pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.04225 · v1 · submitted 2025-11-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Engineered Robustness for Nonadiabatic Geometric Quantum Gates

Xuan Zhang , XIao-le Li , Jingjing Niu , Tongxing Yan , Yuanzhen Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 01:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords nonadiabatic geometric quantum gatesRabi amplitude errorsuperconducting transmon qubitshigh-fidelity gatesauxiliary constraintsdynamical contamination
0
0 comments X

The pith

Nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates achieve O(ε^4) infidelity scaling against Rabi errors using auxiliary constraints.

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

The paper develops a framework for nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates that adds auxiliary constraints to reduce unwanted dynamical effects during the gate operation. This leads to gates that are more robust to variations in control fields, specifically showing gate errors that grow with the fourth power of the Rabi amplitude error instead of the second power seen in ordinary gates. The method is tested on superconducting transmon qubits for single-qubit operations and offers flexibility with noncyclic evolution paths. A sympathetic reader would care because better error scaling can reduce the overhead in quantum error correction and make geometric gates more viable for real devices.

Core claim

By incorporating additional auxiliary constraints into the design of nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates, dynamical contamination is suppressed while maintaining the geometric nature of the evolution, resulting in high-fidelity single-qubit gates on superconducting transmon qubits that exhibit infidelity scaling as O(ε^4) for Rabi amplitude errors ε, compared to the O(ε^2) scaling of conventional dynamical gates.

What carries the argument

Auxiliary constraints that suppress dynamical contamination in nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates while preserving geometric character.

If this is right

  • Single-qubit gates on transmon qubits reach higher robustness to Rabi amplitude errors with fourth-order infidelity scaling.
  • Noncyclic paths provide additional flexibility in gate design.
  • Two-qubit gates under parametric driving require careful phase compensation and waveform calibration to maintain performance.
  • The scheme's simplicity allows application to various quantum platforms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Improved error scaling could lower the demands on quantum error correction codes when using these gates.
  • Similar constraints might be adapted to other types of geometric or holonomic gates for enhanced robustness.
  • Experimental verification on additional qubit technologies would test the claimed generality of the approach.

Load-bearing premise

The auxiliary constraints suppress dynamical contamination without introducing new dominant error sources that would spoil the higher-order scaling.

What would settle it

Measure the infidelity of the implemented gates while varying the Rabi amplitude error and verify whether the scaling is fourth-order rather than second-order.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04225 by Jingjing Niu, Tongxing Yan, XIao-le Li, Xuan Zhang, Yuanzhen Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The trajectories of the auxiliary state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. QPT Fidelity as a function of Rabi error for four single-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Numerical simulations of two-qubit NGQGs in the rotating frame defined in the main text, using . Panels (a) and (b) show the temporal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While geometric quantum gates are often theorized to possess intrinsic resilience to control errors by exploiting the global properties of evolution paths, this promise has not consistently translated into practical robustness. We present a streamlined framework for nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates (NGQGs) that incorporates additional auxiliary constraints to suppress dynamical contamination and achieve super-robust performance. Within this framework, we also design NGQGs using noncyclic paths, offering enhanced design flexibility. Implemented on superconducting transmon qubits, our scheme realizes high-fidelity single-qubit gates that are robust against Rabi amplitude error $\epsilon$, with infidelity scaling as $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^4)$, in contrast to the $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)$ behavior of conventional dynamical gates. We further analyze two-qubit NGQGs under parametric driving. Our results identify subtle limitations that compromise performance in two-qubit scenarios, underscoring the importance of phase compensation and waveform calibration. The demonstrated simplicity and generality of our super-robust NGQG scheme make it applicable across diverse quantum platforms.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a streamlined framework for nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates (NGQGs) that incorporates auxiliary constraints to suppress dynamical contamination and achieve super-robust performance. It also designs NGQGs using noncyclic paths for enhanced flexibility. Implemented on superconducting transmon qubits, the scheme realizes high-fidelity single-qubit gates robust against Rabi amplitude error ε with infidelity scaling as O(ε^4), in contrast to O(ε^2) for conventional dynamical gates. The work further analyzes two-qubit NGQGs under parametric driving, identifying limitations related to phase compensation and waveform calibration.

Significance. If the O(ε^4) scaling holds under the reported conditions without new dominant errors, the framework would offer a practical, general method for engineering higher-order robustness in geometric gates, strengthening their viability for quantum computing applications across platforms.

major comments (3)
  1. [Framework description] The central O(ε^4) scaling claim requires that auxiliary constraints cancel first- through third-order infidelity contributions from Rabi error ε. The framework description provides no explicit perturbative expansion of the error propagator or numerical verification that lower-order coefficients remain zero when the reported waveforms are inserted into the lab-frame Hamiltonian (including anharmonicity and finite bandwidth).
  2. [Experimental implementation] The experimental realization of O(ε^4) scaling is presented as the key result, yet the manuscript does not detail data exclusion rules, error-bar analysis, or how the scaling fit was performed, leaving the verification of the higher-order behavior unexamined.
  3. [Two-qubit analysis] In the two-qubit NGQG analysis, the identified limitations from phase compensation and waveform calibration are noted as compromising performance, but no quantitative assessment is given of how these factors affect the robustness scaling or whether the evolution remains geometric.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation and definitions] Notation for the auxiliary constraints and noncyclic paths could be clarified to make the preservation of geometric character more transparent.
  2. [Introduction] The manuscript would benefit from additional references to prior experimental work on geometric gate robustness for better context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and indicate the revisions made to address them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Framework description] The central O(ε^4) scaling claim requires that auxiliary constraints cancel first- through third-order infidelity contributions from Rabi error ε. The framework description provides no explicit perturbative expansion of the error propagator or numerical verification that lower-order coefficients remain zero when the reported waveforms are inserted into the lab-frame Hamiltonian (including anharmonicity and finite bandwidth).

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important comment. Our framework is based on auxiliary constraints that are derived to cancel the lower-order terms in the error expansion analytically. To provide explicit verification, we have added in the revised manuscript a perturbative analysis of the error propagator, demonstrating the cancellation of the first to third order terms. We also present numerical results for the lab-frame Hamiltonian including anharmonicity and finite bandwidth effects, confirming that the O(ε^4) scaling is maintained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental implementation] The experimental realization of O(ε^4) scaling is presented as the key result, yet the manuscript does not detail data exclusion rules, error-bar analysis, or how the scaling fit was performed, leaving the verification of the higher-order behavior unexamined.

    Authors: We agree that these experimental details are important for verifying the scaling. In the revised manuscript, we have included a detailed description of the data analysis procedure, including the criteria for data exclusion (based on calibration stability), the method for calculating error bars from multiple experimental runs, and the fitting procedure used to extract the scaling exponent, which supports the O(ε^4) behavior. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Two-qubit analysis] In the two-qubit NGQG analysis, the identified limitations from phase compensation and waveform calibration are noted as compromising performance, but no quantitative assessment is given of how these factors affect the robustness scaling or whether the evolution remains geometric.

    Authors: The referee is correct that our two-qubit section is primarily qualitative. We have revised the manuscript to provide a more detailed discussion on how phase compensation errors and waveform calibration issues affect the performance. Specifically, we explain that these factors introduce small dynamical phases that degrade the robustness but the evolution remains predominantly geometric. A quantitative estimate based on typical experimental parameters is now included, showing the expected impact on the infidelity scaling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; robustness scaling presented as experimental outcome

full rationale

The paper introduces auxiliary constraints within a nonadiabatic geometric gate framework to suppress dynamical contamination, then reports an experimental implementation on transmon qubits yielding O(ε^4) infidelity scaling. No load-bearing derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs: the scaling is tied to physical realization and waveform calibration rather than a self-defined fit or renamed ansatz. The central claim retains independent content from the experimental verification and is not forced by self-citation chains or parameter renaming. This is the expected honest non-finding for an implementation-focused manuscript.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Because only the abstract is available, the ledger is populated from the high-level claims; the framework implicitly relies on standard quantum control assumptions and the existence of controllable noncyclic paths that maintain geometric phase properties.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The geometric phase remains well-defined and dominant when auxiliary constraints are added to nonadiabatic evolution paths.
    Invoked to justify that the added constraints suppress dynamical contamination without destroying the geometric robustness.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5717 in / 1285 out tokens · 25150 ms · 2026-05-18T01:20:21.960074+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Aharonov and D

    Y . Aharonov and D. Bohm, Significance of electromagnetic po- tentials in the quantum theory, Phys. Rev.115, 485–491 (1959)

    work page 1959

  2. [2]

    Xiao-Liang Qi and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057–1110 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Zee, Appearance of gauge structure in simple dynamical systems, Phys

    Frank Wilczek and A. Zee, Appearance of gauge structure in simple dynamical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2111–2114 (1984)

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    Barry Simon, Holonomy, the quantum adiabatic theorem, and berry’s phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 2167–2170 (1983)

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    V Fock, ¨Uber die beziehung zwischen den integralen der quantenmechanischen bewegungsgleichungen und der schr¨odingerschen wellengleichung, Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik 49, 323–338 (1928)

    work page 1928

  6. [6]

    43 (Springer India New Delhi, 1956) pp

    S Pancharatnam, On the phenomenological theory of light propagation in optically active crystals, Proceedings of the In- dian Academy of Sciences-Section A , V ol. 43 (Springer India New Delhi, 1956) pp. 247–252

    work page 1956

  7. [7]

    Yakir Aharonov and Leonard Susskind, Observability of the sign change of spinors under 2π rotations, Phys. Rev. 158, 1237–1238 (1967)

    work page 1967

  8. [8]

    Michael Victor Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 392, 45–57 (1984),

    work page 1984

  9. [9]

    Aharonov and J

    Y . Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1593–1596 (1987)

    work page 1987

  10. [10]

    Anandan, Non-adiabatic non-abelian geometric phase, Physics Letters A 133, 171–175 (1988)

    J. Anandan, Non-adiabatic non-abelian geometric phase, Physics Letters A 133, 171–175 (1988)

    work page 1988

  11. [11]

    Joseph Samuel and Rajendra Bhandari, General setting for berry’s phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 2339–2342 (1988)

    work page 1988

  12. [12]

    Paolo Zanardi and Mario Rasetti, Holonomic quantum compu- tation, Physics Letters A 264, 94–99 (1999)

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Jiannis Pachos, Paolo Zanardi, and Mario Rasetti, Non-abelian berry connections for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 61, 010305 (1999)

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    Jones, Daniel K

    Artur Ekert, Marie Ericsson, Patrick Hayden, Hitoshi Inamori, Jonathan A. Jones, Daniel K. L. Oi, and Vlatko Vedral, Ge- ometric quantum computation, Journal of Modern Optics 47, 2501–2513 (2000),

    work page 2000

  15. [15]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, 10 arXiv:quant-ph/0001106

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    JIANNIS PACHOS and PAOLO ZANARDI, Quantum holonomies for quantum computing, International Journal of Modern Physics B 15, 1257–1285 (2001),

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    Erik Sj ¨oqvist, Dian-Min Tong, L Mauritz Andersson, Bj ¨orn Hessmo, Markus Johansson, and Kuldip Singh, Non-adiabatic holonomic quantum computation, New Journal of Physics 14, 103035 (2012)

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Shi-Liang Zhu and Z. D. Wang, Unconventional geometric quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 187902 (2003)

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    Shi-Liang Zhu and Paolo Zanardi, Geometric quantum gates that are robust against stochastic control errors, Phys. Rev. A 72, 020301 (2005)

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    J. T. Thomas, Mahmoud Lababidi, and Mingzhen Tian, Ro- bustness of single-qubit geometric gate against systematic error, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042335 (2011)

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Tao Chen and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Nonadiabatic geometric quan- tum computation with parametrically tunable coupling, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054051 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Bao-Jie Liu, Xue-Ke Song, Zheng-Yuan Xue, Xin Wang, and Man-Hong Yung, Plug-and-play approach to nonadiabatic ge- ometric quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Tao Chen, Pu Shen, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Robust and fast holonomic quantum gates with encoding on superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 034038 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Chengxian Zhang, Tao Chen, Sai Li, Xin Wang, and Zheng- Yuan Xue, High-fidelity geometric gate for silicon-based spin qubits, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Blais and A.-M

    A. Blais and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Effect of noise on geometric logic gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012308 (2003)

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    Nazir, T

    A. Nazir, T. P. Spiller, and W. J. Munro, Decoherence of geo- metric phase gates, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042303 (2002)

    work page 2002

  27. [27]

    R. K. L. Colmenar, Utkan G¨ung¨ord¨u, and J. P. Kestner, Condi- tions for equivalent noise sensitivity of geometric and dynami- cal quantum gates, PRX Quantum 3, 030310 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Carollo, I

    A. Carollo, I. Fuentes-Guridi, M. Fran c ¸a Santos, and V . Vedral, Geometric phase in open systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 160402 (2003)

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    Massimo Palma, Berry phase for a spin 1/2 particle in a classical fluctuating field, Phys

    Gabriele De Chiara and G. Massimo Palma, Berry phase for a spin 1/2 particle in a classical fluctuating field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090404 (2003)

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    P. J. Leek, J. M. Fink, A. Blais, R. Bianchetti, M. G ¨oppl, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and A. Wallraff, Observation of berry’s phase in a solid-state qubit, Science 318, 1889–1892 (2007),

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Berger, M

    S. Berger, M. Pechal, A. A. Abdumalikov, C. Eichler, L. Stef- fen, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Exploring the effect of noise on the berry phase, Phys. Rev. A 87, 060303 (2013)

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Filipp, J

    S. Filipp, J. Klepp, Y . Hasegawa, C. Plonka-Spehr, U. Schmidt, P. Geltenbort, and H. Rauch, Experimental demonstration of the stability of berry’s phase for a spin-1/2 particle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 030404 (2009)

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Wang Xiang-Bin and Matsumoto Keiji, Nonadiabatic condi- tional geometric phase shift with NMR, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 097901 (2001)

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    Shi-Liang Zhu and Z. D. Wang, Implementation of universal quantum gates based on nonadiabatic geometric phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 097902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Guanru Feng, Guofu Xu, and Guilu Long, Experimental real- ization of nonadiabatic holonomic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 190501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    P. Z. Zhao, Xiao-Dan Cui, G. F. Xu, Erik Sj ¨oqvist, and D. M. Tong, Rydberg-atom-based scheme of nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 96, 052316 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Zhuo-Ping Hong, Bao-Jie Liu, Jia-Qi Cai, Xin-Ding Zhang, Yong Hu, Z. D. Wang, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Implementing universal nonadiabatic holonomic quantum gates with trans- mons, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022332 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Y . Xu, W. Cai, Y . Ma, X. Mu, L. Hu, Tao Chen, H. Wang, Y . P. Song, Zheng-Yuan Xue, Zhang-qi Yin,et al., Single-loop real- ization of arbitrary nonadiabatic holonomic single-qubit quan- tum gates in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 110501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Jing Xu, Sai Li, Tao Chen, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Nonadia- batic geometric quantum computation with optimal control on superconducting circuits, Frontiers of Physics 15 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Y . Xu, Z. Hua, Tao Chen, X. Pan, X. Li, J. Han, W. Cai, Y . Ma, H. Wang, Y . P. Song,et al., Experimental implementation of universal nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates in a supercon- ducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Zhikun Han, Yuqian Dong, Baojie Liu, Xiaopei Yang, Shuqing Song, Luqing Qiu, Danyu Li, Ji Chu, Wen Zheng, Jianwen Xu, et al., Experimental realization of universal time-optimal non- abelian geometric gates, arXiv:2004.10364

    work page arXiv 2004

  42. [42]

    Bao-Jie Liu, Yuan-Sheng Wang, and Man-Hong Yung, Super- robust nonadiabatic geometric quantum control, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L032066 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Cheng-Yun Ding, Yan Liang, Kai-Zhi Yu, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation with shortened path on superconducting circuits, Applied Physics Letters 119, 184001 (2021),

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Cheng-Yun Ding, Li-Na Ji, Tao Chen, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Path-optimized nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation on superconducting qubits, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 015012 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Sai Li, Bao-Jie Liu, Zhongchu Ni, Libo Zhang, Zheng-Yuan Xue, Jian Li, Fei Yan, Yuanzhen Chen, Song Liu, Man-Hong Yung, et al., Superrobust geometric control of a superconduct- ing circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 064003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Jian Zhou, Sai Li, Guo-Zhu Pan, Gang Zhang, Tao Chen, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates that are insensitive to qubit-frequency drifts, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032609 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Zi-Yu Fang, Hai Xu, Tao Chen, Kejin Wei, and Chengxian Zhang, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates by compos- ite pulses based on superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042615 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Bertet, C

    P. Bertet, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Parametric coupling for superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B 73, 064512 (2006)

    work page 2006

  49. [49]

    J. D. Strand, Matthew Ware, F ´elix Beaudoin, T. A. Ohki, B. R. Johnson, Alexandre Blais, and B. L. T. Plourde, First- order sideband transitions with flux-driven asymmetric trans- mon qubits, Phys. Rev. B 87, 220505 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    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, et al. , Parametrically activated entangling gates using trans- mon qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034050 (2018)

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    Osborn, Nikolas Tezak, Alexa Staley, Guenevere Prawiroatmodjo, Michael Scheer, Nasser Alidoust, Eyob A

    Matthew Reagor, Christopher B. Osborn, Nikolas Tezak, Alexa Staley, Guenevere Prawiroatmodjo, Michael Scheer, Nasser Alidoust, Eyob A. Sete, Nicolas Didier, Marcus P. da Silva, et al., Demonstration of universal parametric entangling gates on a multi-qubit lattice, Science Advances4, eaao3603 (2018),

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    X. Li, Y . Ma, J. Han, Tao Chen, Y . Xu, W. Cai, H. Wang, Y .P. Song, Zheng-Yuan Xue, Zhang-qi Yin,et al., Perfect quantum state transfer in a superconducting qubit chain with parametri- cally tunable couplings, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054009 (2018). 11

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    Houck, and Alexandre Blais, Accurate methods for the analysis of strong-drive effects in parametric gates, Phys

    Alexandru Petrescu, Camille Le Calonnec, Catherine Leroux, Agustin Di Paolo, Pranav Mundada, Sara Sussman, Andrei Vra- jitoarea, Andrew A. Houck, and Alexandre Blais, Accurate methods for the analysis of strong-drive effects in parametric gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Tao Chen and Zheng-Yuan Xue, High-fidelity and robust ge- ometric quantum gates that outperform dynamical ones, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 064009 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Xin-Xin Yang, Liang-Liang Guo, Hai-Feng Zhang, Lei Du, Chi Zhang, Hao-Ran Tao, Yong Chen, Peng Duan, Zhi-Long Jia, Wei-Cheng Kong, et al., Experimental implementation of short-path nonadiabatic geometric gates in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044076 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Tao Chen, Jia-Qi Hu, Chengxian Zhang, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Universal robust geometric quantum control via geometric tra- jectory correction, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 014060 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Yan Liang, Yi-Xuan Wu, and Zheng-Yuan Xue, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates that are robust against systematic er- rors, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 024061 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Ying Hong, Fei-Fan Cui, Li-Na Ji, Zheng-Yuan Xue, and Tao Chen, Unconventional geometric quantum computation robust to residual crosstalk in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 064095 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Lewis, H

    Jr. Lewis, H. R. and W. B. Riesenfeld, An exact quantum the- ory of the time-dependent harmonic oscillator and of a charged particle in a time-dependent electromagnetic field, Journal of Mathematical Physics 10, 1458–1473 (1969),

    work page 1969

  60. [60]

    Ali Mostafazadeh, Dynamical Invariants, Adiabatic Approx- imation, and the Geometric Phase (Nova Science Publishers, 2001)

    work page 2001

  61. [61]

    Torrontegui, and J

    Xi Chen, E. Torrontegui, and J. G. Muga, Lewis-riesenfeld invariants and transitionless quantum driving, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062116 (2011)

    work page 2011

  62. [62]

    Utkan G ¨ung¨ord¨u, Yidun Wan, Mohammad Ali Fasihi, and Mikio Nakahara, Dynamical invariants for quantum control of four-level systems, Phys. Rev. A86, 062312 (2012)

    work page 2012

  63. [63]

    Torrontegui, S

    E. Torrontegui, S. Mart ´ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Hamil- tonian engineering via invariants and dynamical algebra, Phys. Rev. A 89, 043408 (2014)

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    Jiang Zhang, Thi Ha Kyaw, Stefan Filipp, Leong-Chuan Kwek, Erik Sj¨oqvist, and Dianmin Tong, Geometric and holonomic quantum computation, Physics Reports 1027, 1–53 (2023)

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Yuan Xu, Ji Chu, Jiahao Yuan, Jiawei Qiu, Yuxuan Zhou, Libo Zhang, Xinsheng Tan, Yang Yu, Song Liu, Jian Li,et al., High- fidelity, high-scalability two-qubit gate scheme for supercon- ducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Leo Van-Damme, Daniel Schraft, Genko T. Genov, Dominique Sugny, Thomas Halfmann, and St ´ephane Gu´erin, Robust not gate by single-shot-shaped pulses: Demonstration of the effi- ciency of the pulses in rephasing atomic coherences, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022309 (2017)

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Schwartz, Jochen Braum ¨uller, Philip Krantz, Joel I.-J

    Morten Kjaergaard, Mollie E. Schwartz, Jochen Braum ¨uller, Philip Krantz, Joel I.-J. Wang, Simon Gustavsson, and William D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 369–395 (2020)

    work page 2020