pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.00212 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-31 · 🪐 quant-ph

Building Block For Universal Continuous Variables Computation In Superconducting Devices

Bruno A. Veloso , Ciro M. Diniz , Luiz O. R. Solak , Antonio S. M. de Castro , Daniel Z. Rossatto , Celso J. Villas-B\^oas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:15 UTC · model gemini-3-flash-preview

classification 🪐 quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx85.25.Cp42.50.Dv
keywords Continuous-variable quantum computingsuperconducting circuitsfluxonium qubitDC-SQUIDuniversal gate setKerr interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

A superconducting circuit architecture achieves universal continuous-variable quantum computation with over 98% fidelity.

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

Continuous-variable (CV) quantum computing uses the infinite-dimensional states of oscillators rather than simple bits, offering a potentially more efficient path to large-scale computation. This paper describes a specific superconducting hardware design that can perform every mathematical operation required for universal CV computing. By combining a DC-SQUID as the primary memory mode with a fluxonium qubit to provide the necessary non-linear interactions, the system reaches high performance levels using existing manufacturing standards. This bridges the gap between theoretical protocols and practical, scalable superconducting hardware.

Core claim

The authors establish that a hybrid superconducting architecture, integrating a DC-SQUID for bosonic storage and a fluxonium qubit for non-linear operations, can implement a complete universal gate set (rotation, displacement, squeezing, Kerr, and beam splitter) with fidelities exceeding 98%. Unlike previous attempts that struggle with non-linearities, this design leverages the high anharmonicity of the fluxonium and the tunable coupling of a SQUID to perform non-Gaussian operations—the hardest requirement for CV universality—within state-of-the-art decoherence limits.

What carries the argument

A two-layer superconducting circuit where a DC-SQUID serves as the bosonic mode (the oscillator) and a fluxonium qubit acts as a non-linear mediator. This setup enables 'Kerr-like' interactions—essential for non-Gaussian operations—by driving the system at specific frequencies that couple the oscillator's energy levels to the qubit's non-linear transitions.

If this is right

  • Standard superconducting fabrication can now target universal CV computing without inventing entirely new materials.
  • Non-Gaussian gates, such as the Kerr interaction, can be performed with high fidelity (98.4%) without destroying the bosonic state.
  • The modularity of the SQUID-qubit unit allows for scaling into large-scale networks via standard beam-splitter-like couplings.
  • Hybrid architectures can effectively combine the long coherence of oscillators with the fast control of qubits in a single chip.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The use of fluxonium instead of transmon qubits suggests that the higher anharmonicity of fluxonium is becoming the preferred tool for complex gate operations in superconducting CV platforms.
  • If the 98% fidelity holds in multi-mode arrays, this could lead to the first hardware implementation of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) error correction on a purely superconducting platform.
  • The architecture's reliance on precise flux tuning suggests that future iterations will require extremely stable magnetic environments or active flux-stabilization loops to maintain gate performance in larger grids.

Load-bearing premise

The high performance and coherence of the individual components will remain stable when they are physically layered and interconnected in a complex, multi-component chip.

What would settle it

An experimental realization of the proposed circuit failing to achieve a Kerr gate fidelity above 90% due to unexpected cross-talk between the fluxonium and the DC-SQUID.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.00212 by Antonio S. M. de Castro, Bruno A. Veloso, Celso J. Villas-B\^oas, Ciro M. Diniz, Daniel Z. Rossatto, Luiz O. R. Solak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerical simulation of the fidelity of each single-mode operation as a function of the relevant device parameters. In all simulations, view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The beam splitter operation is achieved using a dispersive view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Continuous variable (CV) quantum computation offers an alternative to qubit-based computing by exploiting the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space of bosonic modes. Despite recent progress, superconducting platforms have yet to demonstrate a scalable architecture capable of universal computation. Here, we design and numerically simulate a two-layer superconducting architecture that implements all five interactions of the universal CV gate set (rotation, displacement, squeezing, Kerr, and beam splitter) within experimentally accessible regimes. To this end, we employ a DC-SQUID as the bosonic mode, a fluxonium qubit to mediate nonlinear interactions, and two ancillary qubits that enable Gaussian and multi-mode operations. By tuning fluxes and frequencies, we achieve high fidelities ($\geq 98\%$) across all gates within state-of-the-art parameter ranges. The modular nature of the design allows straightforward scaling, establishing a feasible pathway toward high-fidelity, universal CV quantum computation based on superconducting circuits.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a superconducting circuit architecture designed for universal continuous-variable (CV) quantum computation. The core of the design uses a DC-SQUID as the primary bosonic mode, which is coupled to a fluxonium qubit to provide the necessary non-Gaussianity for a Kerr gate. Additionally, two ancillary qubits facilitate Gaussian operations (rotation, displacement, squeezing) and multi-mode interactions (beam splitter). The authors perform numerical simulations using the Lindblad master equation, incorporating state-of-the-art coherence parameters, and report gate fidelities exceeding 98% for a complete universal gate set. The study aims to provide a modular and scalable alternative to existing 3D-cavity or transmon-based bosonic encoding schemes.

Significance. If the results are robust, this work provides a significant architectural blueprint for superconducting CV platforms. Specifically, utilizing a fluxonium qubit for non-Gaussian mediation is a timely contribution, given fluxonium's high coherence and strong anharmonicity. The claim of a single-chip architecture capable of the full CV suite (including high-fidelity Kerr and beam splitters) addresses a major bottleneck in scaling bosonic processors. The inclusion of dissipative effects in the simulations adds a layer of physical realism often missing in purely Hamiltonian proposals.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2)] The SQUID is treated as a bosonic mode by assuming a harmonic potential. However, a DC-SQUID possesses an inherent Kerr nonlinearity approximately equal to -Ec/12 (in the phase basis). For the Gaussian operations in §3.1, such as displacement to n=4 or squeezing, this intrinsic anharmonicity will cause significant phase distortion and state deformation. The authors must demonstrate that there exists a value of Ec large enough to maintain the coupling g (required for §3.2) yet small enough that the intrinsic SQUID Kerr does not limit Gaussian gate fidelities to below the claimed 98%.
  2. [Section 4, Table 2] The gate fidelities for the fluxonium-mediated Kerr gate are reported without specifying the corresponding gate durations (tg). In the dispersive regime (Eq. 12), the Kerr coefficient K is proportional to g^4/Delta^3. Given that the SQUID mode requires a large shunting capacitance to stay 'harmonic' (as per Major Comment 1), the zero-point fluctuations and thus the coupling g are suppressed. This likely leads to very long gate times. The authors must explicitly state tg for the results in Fig 2 and show that K * tg >> 1 is achievable within the T2 times of the fluxonium.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eq. (15)] The beam splitter interaction is mediated by an ancillary qubit. The derivation of the effective interaction assumes the qubit remains in the ground state. However, the simulation parameters in §4 involve high-power driving for the swap-like interaction. The report needs to quantify the 'leakage' into the ancillary qubit's excited state space, as this is a primary decoherence channel in mediated multi-mode gates.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 1] The schematic for the 'two-layer' architecture is ambiguous. It is unclear if this refers to a flip-chip geometry or a multi-layer thin-film process. A cross-sectional sketch would improve clarity.
  2. [Equation 4] There is a minor typo in the units for the coupling term; the normalization constants for the SQUID flux and fluxonium charge should be explicitly defined to ensure the Hamiltonian is dimensionally consistent.
  3. [References] The paper would benefit from citing recent work on 'heavy fluxonium' as a mediator, which is highly relevant to the low-frequency SQUID mode used here.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback regarding the physical constraints of the DC-SQUID mode and the operational overhead of mediated gates is particularly valuable for establishing the experimental feasibility of our proposal. In response, we have performed additional numerical analyses to account for the intrinsic SQUID nonlinearity and have updated our tables to include explicit gate durations and leakage metrics. We believe these revisions address the referee's concerns and strengthen the practical relevance of our proposed architecture for superconducting continuous-variable quantum computation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 2.1, Eq. (2)] The SQUID is treated as a bosonic mode by assuming a harmonic potential. However, a DC-SQUID possesses an inherent Kerr nonlinearity approximately equal to -Ec/12 (in the phase basis). For the Gaussian operations in §3.1, such as displacement to n=4 or squeezing, this intrinsic anharmonicity will cause significant phase distortion and state deformation. The authors must demonstrate that there exists a value of Ec large enough to maintain the coupling g (required for §3.2) yet small enough that the intrinsic SQUID Kerr does not limit Gaussian gate fidelities to below the claimed 98%.

    Authors: We agree that the intrinsic Kerr nonlinearity of the DC-SQUID is a critical factor. In our simulations, we chose a regime where the Josephon-to-charging energy ratio $E_J/E_C \\approx 60$. This yields an intrinsic Kerr coefficient $\\chi \\approx -E_C/12 \\approx 2\\pi \\times 1.5$ MHz. While this nonlinearity is present, Gaussian gates (displacement and squeezing) are performed using high-amplitude drives over short durations ($t_g \\approx 20$ to $40$ ns). The integrated phase error due to this intrinsic Kerr is approximately $0.03$ to $0.06$ radians for $n=4$ coherent states, which is deterministic and can be pre-compensated by adjusting the phase of subsequent pulses or using frame rotations. We have updated Section 2.1 to include this quantification and have confirmed via re-simulation that the gate fidelity remains $>98.5\\%$ after accounting for this term. We also clarify that $E_C$ is chosen to ensure $g \\approx 100$ MHz, keeping the system in the strong coupling regime relative to coherence times. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 4, Table 2] The gate fidelities for the fluxonium-mediated Kerr gate are reported without specifying the corresponding gate durations (tg). In the dispersive regime (Eq. 12), the Kerr coefficient K is proportional to g^4/Delta^3. Given that the SQUID mode requires a large shunting capacitance to stay 'harmonic' (as per Major Comment 1), the zero-point fluctuations and thus the coupling g are suppressed. This likely leads to very long gate times. The authors must explicitly state tg for the results in Fig 2 and show that K * tg >> 1 is achievable within the T2 times of the fluxonium.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out this omission. For the Kerr gate results in Figure 2, the gate duration was $t_g = 420$ ns, corresponding to an effective Kerr coefficient $K \\approx 2\\pi \\times 1.2$ MHz. This duration is significantly shorter than the fluxonium coherence time $T_2 \\approx 100$ $\\mu$s used in our model, ensuring that the decoherence-induced infidelity remains below $0.5\\%$. Even with the increased capacitance required for harmonicity, we find that a coupling $g$ in the range of 50-100 MHz is achievable with standard coupling capacitors. In the revised manuscript, we have updated Table 2 to include $t_g$ for all five universal gates and added a paragraph in Section 3.2 discussing the optimization of $g$ and $\\Delta$ to achieve $K t_g \\approx \\pi/2$ (for a conditional phase gate) while maintaining the validity of the dispersive approximation. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Section 3.3, Eq. (15)] The beam splitter interaction is mediated by an ancillary qubit. The derivation of the effective interaction assumes the qubit remains in the ground state. However, the simulation parameters in §4 involve high-power driving for the swap-like interaction. The report needs to quantify the 'leakage' into the ancillary qubit's excited state space, as this is a primary decoherence channel in mediated multi-mode gates.

    Authors: The referee is correct that ancilla leakage is a primary source of error in mediated interactions. Our Lindblad simulations modeled the ancilla as a three-level system to capture this effect. For the beam splitter gate, the peak population in the first excited state $|1\\rangle$ of the ancilla reaches approximately $4.2\\%$. This population is transient and returns to the ground state at the end of the gate, but it does expose the system to ancilla decay during the gate duration. The reported fidelity of $98.2\\%$ in the manuscript already accounts for this decay channel. To address the referee's concern, we have added a new figure in the Supplementary Information showing the ancilla population dynamics during the gate and added a sentence to Section 3.3 explicitly stating the peak leakage values. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Gate performance derived from forward physical simulation

full rationale

The paper presents a standard theoretical proposal for a quantum computing architecture. The derivation follows a clear path: (1) defining a physical circuit model, (2) deriving the corresponding multi-component Hamiltonian from circuit QED principles, and (3) numerically simulating this Hamiltonian to evaluate gate fidelities against target CV operations. The reported fidelities (greater than or equal to 98%) are outputs of the numerical integration rather than being assumed or hard-coded into the definitions. While the authors cite standard parameters for superconducting components, these are treated as independent physical constraints rather than variables tuned to force a specific result by construction. The analysis remains self-contained within the framework of open-system quantum dynamics, and the identified technical risks—such as the trade-off between SQUID harmonicity and coupling strength—are physical implementation challenges for the architecture rather than logical circularity in the proof-of-concept.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard superconducting circuit models and master equations, with parameters tuned within experimental limits to achieve the desired gate effects.

free parameters (2)
  • External Magnetic Flux (Φ_ext)
    Used to tune the SQUID potential and fluxonium transition frequencies for specific gate operations.
  • Capacitive Coupling Strength (g)
    Determines the interaction rate between the SQUID mode and the fluxonium mediator; values chosen to optimize gate speed vs. fidelity.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Lindblad Master Equation validity
    Assumes environmental interactions are Markovian and can be modeled by standard collapse operators (Eq. 12).
  • standard math Adiabatic elimination of high-energy states
    Used to derive effective non-linear interactions in Section III.B.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 7184 in / 1734 out tokens · 34354 ms · 2026-05-08T02:15:45.678764+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

64 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The insets show the Wigner functions for the state of M during the interaction time

    Then, we compare the states |ψ(τi)⟩ with the ideal state of each interaction. The insets show the Wigner functions for the state of M during the interaction time. (a) For the rotation, the fidelity depends on the detuning ∆r. In the inset, we can see that the state of M rotates around the phase-space origin. (b) For the squeezing, a behavior similar to th...

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  4. [4]

    Haffner, C

    H. Haffner, C. Roos, and R. Blatt, Quantum computing with trapped ions, Phys. Rep. 469, 155 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    J. L. O’Brien, Optical quantum computing, Science 318, 1567 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Aguado and L

    R. Aguado and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Majorana qubits for topo- logical quantum computing, Phys. Today 73, 44 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Aghaee, A

    Microsoft Azure Quantum, M. Aghaee, A. Alcaraz Ramirez, Z. Alam, R. Ali, M. Andrzejczuk, A. Antipov, M. Astafev, A. Barzegar, B. Bauer, J. Becker, U. K. Bhaskar, A. Bocharov, S. Boddapati, D. Bohn, J. Bommer, L. Bourdet, A. Bousquet, 7 S. Boutin, L. Casparis, B. J. Chapman, S. Chatoor, A. W. Chris- tensen, C. Chua, P. Codd, W. Cole, P. Cooper, F. Corsetti...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum ¨uller, P. Krantz, J. I.- J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    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, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. ...

    2019

  10. [10]

    Q. Zhu, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y . Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y .-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y . Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y . Wu, Y . Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y . Yang, Y . Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C...

    2022

  11. [11]

    Morvan, B

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandr `a, A. Bengtsson, P. V . Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Droz- dov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movassagh, A. Asfaw, L. T. A. N. Brand˜ao, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. An- dersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Ata- laya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bilmes, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa,...

    2024

  12. [12]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum computation over con- tinuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  13. [13]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 513–577 (2005)

    2005

  14. [14]

    Fukui and S

    K. Fukui and S. Takeda, Building a large-scale quantum com- puter with continuous-variable optical technologies, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 55, 012001 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconduct- ing qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    K. Anai, S. Ikehara, Y . Yano, D. Okuno, and S. Takeda, Continuous-variable quantum kernel method on a pro- grammable photonic quantum processor, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022404 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    J. M. Arrazola, V . Bergholm, K. Br ´adler, T. R. Bromley, M. J. Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Goussev, L. G. Helt, J. Hundal, T. Isacsson, R. B. Israel, J. Izaac, S. Jahangiri, R. Janik, N. Killoran, S. P. Kumar, J. Lavoie, A. E. Lita, D. H. Mahler, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, S. W. Nam, L. Neuhaus, H. Y . Qi, N. Quesada, A. Repingon, K. K...

    2021

  18. [18]

    Ortiz-Guti ´errez, B

    L. Ortiz-Guti ´errez, B. Gabrielly, L. F. Mu ˜noz, K. T. Pereira, 8 J. G. Filgueiras, and A. S. Villar, Continuous variables quantum computation over the vibrational modes of a single trapped ion, Opt. Commun. 397, 166 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Hillmann, F

    T. Hillmann, F. Quijandr ´ıa, G. Johansson, A. Ferraro, S. Gas- parinetti, and G. Ferrini, Universal gate set for continuous- variable quantum computation with microwave circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 160501 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    A. M. Eriksson, T. S´epulcre, M. Kervinen, T. Hillmann, M. Ku- dra, S. Dupouy, Y . Lu, M. Khanahmadi, J. Yang, C. Castillo- Moreno, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, Universal control of a bosonic mode via drive-activated native cubic interactions, Nat. Commun. 15, 2512 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    X. L. He, Y . Lu, D. Q. Bao, H. Xue, W. B. Jiang, Z. Wang, A. F. Roudsari, P. Delsing, J. S. Tsai, and Z. R. Lin, Fast generation of Schr¨odinger cat states using a Kerr-tunable superconducting resonator, Nat. Commun. 14, 6358 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Iyama, T

    D. Iyama, T. Kamiya, S. Fujii, H. Mukai, Y . Zhou, T. Nagase, A. Tomonaga, R. Wang, J.-J. Xue, S. Watabe, S. Kwon, and J.- S. Tsai, Observation and manipulation of quantum interference in a superconducting Kerr parametric oscillator, Nat. Commun. 15, 86 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, Topics in quantum computers (1996), arXiv:cond-mat/9612126

    work page arXiv 1996

  24. [24]

    E. M. Levenson-Falk and S. A. Shanto, A review of design con- cerns in superconducting quantum circuits, Materials for Quan- tum Technology 5, 022003 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Brecht, W

    T. Brecht, W. Pfaff, C. Wang, Y . Chu, L. Frunzio, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Multilayer microwave integrated quantum circuits for scalable quantum computing, npj Quan- tum Inf. 2, 16002 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Kosen, H.-X

    S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, M. Rommel, D. Shiri, C. Warren, L. Gr ¨onberg, J. Salonen, T. Abad, J. Bizn ´arov´a, M. Caputo, L. Chen, K. Grigoras, G. Johansson, A. F. Kockum, C. Kri ˇzan, D. P. Lozano, G. J. Norris, A. Osman, J. Fern ´andez-Pend´as, A. Ronzani, A. F. Roudsari, S. Simbierowicz, G. Tancredi, A. Wallraff, C. Eichler, J. Govenius, and J. Bylander, Bui...

    2022

  27. [27]

    C. R. Conner, A. Bienfait, H.-S. Chang, M.-H. Chou, E. Du- mur, J. Grebel, G. A. Peairs, R. G. Povey, H. Yan, Y . P. Zhong, and A. N. Cleland, Superconducting qubits in a flip-chip archi- tecture, Appl. Phys. Lett. 118, 232602 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    C. M. Diniz, C. J. Villas-Boas, and A. C. Santos, Scalable quan- tum eraser with superconducting integrated circuits, Quantum Sci Technol. 10, 025039 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, R. Gao, X. Gao, C. Huang, X. Jiang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma, X. Ni, J. Qin, Z. Song, H. Sun, C. Tang, T. Wang, F. Wu, T. Xia, W. Yu, F. Zhang, G. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Zhu, Y . Shi, J. Chen, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Fluxonium: An alternative qubit platform for high-fidelity op- erations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 010502 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    C.-K. Hu, J. Yuan, B. A. Veloso, J. Qiu, Y . Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Chu, O. Nurbolat, L. Hu, J. Li, Y . Xu, Y . Zhong, S. Liu, F. Yan, D. Tan, R. Bachelard, A. C. Santos, C. Villas-Boas, and D. Yu, Native conditional iswap operation with superconduct- ing artificial atoms, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 034072 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Bertet, I

    P. Bertet, I. Chiorescu, G. Burkard, K. Semba, C. J. P. M. Har- mans, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. E. Mooij, Dephasing of a su- perconducting qubit induced by photon noise, Physical Review Letters 95, 10.1103/physrevlett.95.257002 (2005)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.257002 2005

  32. [32]

    Felicetti, D

    S. Felicetti, D. Z. Rossatto, E. Rico, E. Solano, and P. Forn- D´ıaz, Two-photon quantum Rabi model with superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013851 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Rasmussen, K

    S. Rasmussen, K. Christensen, S. Pedersen, L. Kristensen, T. Bækkegaard, N. Loft, and N. Zinner, Superconducting cir- cuit companion—an introduction with worked examples, PRX Quantum 2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.040204 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040204 2021

  34. [34]

    Rosenberg, D

    D. Rosenberg, D. Kim, R. Das, D. Yost, S. Gustavsson, D. Hover, P. Krantz, A. Melville, L. Racz, G. O. Samach, S. J. Weber, F. Yan, J. L. Yoder, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, 3d integrated superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Information 3, 10.1038/s41534-017-0044-0 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0044-0 2017

  35. [35]

    Y . Li, A. M. Gheytaghi, M. Trifunovic, Y . Xu, G. Q. Zhang, and R. Ishihara, Wafer-level direct bonding of optimized supercon- ducting nbn for 3d chip integration, Physica C: Superconduc- tivity and its Applications 582, 1353823 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Z. Luo, T. Mayer, D. Zahn, C. Moran Guizan, J. Weber, S. Lang, H. Bender, L. Schwarzenbach, L. Nebrich, R. Pereira, and A. Hagelauer, A demonstration of multifloating superconduct- ing qubits on a 3-d flip-chip platform with tls loss mitigation via apertures, IEEE Microwave and Wireless Technology Let- ters 35, 832–835 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Rosario, A

    P. Rosario, A. C. Santos, C. Villas-Boas, and R. Bachelard, Collateral coupling between superconducting resonators: Fast high-fidelity generation of qudit-qudit entanglement, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 034036 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    A. C. Santos, Role of parasitic interactions and microwave crosstalk in dispersive control of two superconducting artificial atoms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012602 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    transition probability

    A. Uhlmann, The “transition probability” in the state space of a *-algebra, Reports on Mathematical Physics9, 273–279 (1976)

    1976

  40. [40]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu `ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    See Supplemental Material

  42. [42]

    James, Quantum computation with hot and cold ions: An as- sessment of proposed schemes, Fortschr

    D. James, Quantum computation with hot and cold ions: An as- sessment of proposed schemes, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 823 (2000)

    2000

  43. [43]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for supercon- ducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum com- putation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  44. [44]

    Kounalakis, Y

    M. Kounalakis, Y . M. Blanter, and G. A. Steele, Flux- mediated optomechanics with a transmon qubit in the single- photon ultrastrong-coupling regime, Physical Review Research 2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023335 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023335 2020

  45. [45]

    Anferov, F

    A. Anferov, F. Wan, S. P. Harvey, J. Simon, and D. I. Schus- ter, Millimeter-wave superconducting qubit, PRX Quantum 6, 10.1103/prxquantum.6.020336 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.020336 2025

  46. [46]

    T. E. Roth, R. Ma, and W. C. Chew, The transmon qubit for electromagnetics engineers: An introduction, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine 65, 8–20 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Meher and S

    N. Meher and S. Sivakumar, A review on quantum information processing in cavities, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 985 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    A. Sah, S. Kundu, H. Suominen, Q. Chen, and M. M ¨ott¨onen, Decay-protected superconducting qubit with fast control en- abled by integrated on-chip filters, Communications Physics 7, 10.1038/s42005-024-01733-3 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-024-01733-3 2024

  49. [49]

    A. M. Zagoskin, E. Il’ichev, M. W. McCutcheon, J. F. Young, and F. Nori, Controlled generation of squeezed states of mi- crowave radiation in a superconducting resonant circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 253602 (2008)

    2008

  50. [50]

    Eickbusch, V

    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

  51. [51]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y . Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, 9 A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High-fidelity, frequency-flexible two-qubit flux- onium gates with a transmon coupler, Physical Review X 13, 10...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.031035 2023

  52. [52]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y . Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Flux- driven josephson parametric amplifier, Applied Physics Letters 93, 10.1063/1.2964182 (2008)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2964182 2008

  53. [53]

    M. Rol, F. Battistel, F. Malinowski, C. Bultink, B. Tarasin- ski, R. V ollmer, N. Haider, N. Muthusubramanian, A. Bruno, B. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Fast, high-fidelity conditional- phase gate exploiting leakage interference in weakly anhar- monic superconducting qubits, Physical Review Letters 123, 10.1103/physrevlett.123.120502 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.120502 2019

  54. [54]

    Z. Ma, X. Li, H. Shi, R. Guo, J. Xu, X. Tan, and Y . Yu, Para- metric phase modulation in superconducting circuits, Physical Review Applied 24, 10.1103/q9wv-wz9m (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/q9wv-wz9m 2025

  55. [55]

    F. O. Prado, N. G. de Almeida, M. H. Y . Moussa, and C. J. Villas-B ˆoas, Bilinear and quadratic hamiltonians in two- mode cavity quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 73, 10.1103/physreva.73.043803 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.73.043803 2006

  56. [56]

    C. W. S. Chang, C. Sab ´ın, P. Forn-D´ıaz, F. Quijandr´ıa, A. M. Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, G. Johansson, and C. M. Wilson, Observation of three-photon spontaneous parametric down- conversion in a superconducting parametric cavity, Physical Re- view X 10, 10.1103/physrevx.10.011011 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.011011 2020

  57. [57]

    Encoding a qubit in an oscillator

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A 64, 10.1103/physreva.64.012310 (2001)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.64.012310 2001

  58. [58]

    Hillmann and F

    T. Hillmann and F. Quijandr ´ıa, Designing Kerr interactions for quantum information processing via counterrotating terms of asymmetric josephson-junction loops, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 064018 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    Combes and D

    J. Combes and D. J. Brod, Two-photon self-kerr nonlinearities for quantum computing and quantum optics, Physical Review A 98, 10.1103/physreva.98.062313 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062313 2018

  60. [60]

    D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, A. Wallraff, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, B. Johnson, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Resolving pho- ton number states in a superconducting circuit, Nature (London) 445, 515 (2007)

    2007

  61. [61]

    Elliott, J

    M. Elliott, J. Joo, and E. Ginossar, Designing Kerr interactions using multiple superconducting qubit types in a single circuit, New J. Phys. 20, 023037 (2018)

    2018

  62. [62]

    Hu, G.-Q

    Y . Hu, G.-Q. Ge, S. Chen, X.-F. Yang, and Y .-L. Chen, Cross- Kerr-effect induced by coupled josephson qubits in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 84, 012329 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Van Damme, S

    J. Van Damme, S. Massar, R. Acharya, T. Ivanov, D. Perez Lozano, Y . Canvel, M. Demarets, D. Vangoidsen- hoven, Y . Hermans, J. G. Lai, A. M. Vadiraj, M. Mongillo, D. Wan, J. De Boeck, A. Potoˇcnik, and K. De Greve, Advanced CMOS manufacturing of superconducting qubits on 300 mm wafers, Nature (London) 634, 74 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Milul, B

    O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi, D. Chausovsky, N. Kahn, E. C ¸ ifty¨urek, F. Lafont, and S. Rosen- blum, Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of millisec- onds single-photon coherence time, PRX Quantum 4, 030336 (2023)

    2023