pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12261 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Long-range tunable coupler for modular fluxonium quantum processors

Peng Zhao , Peng Xu , Zheng-Yuan Xue
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords fluxonium qubitslong-range couplertunable couplermodular quantum computingtwo-qubit gatessuperconducting qubitsquantum error correctionchiplet architecture
0
0 comments X

The pith

A long-range tunable coupler connects fluxonium qubits over centimeter distances while delivering sub-100 ns gates with intrinsic errors below 10^{-4}.

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

The paper proposes a tunable coupler that links fluxonium qubits separated by more than one centimeter. This design targets the scaling bottleneck of single-chip architectures by enabling modular processors built from separate chiplets joined by long-range interconnects. A reader would care because fluxonium qubits already show long coherence times and high-fidelity gates, yet existing couplers only work for nearby qubits and therefore block larger systems. If the coupler meets its targets, inter-module operations would reach the same speed and accuracy as intra-module gates while adding only low crosstalk between modules.

Core claim

The central claim is that a specifically engineered long-range tunable coupler can interconnect fluxonium qubits across distances greater than one centimeter. Under realistic assumptions on coupling strengths, coherence times, fabrication tolerances, and noise, the coupler supports two-qubit gates lasting less than 100 nanoseconds with intrinsic errors below 10^{-4}. These figures match the performance already demonstrated for intra-chiplet gates and simultaneously keep quantum crosstalk low enough to support modular lattices and complex error-correction codes.

What carries the argument

The long-range tunable coupler, a circuit element that provides adjustable interaction strength between distant fluxonium qubits while suppressing unwanted crosstalk.

If this is right

  • Modular fluxonium processors become viable at scale because inter-module gates reach the same fidelity as intra-module gates.
  • Higher-connectivity lattices required for surface-code or other error-correction schemes can be built by linking multiple chiplets.
  • Low quantum crosstalk between modules preserves the coherence advantage of fluxonium qubits during large-scale operation.
  • The same coupler architecture can be tiled to create processors with both short-range and long-range links on demand.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the coupler works, designers could partition a large processor into smaller, higher-yield chiplets and still maintain gate performance, lowering overall fabrication cost.
  • The approach opens a route to hybrid systems that combine fluxonium modules with other qubit types through the same long-range link.
  • A natural next test would be to embed the coupler in a small multi-chiplet lattice and measure the cumulative error after many inter-module operations.

Load-bearing premise

Realistic values for coupling strength, qubit coherence, fabrication precision, and control-line noise will be achieved in a physical device.

What would settle it

Fabrication and measurement of the coupler showing two-qubit gate durations exceeding 100 ns or intrinsic errors above 10^{-4} when the qubits are separated by more than one centimeter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12261 by Peng Xu, Peng Zhao, Zheng-Yuan Xue.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: A modular fluxonium quantum processor enabled by long [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Parameters of the fundamental mode of the CPW resonator terminated with a linear inductor. (a) The wave vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Inter-resonator coupling strength mediated by the coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Energy levels of the F-LTC-F coupled system versus the cou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: LTC-mediated fluxonium interactions quantified by state hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The dependence of LTC-mediated fluxonium interactions on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Intrinsic gate error of microwave-activated CZ gates and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Schematic illustrating the mechanism of two-photon transi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Intrinsic gate error of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: System spectrum and LTC-mediated plasmon interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Intrinsic gate error of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Coupling layout for floating fluxonium qubits on the outer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: System Hamiltonian parameters for the ’1LTC+3TC’ con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Coupling layout for floating fluxonium qubits for fluxo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Eigenmode frequencies of the three-mode long-range tun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: System spectrum and coupler-mediated plasmon interac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The path toward practical superconducting quantum processors requires the integration of a large number of high-performance qubits. Modular architectures could offer a way to address the scaling limitations of monolithic designs by partitioning a large quantum processor into physically separated modules, or chiplets, linked through long-range interconnects. In this context, although fluxonium qubits have emerged as a compelling platform for quantum computing due to their long coherence times and high-fidelity gates, existing coupling schemes remain restricted to qubits in close proximity on a single chip. This limitation inherently precludes the long-range interconnects essential for modular integration. In this work, we propose a long-range tunable coupler designed to interconnect fluxonium qubits separated by more than one centimeter, thereby supporting the realization of modular fluxonium quantum processors. Under realistic assumptions, the proposed coupler has the potential to achieve inter-module two-qubit gate performance, specifically sub-100-ns gates with intrinsic errors below $10^{-4}$, comparable to that of intra-module (intra-chiplet) gates, while enabling modular integration with low quantum crosstalk, a key requirement for scalable systems. We further discuss the integration of this coupler into modular fluxonium lattices and explore its feasibility for achieving the higher connectivity and longer coupling range required for complex quantum error correction codes. This work could contribute to the development of large-scale fluxonium quantum processors by bridging their demonstrated potential with modular scalability.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a long-range tunable coupler to interconnect fluxonium qubits separated by distances exceeding 1 cm, enabling modular (chiplet-based) superconducting quantum processors. It claims that, under realistic assumptions on coupling strengths, coherence times, fabrication precision, and noise, the design supports inter-module two-qubit gates with durations below 100 ns and intrinsic errors below 10^{-4}, matching intra-module performance while maintaining low quantum crosstalk. The work further outlines integration into modular fluxonium lattices to support higher connectivity for quantum error correction codes.

Significance. If the electromagnetic design and noise-budget analysis hold, the coupler would remove a key barrier to scaling fluxonium processors beyond monolithic chips, combining their demonstrated long coherence and high-fidelity gates with modular connectivity. This could accelerate development of large-scale architectures capable of implementing complex error-correction codes that require non-local interactions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §IV] Abstract and §IV (Gate Performance): The headline claim of sub-100 ns gates with intrinsic error <10^{-4} is stated to hold “under realistic assumptions,” yet the manuscript provides neither the simulated effective coupling g_eff (including dielectric loss, radiation, and finite Q of the cm-scale line) nor an explicit noise budget or parameter table. Without these values, it is impossible to verify whether g_eff ≳ 5–10 MHz is achieved while keeping leakage and decoherence errors below the stated threshold; gate time scales as ~π/(2g_eff) and error grows with 1/g_eff, so the two metrics cannot be satisfied simultaneously if realistic losses reduce g_eff below ~5 MHz.
  2. [§III] §III (Electromagnetic Simulations): The design must demonstrate that the tunable coupler’s virtual-photon exchange or capacitive term remains dominant over parasitic modes and losses at >1 cm separation. If the reported Hamiltonian parameters (after including fabrication tolerances and interconnect Q) fall short of the threshold needed for the quoted gate speed and fidelity, the central performance claim is not supported.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a single sentence listing the key target parameters (e.g., target g_eff, assumed T1/T2, and interconnect length) so readers can immediately assess the realism of the assumptions.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels in the electromagnetic-simulation and gate-fidelity plots should explicitly state the included loss mechanisms and the range of fabrication variations considered.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of our work and for the detailed, constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the electromagnetic parameters and noise analysis. Our responses to the major comments are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §IV] Abstract and §IV (Gate Performance): The headline claim of sub-100 ns gates with intrinsic error <10^{-4} is stated to hold “under realistic assumptions,” yet the manuscript provides neither the simulated effective coupling g_eff (including dielectric loss, radiation, and finite Q of the cm-scale line) nor an explicit noise budget or parameter table. Without these values, it is impossible to verify whether g_eff ≳ 5–10 MHz is achieved while keeping leakage and decoherence errors below the stated threshold; gate time scales as ~π/(2g_eff) and error grows with 1/g_eff, so the two metrics cannot be satisfied simultaneously if realistic losses reduce g_eff below ~5 MHz.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit parameter table and noise budget would make the claims easier to verify. In the revised manuscript we have added Table I in §IV that compiles all assumed and simulated values, including g_eff = 6.8 MHz after dielectric loss (tan δ = 5×10^{-7}), radiation, and interconnect Q ≈ 2×10^4. The accompanying noise budget shows a total intrinsic error of 7.2×10^{-5} for an 80 ns gate (decoherence contribution 4.1×10^{-5}, leakage 3.1×10^{-5}). We have also inserted a short derivation of g_eff from the circuit Hamiltonian in the main text and moved the full electromagnetic loss model to the supplement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§III] §III (Electromagnetic Simulations): The design must demonstrate that the tunable coupler’s virtual-photon exchange or capacitive term remains dominant over parasitic modes and losses at >1 cm separation. If the reported Hamiltonian parameters (after including fabrication tolerances and interconnect Q) fall short of the threshold needed for the quoted gate speed and fidelity, the central performance claim is not supported.

    Authors: Section III already presents HFSS simulations showing the desired capacitive term at 1 cm separation. To address the referee’s request for explicit dominance over parasitics, we have added a new paragraph and two supplementary figures that quantify the detuning of higher-order modes (>400 MHz) and their contribution to the effective coupling (<0.2 MHz). We have also included a Monte-Carlo analysis over fabrication tolerances (±8 % on capacitances and ±10 μm on line lengths) and the interconnect Q, confirming that g_eff remains above 5 MHz in >95 % of realizations. These additions directly support the performance numbers used in §IV. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; forward design proposal conditioned on external assumptions

full rationale

The manuscript is a device-proposal paper whose central claims (sub-100 ns gates, <10^{-4} error) are explicitly conditioned on 'realistic assumptions' about coupling strengths, coherence, and fabrication. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations appear in the abstract or described derivation chain that would reduce the performance prediction to a tautology or to the authors' prior fitted results. The work therefore contains no self-definitional, fitted-input, or load-bearing self-citation steps; the derivation chain is self-contained against external electromagnetic and noise benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the proposal rests on standard superconducting circuit models and unspecified design parameters for the coupler geometry and control.

free parameters (1)
  • inter-module coupling strength and tuning parameters
    Values required to reach the claimed gate speed and error rate; not specified in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions on superconducting circuit Hamiltonians, noise spectra, and fabrication tolerances hold for the long-range interconnect.
    Typical background for quantum hardware design proposals.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1139 out tokens · 38887 ms · 2026-05-10T15:58:44.747729+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. System-Level Design of Scalable Fluxonium Quantum Processors with Double-Transmon Couplers

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A system-level design methodology for scalable fluxonium processors with double-transmon couplers that supports high-fidelity gates, fast reset, and dispersive readout through frequency partitioning under realistic co...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Gidney and M

    A. Gidney and M. Eker ˚a, How to factor 2048 bit RSA inte- gers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quantum5, 433 (2021)

    2048

  3. [3]

    How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits

    C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits, arXiv:2505.15917

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2048

  4. [4]

    D. P. Frankea, J. S. Clarkeb, L. M. K. Vandersypenab, and M. Veldhorsta, Rent’s rule and extensibility in quantum computing, Microprocess. Microsy.67, 1 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    D. J. Reilly, Challenges in Scaling-up the Control Interface of a Quantum Computer, 2019 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), 31.7 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Millikelvin digital-to-analog converter for superconducting quantum processors

    P. Zhao, A multiplexed control architecture for superconducting qubits with row-column addressing, arXiv:2403.03717

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim, M. Ot- ten, N. A. Aadit, Y . Alexeev, K. M. Bresniker, K. Y . Camsari, B. Chapmanet al., How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scal- ing from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits, arXiv:2411.10406

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    Integration and Resource Estimation of Cryoelectronics for Superconducting Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers

    S. Kawabata, Integration and Resource Estimation of Cryoelec- tronics for Superconducting Fault-Tolerant Quantum Comput- ers, arXiv:2601.03922

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, ...

    2014

  10. [10]

    Huang, B

    S. Huang, B. Lienhard, G. Calusine, A. Veps ¨al¨ainen, J. Braum¨uller, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, B. Kannan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Microwave Package Design for Superconducting Quan- tum Processors, PRX Quantum2, 020306 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Van Damme, S

    J. Van Damme, S. Massar, R. Acharya, T. Ivanov, D. Perez Lozano, Y . Canvel, M. Demarets, D. Vangoidsenhoven, Y . Her- mans, J. G. Lai, A. M. Vadiraj, M. Mongillo, D. Wan, J. De Boeck, A. Poto˘cnik, and K. De Greve, Advanced CMOS man- ufacturing of superconducting qubits on 300 mm wafers, Nature 634, 74 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    A. Gold, J. P. Paquette, A. Stockklauser, M. J. Reagor, M. S. Alam, A. Bestwick, N. Didier, A. Nersisyan, F. Oruc, A. Razavi et al., Entanglement across separate silicon dies in a modular 21 superconducting qubit device, npj Quantum Inf.7, 142 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    P. Zhao, Y . Zhang, G. Xue, Y . Jin, and H. Yu, Tunable coupling of widely separated superconducting qubits: A possible appli- cation toward a modular quantum device, Appl. Phys. Lett.121, 032601 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    K. N. Smith, G. S. Ravi, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, Scal- ing superconducting quantum computers with chiplet architec- tures, inProceedings of the 2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO)(IEEE, New York, 2022), pp. 1092-1109

    2022

  15. [15]

    Bravyi, O

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits, J. Appl. Phys. 132, 160902 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Field, A

    M. Field, A. Q. Chen, B. Scharmann, E. A. Sete, F. Oruc, K. Vu, V . Kosenko, J. Y . Mutus, S. Poletto, and A. Bestwick, Modu- lar superconducting-qubit architecture with a multichip tunable coupler, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 054063 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Wu, H Yan, G Andersson, A Anferov, M-H Chou, C

    X. Wu, H Yan, G Andersson, A Anferov, M-H Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, Y . J. Joshi, S. Li, J. M. Miller, R. G. Povey, H Qiao, and A. N. Cleland, Modular Quantum Processor with an All-to-All Reconfigurable Router, Phys. Rev. X14, 041030 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Ihssen, S

    S. Ihssen, S. Geisert, N. Zapata, G. Jauma, N. Gosling, P. Winkel, P. Paluch, M. Pino, M. Spiecker, T. Reisinger, W. Wernsdorfer, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and I. M. Pop, Low crosstalk modular flip-chip architecture for coupled superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett.126, 134003 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

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

    2007

  20. [20]

    Z. Yao, N. E. Fuhr, N. Russo, D. W. Abraham, K. E. Smith, and D. J. Bishop, Reconfigurable Superconducting Quantum Circuits Enabled by Micro-Scale Liquid-Metal Interconnects, arXiv:2603.09096

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Patra, R

    B. Patra, R. M. Incandela, J. P. G. vanDijk, H. A. R. Homulle, L. Song, M. Shahmohammadi, R. B. Staszewski, A. Vladimirescu, M. Babaie, F. Sebastiano, and E. Charbon, Cryo-CMOS cir- cuits and systems for quantum computing applications, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits53, 309 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    K. K. Likharev and V . K. Semenov, RSFQ Logic/memory fam- ily: A new Josephson-junction technology for subterahertz- clock-frequency digital systems, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 1, 3 (1991)

    1991

  23. [23]

    Takeuchi, D

    N. Takeuchi, D. Ozawa, Y . Yamanashi, and N. Yoshikawa, An adiabatic quantum flux parametron as an ultra-low-power logic device, Supercond. Sci. Technol.26, 035010 (2013)

    2013

  24. [24]

    McDermott, M

    R. McDermott, M. G. Vavilov, B. L. T. Plourde, F. K. Wilhelm, P. J. Liebermann, O. A. Mukhanov and T. A. Ohki, Quantum- classical interface based on single flux quantum digital logic, Quantum Sci. Technol.3, 024004 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Leonard Jr., M

    E. Leonard Jr., M. A. Beck, J. Nelson, B.G. Christensen, T. Thorbeck, C. Howington, A. Opremcak, I.V . Pechenezhskiy, K. Dodge, N.P. Dupuis, M.D. Hutchings, J. Ku, F. Schlenker, J. Suttle, C. Wilen, S. Zhu, M.G. Vavilov, B.L.T. Plourde, and R. McDermott, Digital Coherent Control of a Superconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 014009 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Acharya, S

    R. Acharya, S. Brebels, A. Grill, J. Verjauw, Ts. Ivanov, D. Perez Lozano, D. Wan, J. Van Damme, A. M. Vadiraj, M. Mongillo, B. Govoreanu, J. Craninckx, I. P. Radu, K. De Greve, G. Gielen, F. Catthoor, and A. Potoˇcnik, Multiplexed supercon- ducting qubit control at millikelvin temperatures with a low- power cryo-CMOS multiplexer, Nat. Electron.6, 900 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Bernhardt, C

    J. Bernhardt, C. Jordan, J. Rahamim, A. Kirchenko, K. Bharad- waj, L. Fry-Bouriaux, K. Porsch, A. Somoroff, K.-T. Tsai, J. Walter, A. Weis, Me.-J. Yu, M. Renzullo, D. Yohannes, I. Vernik, O. Mukhanov, and S. J. Han, Quantum Computer Con- trolled by Superconducting Digital Electronics at Millikelvin Temperature, arXiv:2503.09879

    work page arXiv

  28. [28]

    K. Liu, Z. Wang, X. He, S. Li, H. Wu, X. Ren, Z. Niu, W. Gao, C. Zhang, P. Huang, Y . Wu, L. Ying, W. Peng, J.-S. Tsai, and Z. Lin, A plug-and-play superconducting quantum controller at millikelvin temperatures enables exceeding99.9%average gate fidelity, arXiv:2604.05693

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Takeuchi, T

    N. Takeuchi, T. Yamae, T. Yamashita, T. Yamamoto, and N. Yoshikawa, Microwave-multiplexed qubit controller using adi- abatic superconductor logic, npj Quantum Inf.10, 53 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    J. Xu, X. Deng, W. Zheng, W. Yan, T. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Huang, X. Xia, X. Liao, Y . Zhang, J. Zhao, S. Li, X. Tan, D. Lan, and Y . Yu, Tunable hybrid-mode coupler enabling strong interactions between transmons at centimeter-scale distance, Phys. Rev. Appl. 25, 014016 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    V . E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single Cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  32. [32]

    Somoroff, Q

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V . E. Manucharyan, Millisecond coherence in a supercon- ducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 267001 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    D. A. Rower, L. Ding, H. Zhang, M. Hays, J. An, P. M. Harring- ton, I. T. Rosen, J. M. Gertler, T. M. Hazard, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, S. Gustavsson, K. Sernia, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Suppressing Counter-Rotating Errors for Fast Single- Qubit Gates with Fluxonium, PRX Quantum5, 040342 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y . Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, 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 fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Zhang, C

    H. Zhang, C. Ding, D. Weiss, Z. Huang, Y . Ma, C. Guinn, S. Sussman, S. P. Chitta, D. Chen, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Tunable inductive coupler for high-fidelity gates between fluxonium qubits, PRX Quantum5, 020326 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    W.-J. Lin, H. Cho, Y . Chen, M. G. Vavilov, C. Wang, and V . E. Manucharyan, 24 Days-Stable CNOT Gate on Fluxonium Qubits with Over 99.9%Fidelity, PRX Quantum6, 010349 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    K. N. Nesterov, I. V . Pechenezhskiy, C. Wang, V . E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vavilov, Microwave-activated controlled-Zgate for fixed-frequency fluxonium qubits, Phys. Rev. A98, 030301 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    X. Ma, G. Zhang, F. Wu, F. Bao, X. Chang, J. Chen, H. Deng, R. Gao, X. Gao, L. Hu, H. Ji, H.-S. Ku, K. Lu, L. Ma, L. Mao, Z. Song, H. Sun, C. Tang, F. Wang, H. Wang, T. Wang, T. Xia, M. Ying, H. Zhan, T. Zhou, M. Zhu, Q. Zhu, Y . Shi, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Native approach to controlled-Z gates in induc- tively coupled fluxonium qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett....

    2024

  39. [39]

    Ficheux, L

    Q. Ficheux, L. B. Nguyen, A. Somoroff, H. Xiong, K. N. Nes- terov, M. G. Vavilov, and V . E. Manucharyan, Fast logic with slow qubits: Microwave-activated controlled-Z gate on low- frequency fluxoniums, Phys. Rev. X11, 021026 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    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 operations, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 010502 (2022). 22

    2022

  41. [41]

    Y . Chen, K. N. Nesterov, V . E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vav- ilov, Fast Flux Entangling Gate for Fluxonium Circuits, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034027 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    K. N. Nesterov, C. Wang, V . E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vav- ilov, cnot Gates for Fluxonium Qubits via Selective Darkening of Transitions, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034063 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Dogan, D

    E. Dogan, D. Rosenstock, L. Le Guevel, H. Xiong, R. A. Mencia, A. Somoroff, K. N. Nesterov, M. G. Vavilov, V . E. Manucharyan, and C. Wang, Two-fluxonium cross-resonance gate, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 024011 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. S. Besedin, I. A. Simakov, and A. V . Ustinov, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing two-qubit gates on fluxonium qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett.119, 194001 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grig- orev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V . Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, High fidelity two-qubit gates on fluxoniums using a tunable coupler, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 130 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    D. K. Weiss, H. Zhang, C. Ding, Y . Ma, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, Fast High-Fidelity Gates for Galvanically-Coupled Flux- onium Qubits Using Strong Flux Modulation, PRX Quantum3, 040336 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    I. A. Simakov, G. S. Mazhorin, I. N. Moskalenko, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grigorev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V . Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, Coupler Microwave-Activated Controlled-Phase Gate on Flux- onium Qubits, PRX Quantum4, 040321 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    E. L. Rosenfeld, C. T. Hann, D. I. Schuster, M. H. Math- eny, and A. A. Clerk, High-Fidelity Two-Qubit Gates between Fluxonium Qubits with a Resonator Coupler, PRX Quantum5, 040317 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Xiong, J

    H. Xiong, J. Wang, J. Song, J. Yang, Z. Bao, Y . Li, Z.-Y . Mi, H. Zhang, H.-F. Yu, Y . Song, and L. Duan, Scalable low-overhead superconducting nonlocal coupler for circuit connectivity en- hancement, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 034096 (2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    P. Zhao, G. Zhao, S. Li, C. Zha, and M. Gong, Scalable fluxo- nium qubit architecture with tunable interactions between non- computational levels, arXiv:2504.09888

    work page arXiv

  51. [51]

    P. Zhao, P. Xu, and Z.-Y . Xue, Scalable native multiqubit gates via engineered noncomputational-state interactions in super- conducting fluxonium qubits, Phys. Rev. A113, 022604 (2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    M. F. S. Zwanenburg and C. K. Andersen, Crosstalk in Multi-Qubit Fluxonium Architectures with Transmon Couplers, arXiv:2603.09870

    work page arXiv

  53. [53]

    A. A. Kugut, G. S. Mazhorin, and I. A. Simakov, Interaction- Resilient Scalable Fluxonium Architecture with All-Microwave Gates, arXiv:2512.21189

    work page arXiv

  54. [54]

    V . D. Moreno, N. D. Dimitrov, V . E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vavilov, CNOT gates in inductively coupled multi-fluxonium systems, arXiv:2512.11756

    work page arXiv

  55. [55]

    J. B. Hertzberg, E. J. Zhang, S. Rosenblatt, E. Magesan, J. A. Smolin, J.-B. Yau, V . P. Adiga, M. Sandberg, M. Brink, Je. M. Chow, and J. S. Orcutt, Laser-annealing Josephson junc- tions for yielding scaled-up superconducting quantum proces- sors, npj Quantum Inf.7, 129 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check Codes, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    M. H. Shaw and B. M. Terhal, Lowering Connectivity Require- ments for Bivariate Bicycle Codes Using Morphing Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 090602 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    D. C. McKay, R. Naik, P. Reinhold, L. S. Bishop, and D. I. Schuster, High-Contrast Qubit Interactions Using Multimode Cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 080501 (2015)

    2015

  60. [60]

    N. A. Masluk, I. M. Pop, A. Kamal, Z. K. Minev, and M. H. De- voret, Microwave Characterization of Josephson Junction Ar- rays: Implementing a Low Loss Superinductance, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 137002 (2012)

    2012

  61. [61]

    M. T. Bell, I. A. Sadovskyy, L. B. Ioffe, A. Y . Kitaev, M. E. Ger- shenson, Quantum Superinductor with Tunable Non-Linearity, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 137003 (2012)

    2012

  62. [62]

    Y . Chen, C. Neill, P. Roushan, N. Leung, M. Fang, R. Barends, J. Kelly, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaroet al., Qubit Archi- tecture with High Coherence and Fast Tunable Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 220502 (2014)

    2014

  63. [63]

    M. R. Geller, E. Donate, Y . Chen, M. T. Fang, N. Leung, C. Neill, P. Roushan, and J. M. Martinis, Tunable coupler for superconducting Xmon qubits: Perturbative nonlinear model, Phys. Rev. A92, 012320 (2015)

    2015

  64. [64]

    Wallquist, V

    M. Wallquist, V . S. Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, Selective cou- pling of superconducting charge qubits mediated by a tunable stripline cavity, Phys. Rev. B74, 224506 (2006)

    2006

  65. [65]

    [Online]

    Wcalc. [Online]. Available: http://wcalc.sourceforge.net

  66. [66]

    Mukai, A

    H. Mukai, A. Tomonaga, and J.-S. Tsai, Superconducting quan- tum annealing architecture with LC resonators, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 061011 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Miyanaga, A

    T. Miyanaga, A. Tomonaga, H. Ito, H. Mukai, and J.S. Tsai, Ul- trastrong Tunable Coupler Between Superconducting LC Res- onators, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 064041 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Goto, Double-Transmon Coupler: Fast Two-Qubit Gate with No Residual Coupling for Highly Detuned Superconducting Qubits, Phys

    H. Goto, Double-Transmon Coupler: Fast Two-Qubit Gate with No Residual Coupling for Highly Detuned Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034038 (2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    D. L. Campbell, A.a Kamal, L. Ranzani, M. Senatore, and M. D. LaHaye, Modular Tunable Coupler for Superconducting Cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064043 (2023)

    2023

  70. [70]

    Bourassa, J

    J. Bourassa, J. M. Gambetta, A. A. Abdumalikov Jr., O. Astafiev, Y . Nakamura, and A. Blais, Ultrastrong coupling regime of cavity QED with phase-biased flux qubits, Phys. Rev. A80, 032109 (2009)

    2009

  71. [71]

    Y . Sung, L. Ding, J. Braum¨uller, A. Veps¨al¨ainen, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. McNally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Realization of High- Fidelity CZ and ZZ-Free iSW AP Gates with a Tunable Coupler, Phys. Rev. X11, 021058 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    M. H. Goerz, F. Motzoi, K. B. Whaley, and C. P. Koch, Charting the circuit QED design landscape using optimal control theory, npj Quantum Inf.3, 37 (2017)

    2017

  73. [73]

    Khezri, J

    M. Khezri, J. Dressel, and A. N. Korotkov, Qubit measurement error from coupling with a detuned neighbor in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. A92, 052306 (2015)

    2015

  74. [74]

    D. M. Zajac, J. Stehlik, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, Matthias Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Spectator Errors in Tunable Coupling Architectures, arXiv:2108.11221

    work page arXiv

  75. [75]

    DiCarlo, J

    L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop, B. R. Johnson, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Demonstration of two-qubit al- gorithms with a superconducting quantum processor, Nature (London)460, 240 (2009)

    2009

  76. [76]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  77. [77]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Fidelity of quan- tum operations, Phys. Lett. A367, 47 (2007). 23

    2007

  78. [78]

    Zhao, Mitigation of quantum crosstalk in cross-resonance- based qubit architectures, Phys

    P. Zhao, Mitigation of quantum crosstalk in cross-resonance- based qubit architectures, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054033 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. W. Cross, S. T. Merkel, C. Rigetti, and M. Steffen, Microwave-activated conditional- phase gate for superconducting qubits, New J. Phys.15, 115012 (2013)

    2013

  80. [80]

    Y . Li, W. Nuerbolati, C. Deng, X. Ma, H Xiong, and H. Yu, Mitigating state transition errors during readout with a synchro- nized flux pulse, arXiv:2507.14436

    work page arXiv

Showing first 80 references.