and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. B81, 134507 (2010)

    2010

  29. [36]

    P. J. Leek, S. Filipp, P. Maurer, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, J. M. Fink, M. G¨ oppl, L. Steffen, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. B 79, 180511 (2009)

    2009

  30. [37]

    Poletto, J

    S. Poletto, J. M. Gambetta, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, A. D. C´ orcoles, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. Rozen, D. W. Abraham, C. Rigetti, and M. Steffen, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 240505 (2012)

    2012

  31. [38]

    J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. W. Cross, S. T. Merkel, C. Rigetti, and M. Steffen, New J. Phys.15, 115012 (2013)

    2013

  32. [39]

    Zeytino˘ glu, M

    S. Zeytino˘ glu, M. Pechal, S. Berger, A. A. Abdumalikov, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. A91, 043846 (2015)

    2015

  33. [40]

    Egger, M

    D. Egger, M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, P. M¨ uller, P.Kl. Barkoutsos, N. Moll, I. Tavernelli, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 014017 (2019)

    2019

  34. [41]

    Bertet, C

    P. Bertet, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. B73, 064512 (2006)

    2006

  35. [42]

    A. O. Niskanen, Y. Nakamura, and J.-S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. B73, 094506 (2006)

    2006

  36. [43]

    Y.-X. Liu, L. F. Wei, J. R. Johansson, J. S. Tsai, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B76, 144518 (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    A. O. Niskanen, K. Harrabi, F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, S. Lloyd, and J. S. Tsai, Science316, 723 (2007)

    2007

  38. [45]

    Beaudoin, M

    F. Beaudoin, M. P. Da Silva, Z. Dutton, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A86, 022305 (2012)

    2012

  39. [46]

    J. D. Strand, M. Ware, F. Beaudoin, T. A. Ohki, B. R. Johnson, A. Blais, and B. L. T. Plourde, Phys. Rev. B87, 220505 (2013)

    2013

  40. [47]

    Kapit, Phys

    E. Kapit, Phys. Rev. A92, 012302 (2015)

    2015

  41. [48]

    A. J. Sirois, M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, M. P. DeFeo, L. Ranzani, F. Lecocq, R. W. Simmonds, J. D. Teufel, and J. Aumentado, Appl. Phys. Lett.106, 172603 (2015)

    2015

  42. [49]

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

    2016

  43. [50]

    R. K. Naik, N. Leung, S. Chakram, P. Groszkowski, Y. Lu, N. Earnest, D. C. McKay, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Nat. Commun.8, 1904 (2017)

    2017

  44. [51]

    S. A. Caldwell, N. Didier, C. A. Ryan, E. A. Sete, A. Hudson, P. Karalekas, R. Manenti, M. P. Da Silva, R. Sinclair, E. Acala, N. Alidoust, J. Angeles, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Curtis, S. Deshpa...

    2018

  45. [52]

    Didier, E

    N. Didier, E. A. Sete, M. P. da Silva, and C. Rigetti, Phys. Rev. A97, 022330 (2018)

    2018

  46. [53]

    Reagor, C

    M. Reagor, C. B. Osborn, N. Tezak, A. Staley, G. Prawiroatmodjo, M. Scheer, N. Alidoust, E. A. Sete, N. Didier, M. P. Da Silva, E. Acala, J. Angeles, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, S. Caldwell, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Curtis...

    2018

  47. [54]

    P. C. de Groot, J. Lisenfeld, R. N. Schouten, S. Ashhab, A. Lupa¸ scu, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Nat. Phys. 6, 763 (2010)

    2010

  48. [55]

    J. M. Chow, A. D. C´ orcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 080502 (2011)

    2011

  49. [56]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. X. Wei, S. Srinivasan, E. Magesan, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, D. Klaus, O. Dial, and D. C. McKay, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 130501 (2021)

    2021

  50. [57]

    K. X. Wei, E. Magesan, I. Lauer, S. Srinivasan, D. F. Bogorin, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, Y. Kim, D. Klaus, W. Landers, N. Sundaresan, C. Wang, E. J. Zhang, M. Steffen, O. E. Dial, D. C. McKay, and A. Kandala, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 060501 (2022)

    2022

  51. [58]

    J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. D. C´ orcoles, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. Rozen, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 060501 (2012)

    2012

  52. [59]

    A. D. C´ orcoles, J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, J. A. Smolin, M. Ware, J. Strand, B. L. T. Plourde, and M. Steffen, Phys. Rev. A87, 030301 (2013)

    2013

  53. [60]

    Takita, A

    M. Takita, A. D. C´ orcoles, E. Magesan, B. Abdo, M. Brink, A. Cross, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210505 (2016)

    2016

  54. [61]

    Sheldon, E

    S. Sheldon, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. A93, 060302 (2016)

    2016

  55. [62]

    Patterson, J

    A. Patterson, J. Rahamim, T. Tsunoda, P. Spring, S. Jebari, K. Ratter, M. Mergenthaler, G. Tancredi, B. Vlastakis, M. Esposito, and P. Leek, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 064013 (2019)

    2019

  56. [63]

    Hazra, K

    S. Hazra, K. V. Salunkhe, A. Bhattacharjee, G. Bothara, S. Kundu, T. Roy, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Appl. Phys. Lett.116, 152601 (2020)

    2020

  57. [64]

    Dogan, D

    E. Dogan, D. Rosenstock, L. L. Guevel, H. Xiong, R. A. Mencia, A. Somoroff, K. N. Nesterov, M. G. Vavilov, V. E. Manucharyan, and C. Wang, Phys. Rev. Appl.20(2023)

    2023

  58. [65]

    P. C. de Groot, S. Ashhab, A. Lupa¸ scu, L. DiCarlo, F. Nori, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, New J. Phys.14, 073038 (2012)

    2012

  59. [66]

    Kirchhoff, T

    S. Kirchhoff, T. Keßler, P. J. Liebermann, E. Ass´ emat, S. Machnes, F. Motzoi, and F. K. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. A97, 042348 (2018)

    2018

  60. [67]

    Tripathi, M

    V. Tripathi, M. Khezri, and A. N. Korotkov, Phys. Rev. A100, 012301 (2019)

    2019

  61. [68]

    Magesan and J

    E. Magesan and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. A101, 052308 (2020)

    2020

  62. [69]

    Sundaresan, I

    N. Sundaresan, I. Lauer, E. Pritchett, E. Magesan, P. Jurcevic, and J. M. Gambetta, PRX Quantum1, 020318 (2020)

    2020

  63. [70]

    Malekakhlagh, E

    M. Malekakhlagh, E. Magesan, and D. C. McKay, Phys. Rev. A102, 042605 (2020)

    2020

  64. [71]

    Malekakhlagh and E

    M. Malekakhlagh and E. Magesan, Phys. Rev. A105, 012602 (2022)

    2022

  65. [72]

    K. N. Nesterov, C. Wang, V. E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vavilov, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034063 (2022)

    2022

  66. [73]

    Heya and N

    K. Heya and N. Kanazawa, PRX Quantum2, 040336 (2021)

    2021

  67. [74]

    Petrescu, C

    A. Petrescu, C. L. Calonnec, C. Leroux, A. D. Paolo, P. Mundada, S. Sussman, A. Vrajitoarea, A. A. Houck, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044003 (2023)

    2023

  68. [75]

    Sorensen and K

    A. Sorensen and K. Molmer, Phys. Rev. A62, 022311 (2000)

    2000

  69. [76]

    N. P. Breuckmann, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  70. [77]

    Gottesman, Quantum Info

    D. Gottesman, Quantum Info. Comput.14, 1338 (2014)

    2014

  71. [78]

    M. A. Tremblay, N. Delfosse, and M. E. Beverland, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050504 (2022)

    2022

  72. [79]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, inProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, Rome Italy, 2022) pp. 375–388

    2022

  73. [80]

    Leverrier and G

    A. Leverrier and G. Zemor, in2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, Denver, CO, USA, 2022) pp. 872–883

    2022

  74. [81]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature (London)627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  75. [82]

    K. Wang, Z. Lu, C. Zhang, G. Liu, J. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, S. Xu, X. Zhu, F. Jin, Y. Gao, Z. Tan, Z. Cui, N. Wang, Y. Zou, A. Zhang, T. Li, F. Shen, J. Zhong, Z. Bao, Z. Zhu, Y. Han, Y. He, J. Shen, H. Wang, J.-N. Yang, Z. Song, J. Deng, H. Dong, Z.-Z. Sun, W. Li, Q. Ye, S. Ji...

    2025

  76. [83]

    G. J. Norris, K. Dalton, D. C. Zanuz, A. Rommens, A. Flasby, M. B. Panah, F. Swiadek, C. Scarato, C. Hellings, J.-C. Besse,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12603 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A. Gold, J. Paquette, A. Stockklauser, M. J. Reagor, M. S. Alam, A. Bestwick, N. Didier, A. Nersisyan, F. Oruc, A. Razavi, et al., npj Quantum Inf.7, 142 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Field, A

    M. Field, A. Q. Chen, B. Scharmann, E. A. Sete, F. Oruc, K. Vu, V. Kosenko, J. Y. Mutus, S. Poletto, and A. Bestwick, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 054063 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    X. Deng, W. Zheng, X. Liao, H. Zhou, Y. Ge, J. Zhao, D. Lan, X. Tan, Y. Zhang, S. Li,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 020801 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    X. Wu, H. Yan, G. Andersson, A. Anferov, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, Y. J. Joshi, S. Li, J. M. Miller,et al., Phys. Rev. X14, 041030 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    J. Song, S. Yang, P. Liu, H.-L. Zhang, G.-M. Xue, Z.-Y. Mi, W.-G. Zhang, F. Yan, Y.-R. Jin, and H.-F. Yu, arXiv:2407.20338 (2024). 40

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    However, throughout the paper, we will abuse the terminology and refer to them simply as detunings

    Technically,ϵand ∆ j are negatives of the corresponding detunings since they are negative when the drive is blue-detuned. However, throughout the paper, we will abuse the terminology and refer to them simply as detunings

  83. [91]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021314 (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Barrett, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovic, C. Langer, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Nature (London)422, 412 (2003)

    2003

  85. [93]

    Manovitz, A

    T. Manovitz, A. Rotem, R. Shaniv, I. Cohen, Y. Shapira, N. Akerman, A. Retzker, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 220505 (2017)

    2017

  86. [94]

    J. A. Mizrahi,Ultrafast control of spin and motion in trapped ions, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park (2013)

    2013

  87. [95]

    J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, P. Zoller, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 157901 (2003)

    2003

  88. [96]

    H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Phys. Rev.94, 630 (1954)

    1954

  89. [97]

    Meiboom and D

    S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Rev. Sci. Instrum.29, 688 (1958)

    1958

  90. [98]

    M. A. Ali Ahmed, G. A. ´Alvarez, and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. A87, 042309 (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    G. S. Uhrig, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 100504 (2007)

    2007

  92. [100]

    Golanet al., in preparation (2025)

    O. Golanet al., in preparation (2025)

    2025

  93. [101]

    Shapira, R

    Y. Shapira, R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, N. Akerman, L. Peleg, L. Gazit, R. Ozeri, and A. Stern, Phys. Rev. A101, 032330 (2020)

    2020

  94. [102]

    Grzesiak, R

    N. Grzesiak, R. Bl¨ umel, K. Wright, K. M. Beck, N. C. Pisenti, M. Li, V. Chaplin, J. M. Amini, S. Debnath, J.-S. Chen, and Y. Nam, Nat. Commun.11, 2963 (2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    Bose, Contemp

    S. Bose, Contemp. Phys.48, 13 (2007)

    2007

  96. [104]

    N. Y. Yao, L. Jiang, A. V. Gorshkov, Z. X. Gong, A. Zhai, L. M. Duan, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 040505 (2011/01/27/)

    2011

  97. [105]

    Y. Lu, S. Zhang, K. Zhang, W. Chen, Y. Shen, J. Zhang, J.-N. Zhang, and K. Kim, Nature (London)572, 363 (2019)

    2019

  98. [106]

    S. C. Burd, R. Srinivas, H. M. Knaack, W. Ge, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, J. J. Bollinger, D. T. C. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, Nat. Phys.17, 898 (2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Ann. Phys.326, 2793 (2011)

    2011

  100. [108]

    Heunisch, C

    L. Heunisch, C. Eichler, and M. J. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 064037 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.