Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

High-Fidelity Controlled-Phase Gate for Binomial Codes via Geometric Phase Engineering

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Geometric phase engineering realizes a 97.4% controlled-Z gate between two binomial-code logical qubits, surpassing previous bosonic two-qubit gates.

desk verdict A promising control method whose headline fidelity is a post-selected, reference-normalized estimate — not yet a demonstrated 97.4% process fidelity. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.06354 v1 pith:VJ2CQMA7 submitted 2025-11-09 quant-ph

Yifang Xu , Yilong Zhou , Lida Sun , Hongwei Huang , Zi-Jie Chen , Lintao Xiao , Bo Zhang , Chuanlong Ma
show 7 more authors
Ziyue Hua Weiting Wang Guangming Xue Haifeng Yu Weizhou Cai Chang-Ling Zou Luyan Sun
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V80 PACS 03.67.Lx42.50.Pq85.25.-j
keywords binomialcodegeometricphasecontrolled-ZgatebosonictransmonGRAPEcavityQEDquantumerrorcorrection
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 geometric phase engineering, a hybrid gate scheme that implements a controlled-Z gate between two binomial-code logical qubits using a single drive on a coupler transmon. Because the binomial code's CZ operation is natively a geometric phase gate on the |22> component, the optimization can be restricted to a tiny effective Hilbert space—three Fock levels per cavity plus the coupler's two levels. The authors experimentally measure a process fidelity of 97.4±0.8%, after post-selecting on runs where the coupler ends in its ground state, surpassing previously reported two-logical-qubit gate fidelities in bosonic codes. If correct, the method offers a practical route to fast, high-fidelity multi-qubit logical operations while retaining insensitivity to drive timing delays.

What carries the argument

The central object is the geometric phase gate: a drive resonant with the coupler only when both cavities are in |2> (the |22> component) induces a full rotation on the Bloch sphere, accumulating a phase of π on that component. The GRAPE optimization constrains the solid angle to π for the target state and exactly zero for all other Fock states, while leaving photon-number distributions unchanged. This preserves a fixed phase reference across Fock states and confines the optimization to a 3×3×2-dimensional Hilbert space, dramatically reducing computational cost compared to full Hamiltonian engineering.

What would settle it

Measure the logical CZ process fidelity without post-selecting on the coupler qubit (i.e., including all runs in quantum process tomography), and compare against the conditional 97.4% figure. If the unconditional fidelity is substantially lower, and a control experiment with the CZ drive turned off shows that the drive itself produces coupler excitation, the paper's central performance claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For lowest-order binomial codes with codewords |0L>=(|0>+|4>)/√2 and |1L>=|2>, the controlled-Z gate reduces to adding a π phase only to the |1L1L>=|22> component. The paper shows this can be realized by a single frequency-selective pulse on a coupler transmon that executes a full Bloch-sphere rotation—a geometric phase—for the |22> state while returning all other Fock components to zero phase. A gradient-ascent pulse engineering (GRAPE) optimization enforces this condition while incorporating self- and cross-Kerr nonlinearities and compressing the gate to 1 μs. In a circuit-QED experiment with two storage cavities and three transmons, the authors report a conditional process fidelity of 97.

Load-bearing premise

The 97.4% gate fidelity is obtained by discarding the 7.8% of experimental runs in which the coupler qubit leaves its ground state; if a significant fraction of that leakage is caused by the CZ pulse itself rather than by unrelated background effects, the post-selected number overstates the gate's real-world performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-logical-qubit gate fidelities in bosonic codes can exceed 90%, a regime previously unreached; simulation indicates >99% would follow if the shorter-coherence cavity matched the other.
  • The method is readily transferable to other bosonic codes, code orders, and more than two logical qubits, since it only requires a native geometric decomposition of the target gate.
  • Because self-Kerr and cross-Kerr commute with geometric phase operations, timing delays among drive lines become less consequential, simplifying circuit-level control.
  • The reduced optimization dimensionality (three Fock levels per cavity) makes optimal-control design scalable to multi-mode, high-dimensional systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The headline 97.4% is conditional: only the 92.2% of runs in which the coupler stays in its ground state are kept. If the CZ drive itself is responsible for a meaningful share of the discarded excitations, the unconditional gate fidelity is lower—at worst roughly 0.974×0.922≈0.90—so a circuit-level benchmark that cannot afford such post-selection may see a smaller advantage.
  • The observed coupler leakage even during encode/decode (when no drive is applied to it) points to a multi-mode transmon-ionization phenomenon; this may be a general obstacle for multi-cavity processors and deserves dedicated study beyond the scope of this paper.
  • One testable extension: run the same geometric-phase CZ gate without coupler post-selection and compare unconditional vs conditional process fidelities, or add a leakage-detection-and-correct pulse to convert discarded runs into detectable errors.
  • The scheme's reliance on a native geometric decomposition may not hold for arbitrary logical gates (e.g., a general controlled-phase with variable angle), so its generality beyond CZ-like gates remains to be demonstrated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'geometric phase engineering' approach for implementing controlled-Z (CZ) gates between two binomial logical qubits in a circuit-QED architecture. The method uses a single coupler transmon drive, with the waveform optimized via GRAPE under constraints that the coupler returns to the ground state and that a π geometric phase is accumulated only on the |22> Fock component. This reduces the optimization Hilbert space to three Fock levels per cavity plus the coupler. The authors experimentally demonstrate a process fidelity of 97.4±0.8% for the CZ gate, extracted from QPT of an encode-CZ-decode sequence normalized by an encode/decode reference, with post-selection on the coupler ground state (92.2% retention). They also show joint Wigner tomography of a logical Bell state and provide a simulated error budget.

Significance. If the 97.4% figure is robust, it would be a substantial advance over previous two-logical-qubit gates in bosonic codes, and the idea of using geometric phase structure to reduce the GRAPE search space is a useful contribution. The paper is transparent about the post-selection and the leakage issue, and it includes an error budget. However, the headline fidelity is a conditional, reference-normalized estimate: the extraction assumes that fidelities factor through composition, and the post-selection discards 7.8% of runs. These issues directly affect the comparison with prior work. The method itself is plausible and worth publishing after the extraction is validated or the claims are appropriately qualified.

major comments (2)
  1. [§Results, Fig. 2(c)] The CZ fidelity is obtained by 'normalizing the resulting fidelity with respect to the encode/decode reference' (main text). For general CPTP maps, average process fidelity is not multiplicative under composition; coherent errors can add or interfere. The paper provides no proof or numerical check that F_seq / F_ref equals the CZ process fidelity. This is load-bearing because the headline 97.4% rests on this step. Please validate the factorization with a simulation of the full sequence using the independently characterized CZ and encode/decode channels, or use a reference-free method (e.g., interleaved randomized benchmarking, or direct QPT with separate state prep/measurement) to corroborate the number.
  2. [§Results and Supplementary Sec. VII] Post-selection on QC ground state retains 92.2% of runs; the quoted 97.4% is conditional. The paper states the discarded excitations 'originate not only from the CZ gate itself but also intrinsically from the two-cavity system,' but offers no quantitative decomposition. The evidence of leakage during encode/decode with no QC drive establishes a background floor, not that the additional leakage is external. If discarded runs are counted as failures, the unconditional worst-case fidelity is at most ≈0.974×0.922 ≈ 0.90. Please report the unconditional process fidelity (or a lower bound) and explicitly discuss how the 'surpassing all previously reported' claim depends on the same post-selection metric as prior work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'process fidelity' should be qualified as 'conditional on the coupler remaining in its ground state' to avoid ambiguity about the post-selection.
  2. [Introduction/Results] Provide a table comparing the gate fidelities and metrics of Refs. [15-19] (conditional/unconditional, process vs. entanglement fidelity) to support the 'surpassing all previously reported' claim.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] Define 'origin data' and 'exclude leakage' in the caption; clarify whether the reference and full sequence use the same post-selection threshold and how the fidelities are computed.
  4. [Fig. 4] The error budget does not include a bar for the 7.8% post-selection loss. Please explain how leakage is handled in the simulation or add a bar for the heralding failure.
  5. [Fig. 3] The Bell state section is qualitative; consider reporting a quantitative fidelity or concurrence for the prepared logical Bell state to support the 'excellent agreement' statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CZ fidelity is independently measured via QPT after GRAPE control synthesis; disclosed post-selection and reference-normalization are correctness caveats, not circular steps.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental control-synthesis and characterization work, not a closed-form derivation. The central claim (97.4% CZ process fidelity) is not forced by construction. The GRAPE optimizer takes the logical CZ unitary as an input target (SM Eq. 9: |ψL,CZ,ab⟩ → ÛCZ|ψL,CZ,ab⟩), which is standard control synthesis; the quoted fidelity comes from an independent 16-condition QPT of the concatenated encode-CZ-decode channel, not from the optimizer's cost function. The statement that other Fock states accumulate strictly zero phase is explicitly a constraint imposed on the optimizer ('The optimization is constrained to enforce a solid angle of π on the target |22⟩ state, while ensuring a strictly zero solid angle for all other states'), so no fitted input is renamed a prediction. The geometric-phase identity claimed for the binomial code is a direct mathematical consequence of the codeword definitions in Eq. (1); no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported by self-citation. Self-citations (device identification via arXiv:2509.22191 in SM Sec. I; process-fidelity definition via PRL 124, 120501 in SM Sec. V) are used only to identify hardware and define a standard metric; neither is load-bearing for the claimed result. The paper is also transparent about two limitations that affect the headline number: the CZ fidelity is reference-normalized from the full sequence ('By normalizing the resulting fidelity with respect to the encode/decode reference'), implicitly assuming the encode/decode errors factor separately from CZ errors, and the quoted 97.4% is conditional on post-selecting the 92.2% of runs in which QC returns to ground. The paper explicitly attributes discarded runs to 'transmon ionization-like processes' observed even when no drive is applied to QC, and the SI admits that 'a theoretical model describing such effects in multi-cavity systems... is still lacking.' These are correctness/fairness caveats about whether 97.4% represents the unconditional gate as it would run in a larger circuit, and about fair comparison with prior unconditional numbers—not circular steps, because the experimental estimate does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Overall circularity: 1/10.

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

The central result rests on measured device parameters, on GRAPE-optimized pulses that are fitted to reproduce the target CZ, and on two ad hoc assumptions: post-selection removes only external leakage, and fidelities factor. The paper explicitly flags the missing theory for the leakage (Supp. VII). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • GRAPE-optimized CZ drive waveform on QC = not published (1 μs; drives only QC)
    The central gate is a numerical optimal-control solution tailored to the measured Hamiltonian; the reported 97.4% applies to this specific fitted pulse, not to a parameter-free geometric schedule.
  • Encode/decode GRAPE waveforms = not published (3 μs; drives Q1,S1,S2,Q2)
    These optimized controls are used both as the reference and inside the encode-CZ-decode sequence; their fidelity (86.1–88.2%) is divided out to extract the CZ fidelity, so the CZ number inherits any error in this reference.
  • Post-selection threshold on QC ground state = 92.2% retention
    A hand-applied data filter keeping only runs where QC is measured in |g>; the reported fidelity changes from 94.9% to 97.4% when this filter is applied.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dispersive Hamiltonian truncated to self-Kerr and cross-Kerr couplings (Eq. 2 and Supp. Eqs. 1–4) accurately models the device, ignoring higher-order terms and readout modes.
    The GRAPE pulses and the error-budget simulation rely on this model; the paper attributes the remaining discrepancy to 'limited precision in calibrating the system Hamiltonian' (Discussion).
  • ad hoc to paper Observed QC leakage is an external ionization-like process that can be removed by post-selection.
    Supplementary Sec. VII explicitly states that 'a theoretical model describing such effects in multi-cavity systems and for non-coherent cavity states is still lacking,' so excluding these events is not grounded in a validated model. The paper also admits the excitations originate partly from the CZ gate itself.
  • ad hoc to paper Fidelities of concatenated processes multiply, so F_CZ = F_sequence / F_encdec.
    Used in the Results to extract 94.9%/97.4% from the full-sequence QPT; no error model or independent interleaved measurement is provided.
  • domain assumption GRAPE optimization over the logical subspace (states |0>, |2>, |4> per cavity, Supp. Eq. 9) is sufficient to guarantee zero geometric phase on all other Fock states.
    Main text claims zero solid angle for all other states, but the listed CZ constraints only cover logical states; suppression of off-resonant population in |0>, |1>, |3>, etc. is not explicitly constrained in Sec. IV B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Fidelity Controlled-Phase Gate for Binomial Codes via Geometric Phase Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJ2CQMA7

@misc{pith2026251106354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Fidelity Controlled-Phase Gate for Binomial Codes via Geometric Phase Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJ2CQMA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.06354}
}
abstract

High-fidelity two-logical-qubit gates are essential for realizing fault-tolerant quantum computation with bosonic codes, yet experimentally reported fidelities have rarely exceeded 90\%. Here, we propose a geometric phase engineering approach for implementing controlled-phase gates for binomially encoded logical qubits. This method leverages the structural simplicity of geometric drives to reduce the numerical optimization dimensionality while fully incorporating system nonlinearities, enabling fast and high-fidelity logical operations. As an example, we experimentally demonstrate a process fidelity of 97.4$\pm$0.8\% for a controlled-Z gate between two binomial codes, surpassing all previously reported two-logical-qubit gates in bosonic codes. This work demonstrates that geometric phase engineering provides an effective and experimentally feasible route to fast, high-fidelity logical operations in bosonic quantum processors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Approaches for implementing controlled-phase gate between binomial codes. (a) Geometric phase gate. A frequency-selective drive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quantum process tomography (QPT) for performance characterization. (a) Device layout and the QPT sequence. The device consists [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Preparation of logical Bell state and joint Wigner tomography. (a) Pulse sequence. The logical superposition states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Error budget of the logical CZ gate. The dominant error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Superconducting cir- cuits for quantum information: An outlook,

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Superconducting cir- cuits for quantum information: An outlook,” Science 339, 1169 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Taking the CZ gate as an example [Fig

    indicates that the resonance frequency of the coupler qubit depends on the photon numbers in the cavities. Taking the CZ gate as an example [Fig. 1(a)], a frequency-selective drive, resonant with the coupler frequency when the cavities are in the |22⟩ state, is applied to the coupler qubit. This induces a full rotation on the Bloch sphere, thereby accumu-...

  3. [3]

    Control infidelity

    makes it, in principle, possible to implement any unitary operation, with the CZ gate being a natural instance. For this approach, the use of optimization algorithms allows the gate time to be mini- mized, typically achieving durations several times shorter than the geometric phase gate approach. However, its reliance on three simultaneous drives necessit...

  4. [4]

    Encoding a qubit in an oscillator,

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, “Encoding a qubit in an oscillator,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory protection,

    Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and M. Mirrahimi, “Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory protection,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 120501 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    New class of quan- tum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode,

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V . V . Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, “New class of quan- tum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode,” Phys. Rev. X6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    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. Y ang, H. Yu, F. Y an, 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,” Nature 616, 56 (2023)

    2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even,

    V . V . Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsioutsios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, “Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even,” Nature 616, 50 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconduct- ing circuits,

    N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P . Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, Y . Liu, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mir- rahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconduct- ing circuits,” Nature 536,...

    2016

  3. [11]

    Quantum er- ror correction of qudits beyond break-even,

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V . V . Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, “Quantum er- ror correction of qudits beyond break-even,” Nature 641, 612 (2025)

    2025

  4. [13]

    Autonomous quantum error correction beyond break-even and its metrological application,

    Z. Ni, L. Hu, Y . Cai, L. Zhang, J. Mai, X. Deng, P . Zheng, S. Liu, S.-B. Zheng, Y . Xu, and D. Yu, “Autonomous quantum error correction beyond break-even and its metrological application,” arXiv:2509.26042 (2025)

    2025

  5. [14]

    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

  6. [15]

    Error-transparent operations on a logical qubit protected by quantum error correction,

    Y . Ma, Y . Xu, X. Mu, W. Cai, L. Hu, W. Wang, X. Pan, H. Wang, Y . P . Song, C. L. Zou, and L. Sun, “Error-transparent operations on a logical qubit protected by quantum error correction,” Nat. Phys. 16, 827 (2020)

    2020

  7. [16]

    Protecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction,

    J. M. Gertler, B. Baker, J. Li, S. Shirol, J. Koch, and C. Wang, “Protecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction,” Nature 590, 243 (2021)

    2021

  8. [17]

    Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits,

    K. S. Chou, J. Z. Blumoff, C. S. Wang, P . C. Reinhold, C. J. Axline, Y . Y . Gao, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits,” Nature 561, 368 (2018)

    2018

  9. [18]

    A cnot gate between multiphoton qubits encoded in two cavities,

    S. Rosenblum, Y . Y . Gao, P . Reinhold, C. Wang, C. J. Axline, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “A cnot gate between multiphoton qubits encoded in two cavities,” Nat. Commun. 9, 652 (2018) . 6

    2018

  10. [19]

    Entanglement of bosonic modes through an engineered exchange interaction,

    Y . Y . Gao, B. J. Lester, K. S. Chou, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Entanglement of bosonic modes through an engineered exchange interaction,” Nature 566, 509 (2019)

    2019

  11. [20]

    Demonstration of controlled-phase gates between two error-correctable photonic qubits,

    Y . Xu, Y . Ma, W. Cai, X. Mu, W. Dai, W. Wang, L. Hu, X. Li, J. Han, H. Wang, Y . P . Song, Z.-B. Y ang, S.-B. Zheng, and L. Sun, “Demonstration of controlled-phase gates between two error-correctable photonic qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120501 (2020)

    2020

  12. [21]

    Universal quantum gate set for gottesman-kitaev-preskill logical qubits,

    V . G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, M. J. Millican, T. Navickas, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, “Universal quantum gate set for gottesman-kitaev-preskill logical qubits,” Nat. Phys. 21, 1664 (2025)

    2025

  13. [22]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Instruc- tion set architectures, abstract machine models, and applica- tions,

    Y . Liu, S. Singh, K. C. Smith, E. Crane, J. M. Martyn, A. Eickbusch, 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: Instruc- tion set architectures, abstract machine mod...

    2024

  14. [23]

    Cavity state manipulation using photon-number selective phase gates,

    R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, E. Holland, S. Krastanov, V . V . Albert, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Cavity state manipulation using photon-number selective phase gates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 137002 (2015)

    2015

  15. [24]

    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. A 92, 040303 (2015)

    2015

  16. [25]

    Efficient cavity control with snap gates,

    T. F ¨osel, S. Krastanov, F. Marquardt, and L. Jiang, “Efficient cavity control with snap gates,” arXiv:2004.14256 (2020)

    2004 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Robust preparation of wigner- negative states with optimized snap-displacement sequences,

    M. Kudra, M. Kervinen, I. Strandberg, S. Ahmed, M. Scigliuzzo, A. Osman, D. P . Lozano, M. O. Thol ´en, R. Borgani, D. B. Haviland, G. Ferrini, J. Bylander, A. F. Kockum, F. Quijandr ´ıa, P . Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, “Robust preparation of wigner- negative states with opt...

    2022

  18. [27]

    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

  19. [30]

    Robust and optimal control of open quantum systems,

    Z.-J. Chen, H. Huang, L. Sun, Q.-X. Jie, J. Zhou, Z. Hua, Y . Xu, W. Wang, G.-C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, L. Sun, and X.-B. Zou, “Robust and optimal control of open quantum systems,” Sci. Adv. 11, eadr0875 (2025)

    2025

  20. [31]

    Robust control of quantum gates via sequential convex programming,

    R. L. Kosut, M. D. Grace, and C. Brif, “Robust control of quantum gates via sequential convex programming,” Phys. Rev. A 88, 052326 (2013)

    2013

  21. [32]

    T un- able, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits,

    S. Machnes, E. Ass ´emat, D. Tannor, and F. K. Wilhelm, “T un- able, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 150401 (2018)

    2018

  22. [33]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  23. [35]

    Quantum-information processing with circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Quantum-information processing with circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. A 75, 032329 (2007)

    2007

  24. [36]

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics,

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

    2021

  25. [38]

    See Supplementary Materials

  26. [39]

    Measurement of qubits,

    D. F. V . James, P . G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, “Measurement of qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  27. [40]

    Reminis- cence of classical chaos in driven transmons,

    J. Cohen, A. Petrescu, R. Shillito, and A. Blais, “Reminis- cence of classical chaos in driven transmons,” PRX Quantum 4, 020312 (2023)

    2023

  28. [41]

    Measurement- induced transmon ionization,

    M. F. Dumas, B. Groleau-Par ´e, A. McDonald, M. H. Mu ˜noz Arias, C. Lled ´o, B. D’ Anjou, and A. Blais, “Measurement- induced transmon ionization,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 041023 (2024)

    2024

  29. [42]

    A schr ¨odinger cat living in two boxes,

    C. Wang, Y . Y . Gao, P . Reinhold, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Chou, C. Axline, M. Reagor, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “A schr ¨odinger cat living in two boxes,” Science 352, 1087 (2016)

    2016

  30. [43]

    Qutip: An open- source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

    J. R. Johansson, P . D. Nation, and F. Nori, “Qutip: An open- source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  31. [44]

    Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

    J. R. Johansson, P . D. Nation, and F. Nori, “Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  32. [45]

    Error-detectable bosonic entangling gates with a noisy ancilla,

    T. Tsunoda, J. D. Teoh, W. D. Kalfus, S. J. de Graaf, B. J. Chapman, J. C. Curtis, N. Thakur, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Error-detectable bosonic entangling gates with a noisy ancilla,” PRX Quantum 4, 020354 (2023). Supplementary Materials to: “High-Fidelity Controll...

    2023

  33. [46]

    Extending coherence time beyond break-even point using only drives and dissipation,

    L. Sun, Y . Xu, Y . Zhou, Z. Hua, W. Wang, J. Zhou, Z.-j. Chen, L. Z. de Paula, Q.-X. Jie, G. Xue, H. Yu, W. Cai, C.-L. Zou, and L. Sun, “Extending coherence time beyond break-even point using only drives and dissipation,” arXiv:2509.22191 (2025)

    2025

  34. [47]

    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. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  35. [48]

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics,

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

    2021

  36. [49]

    Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design 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: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance 172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  37. [50]

    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. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator,” Nat. Commun. 8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  38. [51]

    Universal quantum gate set approaching fault-tolerant thresholds with superconducting qubits,

    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, “Universal quantum gate set approaching fault-tolerant thresholds with superconducting qubits,” Phys. Rev. ...

    2012

  39. [52]

    Demonstration of controlled-phase gates between two error-correctable photonic qubits,

    Y . Xu, Y . Ma, W. Cai, X. Mu, W. Dai, W. Wang, L. Hu, X. Li, J. Han, H. Wang, Y . P . Song, Z.-B. Y ang, S.-B. Zheng, and L. Sun, “Demonstration of controlled-phase gates between two error-correctable photonic qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120501 (2020)

    2020

  40. [53]

    A schr ¨odinger cat living in two boxes,

    C. Wang, Y . Y . Gao, P . Reinhold, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Chou, C. Axline, M. Reagor, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “A schr ¨odinger cat living in two boxes,” Science 352, 1087 (2016)

    2016

  41. [54]

    Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements,

    L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, J. Blumoff, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements,” Nature 511, ...

    2014

  42. [55]

    Reminiscence of classical chaos in driven transmons,

    J. Cohen, A. Petrescu, R. Shillito, and A. Blais, “Reminiscence of classical chaos in driven transmons,” PRX Quantum 4, 020312 (2023)

    2023

  43. [56]

    Measurement-induced transmon ionization,

    M. F. Dumas, B. Groleau-Par ´e, A. McDonald, M. H. Mu ˜noz Arias, C. Lled ´o, B. D’ Anjou, and A. Blais, “Measurement-induced transmon ionization,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 041023 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.