pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27679 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🪐 quant-ph

Parametrically Driven iSWAP Gate Using a Capacitively Shunted Double-Transmon Coupler at the Zero-Flux Sweet Spot

Shinichi Inoue , Rui Li , Kentaro Kubo , Yinghao Ho , Yasunobu Nakamura , Hayato Goto This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 07:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords iSWAP gatedouble-transmon couplerparametric drivesuperconducting qubitsgate fidelityzero-flux sweet spotfixed-frequency transmonsZZ interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

A capacitively shunted double-transmon coupler enables a parametrically driven iSWAP gate with 99.92% fidelity at zero flux using a simple waveform.

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

The work demonstrates a parametrically driven iSWAP gate between two highly detuned fixed-frequency transmon qubits coupled through a capacitively shunted double-transmon coupler. Operation at the zero-flux sweet spot with an undistorted flux-drive waveform produces an average gate fidelity of 99.92(2)% in 112 ns. This performance is attributed to small qubit-coupler hybridization and a small effective ZZ interaction during the gate. Numerical simulations match the measured interaction rate and ZZ coupling, confirming the model describes both static spectra and the full time-domain gate dynamics.

Core claim

A capacitively shunted double-transmon coupler operated at zero flux bias mediates a clean parametrically driven iSWAP interaction between fixed-frequency transmons. With a simple flux-drive waveform and no predistortion, the gate reaches 99.92(2)% average fidelity in 112 ns while keeping qubit-coupler hybridization and effective ZZ interaction small. The same theoretical model that reproduces the spectrum also reproduces the observed time-domain gate rates and residual couplings.

What carries the argument

The parametrically driven iSWAP interaction mediated by the capacitively shunted double-transmon coupler (CSDTC) at zero flux bias.

If this is right

  • High-fidelity two-qubit gates become possible with simple flux waveforms that require no predistortion.
  • Fixed-frequency transmons can interact via iSWAP while remaining at the zero-flux point that minimizes flux noise.
  • Small residual ZZ and hybridization allow the gate to be treated as an ideal iSWAP for most error-budget calculations.
  • The same Hamiltonian model used for spectroscopy also predicts gate dynamics, enabling predictive design of pulse parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Control hardware for superconducting processors can be simplified by removing the need for arbitrary-waveform predistortion on flux lines.
  • Avoiding static flux bias may reduce the number of flux lines and associated wiring complexity when scaling to larger qubit arrays.
  • The demonstrated agreement between simulation and experiment for both spectra and gate dynamics suggests the same approach can be used to engineer other parametric gates.

Load-bearing premise

The parametrically driven interaction remains a clean iSWAP whose only relevant error channels are the reported small ZZ coupling and qubit-coupler hybridization over the entire 112 ns gate duration.

What would settle it

A measured average fidelity below 99.9% or a measured effective ZZ interaction during the gate that deviates substantially from the simulated value would falsify the claim of a clean parametric iSWAP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27679 by Hayato Goto, Kentaro Kubo, Rui Li, Shinichi Inoue, Yasunobu Nakamura, Yinghao Ho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Device and operating principle of the parametrically driven iSWAP gate at the zero-flux sweet spot. (a) False-colored view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Characterization of parametrically driven iSWAP view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Randomized benchmarking of the iSWAP gate with view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Experimentally measured iSWAP depolarization view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Optimized flux-drive waveform for the iSWAP view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Pulse sequence used to evaluate the effective view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Room-temperature control electronics and cryogenic view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Flux dependence of the coherence properties of the view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison with analytic results obtained from view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Hybridization fractions view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Decomposition of the iSWAP gate into primitive view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Pulse sequences used to calibrate the parametrically driven iSWAP gate. In each step, the parameter being optimized view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Representative calibration data corresponding to the tune-up sequences in Fig. view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Pauli transfer matrices (PTMs) of the calibrated view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Single-shot IQ readout characterization. The black crosses mark the centers of the corresponding IQ clusters. Single view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A double-transmon coupler (DTC) enables a fast, high-fidelity CZ gate between two highly detuned, fixed-frequency transmon qubits. Moreover, a recently proposed capacitively shunted DTC (CSDTC) realizes a small residual ZZ interaction over a wide flux-bias range around zero flux, eliminating the necessity of static flux biasing while maintaining high CZ-gate fidelity. However, CZ gates with the DTC and CSDTC require baseband flux pulses with large amplitudes, which are vulnerable to pulse distortion and decoherence due to large qubit-coupler hybridization. To address these issues, we experimentally demonstrate a parametrically driven iSWAP gate operated at zero flux bias between highly detuned, fixed-frequency transmon qubits coupled through a CSDTC. Using a simple flux-drive waveform without predistortion, we realize an average gate fidelity of 99.92(2)% at a total gate time of 112 ns. The observed high-fidelity performance is consistent with small qubit-coupler hybridization and small effective ZZ interaction during the gate. Our numerical simulations reproduce the experimentally observed iSWAP interaction rate and effective ZZ interaction, demonstrating the applicability of the theoretical model not only to spectral information but also to time-domain dynamics such as gate operations. These results boost further progress in the research of superconducting quantum computers.

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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally demonstrates a parametrically driven iSWAP gate between two highly detuned fixed-frequency transmon qubits coupled by a capacitively shunted double-transmon coupler (CSDTC) operated at the zero-flux sweet spot. A simple flux-drive waveform without predistortion yields an average gate fidelity of 99.92(2)% at a total gate duration of 112 ns. Numerical simulations are shown to reproduce the measured iSWAP interaction rate and effective ZZ interaction, which the authors argue accounts for the observed performance via small qubit-coupler hybridization.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is significant for superconducting quantum computing: it realizes a high-fidelity two-qubit gate between fixed-frequency qubits without large-amplitude baseband flux pulses or static flux biasing, thereby mitigating pulse distortion and excess decoherence. The parametric-drive approach at the sweet spot, together with the demonstrated match between simulation and experiment for interaction rates, provides a concrete route toward more scalable control in multi-qubit processors.

major comments (1)
  1. [Numerical simulations section] Numerical simulations section: The simulations are stated to reproduce the experimentally observed iSWAP interaction rate and effective ZZ interaction and to demonstrate applicability to time-domain dynamics. However, it is not shown that these simulations evolve the full time-dependent master equation incorporating the measured T1/T2 times of the qubits and coupler (or drive-induced losses) to predict an average gate fidelity near 99.92%. Without that step, the consistency argument that small hybridization and ZZ suffice to explain the fidelity rests on an untested premise that no other error channels contribute appreciably over the 112 ns gate; a direct simulated-versus-measured fidelity comparison is required to substantiate the central claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §III] The abstract and main text refer to a 'simple flux-drive waveform without predistortion,' but the explicit functional form, frequency, amplitude, and envelope details are not provided; these should be stated (or referenced to a supplementary figure) to enable independent reproduction.
  2. [Experimental results section] The reported fidelity of 99.92(2)% is given with an error bar, which is welcome, but the specific protocol (e.g., interleaved randomized benchmarking, cross-entropy benchmarking) and the number of sequences or shots used to extract it should be stated explicitly in the experimental section.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] Figure captions and axis labels should clarify whether the plotted interaction rates and ZZ values are extracted from spectroscopy or from time-domain oscillations, and whether error bars represent statistical or systematic uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's positive assessment of the significance of our work and their constructive criticism. We address the single major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical simulations section] Numerical simulations section: The simulations are stated to reproduce the experimentally observed iSWAP interaction rate and effective ZZ interaction and to demonstrate applicability to time-domain dynamics. However, it is not shown that these simulations evolve the full time-dependent master equation incorporating the measured T1/T2 times of the qubits and coupler (or drive-induced losses) to predict an average gate fidelity near 99.92%. Without that step, the consistency argument that small hybridization and ZZ suffice to explain the fidelity rests on an untested premise that no other error channels contribute appreciably over the 112 ns gate; a direct simulated-versus-measured fidelity comparison is required to substantiate the central claim.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. In the manuscript, our numerical simulations are used to match the observed iSWAP rate and ZZ interaction from the effective Hamiltonian, and we show that the model applies to time-domain gate dynamics in the coherent limit. We agree that to fully substantiate that the small hybridization and ZZ are the primary reasons for the high fidelity, and that no other channels dominate, a simulation of the open quantum system is desirable. Therefore, in the revised version, we will extend the simulations to solve the full time-dependent Lindblad master equation, incorporating the measured relaxation and dephasing times of the qubits and coupler. We will also consider any additional drive-induced losses. The resulting simulated average gate fidelity will be compared to the experimental value. This addition will be placed in the Numerical simulations section and will strengthen our claim that the observed performance is consistent with the small residual interactions at the zero-flux sweet spot. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Experimental gate realization with post-hoc model validation; no derivation reduces to self-inputs or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper's core result is an experimental demonstration of a parametrically driven iSWAP gate achieving 99.92(2)% fidelity in 112 ns using a CSDTC at zero flux. The supporting numerical simulations are described as reproducing the experimentally extracted iSWAP rate and effective ZZ interaction, which constitutes validation of the model against measured spectral and time-domain data rather than a first-principles prediction derived from fitted parameters that would then be called a prediction. No equations in the provided abstract or description show a self-definitional loop (e.g., a rate defined via the fidelity it is later used to explain). Self-citations to prior DTC/CSDTC work are present but not load-bearing for the fidelity claim, which rests on direct measurement. The consistency argument with small hybridization and ZZ is qualitative and does not reduce the reported fidelity to a quantity constructed from the same inputs. The work is therefore self-contained as an experimental result with independent model checks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard superconducting circuit theory and the applicability of the DTC/CSDTC Hamiltonian model to time-domain gate dynamics. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are the experimental drive amplitude and frequency chosen to achieve the target gate time and the effective coupling strengths extracted from data.

free parameters (2)
  • parametric drive amplitude and frequency
    Chosen experimentally to produce the observed iSWAP rate and 112 ns gate duration; not derived from first principles in the abstract.
  • effective ZZ interaction strength
    Described as small and consistent with high fidelity; its precise value is not reported but is central to the performance claim.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The theoretical model for the CSDTC accurately describes both spectral properties and time-domain gate evolution under parametric driving.
    The abstract states that simulations reproduce the experimentally observed iSWAP rate and effective ZZ, relying on this model extension beyond static spectroscopy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5560 in / 1473 out tokens · 80308 ms · 2026-05-07T07:08:21.581032+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. Systematic frequency-collision analysis of the cross-resonance gate outside the straddling regime

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Far-detuned cross-resonance designs cut frequency collisions in transmon processors, achieving 10% collision-free yield for 1024 qubits with qubit-frequency spread reduced to 6.8 MHz.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    1(c) and residualZZinteraction measurements in Fig

    Device parameters For the spectroscopy measurements in Fig. 1(c) and residualZZinteraction measurements in Fig. 1(d), we fit the data with the model Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)–(3) to extract the device parameters. The fitting parameters are summarized in Table I. DC GS200 300 K PQSC SHFQC+ RO RI XY1 XY2 HDAWG Z 16 3 4 K 50 K 6626 8 mK 10 10 10 10H 100 mK 10 ...

  2. [2]

    8(a)–8(c)]

    Qubit coherence away from zero flux bias We characterize the coherence of the qubits by measur- ing the energy-relaxation timeT 1, the Ramsey dephasing timeT ∗ 2 , and the Hahn-echo dephasing timeT 2E both at zero flux bias (Table II) and as a function of the external flux biasφ ex [Figs. 8(a)–8(c)]. As the flux bias is increased away from zero,T 1 of the...

  3. [3]

    Toy-model Hamiltonian By expanding the cosine terms in Eqs. (1) and (2) to fourth order in ˆφ1 and ˆφ2, and to second order in ˆφp and ˆφm, ˆH0 becomes ˆH0 ≃4ℏ ˆnT W ˆn + X j=1,2 EJj ˆφ2 j 2 − ˆφ4 j 24 ! + X j=p,m EJj ˆφ2 j 2 ,(C1) where we have dropped (EJ3−EJ4) ˆφp ˆφm assumingE J3 = EJ4 and defined EJp =E J3 +E J4,(C2) EJm =E J3 +E J4 + 4EJ5.(C3) 13 We...

  4. [4]

    Quasi-static frame transformation From Eq. (C17), the coupler M-mode frequency mod- ulationω m(φex(t)) under the parametric flux drive can be transformed into phase modulation of the exchange couplings via a unitary transformation ˆUϑ(t) = exp h −iϑ(t)ˆnm i ,(C22) where ˆnm = ˆa† mˆam is the number operator for the M mode and the accumulated phase is expr...

  5. [5]

    Time-dependent Schrieffer–Wolff transformation As the P mode is not flux-driven in the toy model, we consider a subsystem Hamiltonian ˆHm consisting of the two data qubits and the M mode for simplicity. The subsystem Hamiltonian is given by ˆHm(t) = ˆHm,0 + ˆVm(t),(C26) whose static and time-dependent parts are defined, re- spectively, as ˆHm,0 = X i=1,2 ...

  6. [6]

    (3)] for simplicity

    Cooper-pair number-operator description In the main text, we have omitted a term proportional to the time derivative of the modulated external flux ˙φex in the Hamiltonian [Eq. (3)] for simplicity. The full Hamiltonian including this term is given by ˆH(φex(t)) = 4ℏˆnT W ˆn+ℏ ℏ˙φex(t) EC34 (0 0−1 1)W ˆn − 4X j=1 EJj cos ˆφj −E J5 cos [ ˆφ4 −ˆφ3 −φ ex(t)],...

  7. [7]

    The Cooper-pair number op- erator ˆni is represented by−i ∂ ∂φi and the eigenfunction of ˆni is proportional toe iniφi

    Matrix representations of operators The phase-difference and Cooper-pair number op- erators are quantized by the commutation relation [ ˆφi,ˆnj] =iδ ij as follows. The Cooper-pair number op- erator ˆni is represented by−i ∂ ∂φi and the eigenfunction of ˆni is proportional toe iniφi. In the basis of these eigen- functions, the operators are represented by ...

  8. [8]

    Energy spectrum and staticZZinteraction By numerically diagonalizing the Hamiltonian ma- trix ˆH(φex) with ˙φ ex = 0, we obtain the eigenstates |gijkl(φex)⟩, following the conventions in Sec. II. The re- sulting energy spectra,ω gijkl(φex), and the staticZZin- teraction, ζ(φex) =ω ]1100(φex)−ω ]1000(φex) −ω ]0100(φex) +ω ]0000(φex),(D5) are shown in Figs....

  9. [9]

    2(b), we compute the time evolution of the initial state|01⟩under a continuous-wave flux drive given by Eq

    iSWAP interaction rate To evaluate the iSWAP interaction rateg iSWAP shown in Fig. 2(b), we compute the time evolution of the initial state|01⟩under a continuous-wave flux drive given by Eq. (11), with the drive phase set asϕ d =−π/2. Starting from|01⟩, we denote the quantum state at timetby|01(t)⟩. This state is obtained by solving the Schr¨ odinger equa...

  10. [10]

    (24) and (25), using the same method as in Sec

    Effective and dynamicalZZinteractions To numerically extract the effective and dynamicalZZ interactions during the iSWAP gate, we compute the time evolution from four initial states|ij⟩(i, j∈ {0,1}) under the flux-drive pulse defined in Eqs. (24) and (25), using the same method as in Sec. D 4. We denote the 18 quantum state at the end of the gate timettot...

  11. [11]

    5(b) in the main text, are evaluated as follows

    Hybridization fractions The hybridization fractions of the coupler modes in the two-qubit states, the average of which is shown in Fig. 5(b) in the main text, are evaluated as follows. We first rewrite the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) as H(φex) = X j=1,2 Hj +H PM(φex) +H I,(D9) Hj = 4ℏWjj ˆn2 j −E Jj cos ˆφj (j= 1,2),(D10) HPM(φex) = X j=3,4 4ℏWjj ˆn2 j −E Jj c...

  12. [12]

    First, we calibrate the relative timing between the qubit drive line and the coupler flux-drive line

    Gate tune-up procedure In this Appendix, we outline the gate tune-up protocol used in our experiments. First, we calibrate the relative timing between the qubit drive line and the coupler flux-drive line. We apply aX π pulse to a data qubit while almost simultaneously applying a baseband flux pulse whose envelope matches 20 that of the qubit drive, and we...

  13. [13]

    The exchange axis is set by the relative phases of the control oscillators that generate the two qubit- drive waveforms and the flux-drive waveform

    Phase correction The parametrically driven iSWAP gate is phase- sensitive. The exchange axis is set by the relative phases of the control oscillators that generate the two qubit- drive waveforms and the flux-drive waveform. To implement the iSWAP gate with the correct ex- change axis that yields a phase of−iafter population exchange, we must explicitly ke...

  14. [14]

    From the QPT data, we reconstruct the Pauli transfer matrix (PTM) and compare it with the ideal PTM of the iSWAP gate

    Quantum process tomography After completing all calibrations, we verify that the iSWAP gate is correctly tuned by using quantum process tomography (QPT). From the QPT data, we reconstruct the Pauli transfer matrix (PTM) and compare it with the ideal PTM of the iSWAP gate. The experimentally reconstructed PTM, together with the theoretical PTMs for iSWAPn ...

  15. [15]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature646, 825 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, H. Guan, Q. Zhu, Z. Wei, T. He, S. Cao, F. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, J. Lin, H. Qian, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, S. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zha, K. Zhang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Let...

    2022

  18. [18]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, G. J. Norris, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Nature Physics16, 875 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. M¨ uller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Nature605, 669–674 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Google Quantum AI., Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators., Nature638, 920 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    T. He, W. Lin, R. Wang, Y. Li, J. Bei, J. Cai, S. Cao, D. Chen, K. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Chu, H. Deng, X. Ding, Z. Ding, B. Fan, D. Fan, Y. Fu, D. Gao, M. Gong, J. Gui, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, Y. Hu, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, C. Jiang, L. Jiang, T. Jiang, Z. Jiang, H. Jin, D. Li, D. Li, J. Li, J. Li, J. Li, J. Li, N. Li, S. L...

    2025

  23. [23]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators., Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Lacroix, A

    N. Lacroix, A. Bourassa, F. J. H. Heras, L. M. Zhang, J. Bausch, A. W. Senior, T. Edlich, N. Shutty, V. Sivak, A. Bengtsson, M. McEwen, O. Higgott, D. Kafri, J. Claes, A. Morvan, Z. Chen, A. Zalcman, S. Madhuk, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie Beni, G. Aigeldinger, R. Al- caraz, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. ...

    2020

  25. [25]

    Sheldon, E

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

    2016

  26. [26]

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

    2022

  27. [27]

    Tripathi, M

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

    2019

  28. [28]

    Malekakhlagh, E

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

    2020

  29. [29]

    J. B. Hertzberg, E. J. Zhang, S. Rosenblatt, E. Mage- san, J. A. Smolin, J.-B. Yau, V. P. Adiga, M. Sandberg, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. S. Orcutt, npj Quantum Information7, 129 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Morvan, L

    A. Morvan, L. Chen, J. M. Larson, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023079 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    E. J. Zhang, S. Srinivasan, N. Sundaresan, D. F. Bogorin, Y. Martin, J. B. Hertzberg, J. Timmerwilke, E. J. Pritch- ett, J.-B. Yau, C. Wang, W. Landers, E. P. Lewandowski, A. Narasgond, S. Rosenblatt, G. A. Keefe, I. Lauer, M. B. Rothwell, D. T. McClure, O. E. Dial, J. S. Or- cutt, M. Brink, and J. M. Chow, Science Advances8, eabi6690 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Zhang, P

    Z. Zhang, P. Gokhale, and J. M. Larson, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012619 (2025). 27

    2025

  33. [33]

    Kandala, K

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

    2021

  34. [34]

    Mundada, G

    P. Mundada, G. Zhang, T. Hazard, and A. Houck, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 054023 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Kumph, J

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Shirai, Y

    S. Shirai, Y. Okubo, K. Matsuura, A. Osada, Y. Naka- mura, and A. Noguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 260601 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Shirai, S

    S. Shirai, S. Inoue, S. Tamate, R. Li, Y. Nakamura, and A. Noguchi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01260 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Goto, Phys

    H. Goto, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034038 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Kubo and H

    K. Kubo and H. Goto, Applied Physics Letters122, 064001 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    K. Kubo, Y. Ho, and H. Goto, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 024057 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Phys. Rev. X14, 041050 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, S. Inoue, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 064069 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    D. L. Campbell, A. Kamal, L. Ranzani, M. Senatore, and M. D. LaHaye, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064043 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    T. Cai, C. Chen, K. Bu, S. Huai, X. Yang, Z. Zong, Y. Li, Z. Zhang, Y.-C. Zheng, and S. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02249 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Y. Chen, C. Neill, P. Roushan, N. Leung, M. Fang, R. Barends, J. Kelly, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mu- tus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. M. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, M. R. Geller, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 220502 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    S. Li, J. Clark, S. Wang, Y. Wu, M. Gong, Z. Yan, H. Rong, H. Deng, C. Zha, C. Guo, L. Sun, C. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, npj Quantum Information5, 84 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    Marxer, A

    F. Marxer, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, S. W. Jolin, J. Tuorila, A. Landra, C. Ockeloen-Korppi, W. Liu, O. Ahonen, A. Auer, L. Belzane, V. Bergholm, C. F. Chan, K. W. Chan, T. Hiltunen, J. Hotari, E. Hyypp¨ a, J. Ikonen, D. Janzso, M. Koistinen, J. Kotilahti, T. Li, J. Luus, M. Papic, M. Partanen, J. R¨ abin¨ a, J. Rosti, M. Savyt- skyi, M. Sepp¨ al¨ a, V. Sevriuk...

    2023

  49. [49]

    Glaser, F

    N. Glaser, F. Roy, I. Tsitsilin, L. Koch, N. Bruck- moser, J. Schirk, J. Romeiro, G. Huber, F. Wallner, M. Singh, G. Krylov, A. Marx, L. S¨ odergren, C. Schnei- der, M. Werninghaus, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. Appl. 24, 024048 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, B. Kan- nan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. Mc- Nally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. X11, 021058 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Y. Xu, J. Chu, J. Yuan, J. Qiu, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, X. Tan, Y. Yu, S. Liu, J. Li, F. Yan, and D. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 240503 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    H. Xu, W. Liu, Z. Li, J. Han, J. Zhang, K. Linghu, Y. Li, M. Chen, Z. Yang, J. Wang, T. Ma, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Chinese Physics B30, 044212 (2021)

    2021

  53. [53]

    M. A. Rol, F. Battistel, F. K. Malinowski, C. C. Bultink, B. M. Tarasinski, R. Vollmer, N. Haider, N. Muthusubra- manian, A. Bruno, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 120502 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    M. C. Collodo, J. Herrmann, N. Lacroix, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, J.-C. Besse, T. Walter, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 240502 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Stehlik, D

    J. Stehlik, D. M. Zajac, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, M. Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080505 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Negˆ ırneac, H

    V. Negˆ ırneac, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, F. Battis- tel, R. Sagastizabal, M. S. Moreira, J. F. Marques, W. J. Vlothuizen, M. Beekman, C. Zachariadis, N. Haider, A. Bruno, and L. DiCarlo, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 220502 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Barends, C

    R. Barends, C. M. Quintana, A. G. Petukhov, Y. Chen, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, R. Collins, O. Naaman, S. Boixo, F. Arute, K. Arya, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gid- ney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, E. Lucero, M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, J...

    2019

  58. [58]

    Foxen, C

    B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, S. Boixo, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, R. Collins, E. Farhi, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, M. Harrigan, T. Huang, S. V. Isakov, E. Jef- frey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Keched...

    2020

  59. [59]

    Scarato, K

    C. Scarato, K. Hanke, A. Remm, S. Laz˘ ar, N. Lacroix, D. Colao Zanuz, A. Flasby, A. Wallraff, and C. Hellings, PRX Quantum6, 040317 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    M. A. Rol, L. Ciorciaro, F. K. Malinowski, B. M. Tarasin- ski, R. E. Sagastizabal, C. C. Bultink, Y. Salathe, N. Haandbaek, J. Sedivy, and L. DiCarlo, Applied Physics Letters116, 054001 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    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. Cle- land, and J. M. Martinis, Nature508, 500 (2014)

    2014

  62. [62]

    Hellings, N

    C. Hellings, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, R. Boell, J. Herrmann, S. Laz˘ ar, S. Krinner, F. m. c. Swiadek, C. K. Andersen, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043142 (2025)

    2025

  63. [63]

    D. C. McKay, S. Filipp, A. Mezzacapo, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Appl.6, 064007 (2016). 28

    2016

  64. [64]

    M. Roth, M. Ganzhorn, N. Moll, S. Filipp, G. Salis, and S. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. A96, 062323 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    Ganzhorn, G

    M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, D. J. Egger, A. Fuhrer, M. Mer- genthaler, C. M¨ uller, P. M¨ uller, S. Paredes, M. Pechal, M. Werninghaus, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033447 (2020)

    2020

  66. [66]

    X. Y. Han, T. Q. Cai, X. G. Li, Y. K. Wu, Y. W. Ma, Y. L. Ma, J. H. Wang, H. Y. Zhang, Y. P. Song, and L. M. Duan, Phys. Rev. A102, 022619 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    S. A. Caldwell, N. Didier, C. A. Ryan, E. A. Sete, A. Hud- son, P. Karalekas, R. Manenti, M. P. da Silva, R. Sinclair, E. Acala, N. Alidoust, J. Angeles, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Curtis, S. Deshpande, T. E. Bouayadi, D. Girshovich, S. Hong, K. Kuang, M. Lenihan, T. Manning,...

    2018

  68. [68]

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, B. R. Johnson, M. P. d. Silva, and C. A. Ryan, Nature Electronics3, 744 (2020)

    2020

  69. [69]

    Reagor, C

    M. Reagor, C. B. Osborn, N. Tezak, A. Staley, G. Prawiroatmodjo, M. Scheer, N. Alidoust, E. A. Sete, N. Didier, M. P. da Silva, E. Acala, J. Angeles, A. Best- wick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, S. Cald- well, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Curtis, S. Deshpande, T. E. Bouayadi, D. Girshovich, S. Hong, A. Hudson, P. Karale...

    2018

  70. [70]

    S. S. Hong, A. T. Papageorge, P. Sivarajah, G. Crossman, N. Didier, A. M. Polloreno, E. A. Sete, S. W. Turkowski, M. P. da Silva, and B. R. Johnson, Phys. Rev. A101, 012302 (2020)

    2020

  71. [71]

    E. A. Sete, V. Tripathi, J. A. Valery, D. Lidar, and J. Y. Mutus, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 014059 (2024)

    2024

  72. [72]

    E. A. Sete, N. Didier, A. Q. Chen, S. Kulshreshtha, R. Manenti, and S. Poletto, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 024050 (2021)

    2021

  73. [73]

    Leskes, P

    M. Leskes, P. Madhu, and S. Vega, Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy57, 345 (2010)

    2010

  74. [74]

    Eckardt and E

    A. Eckardt and E. Anisimovas, New Journal of Physics 17, 093039 (2015)

    2015

  75. [75]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. A96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  76. [76]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Physics Letters A367, 47 (2007)

    2007

  77. [77]

    L. Lao, A. Korotkov, Z. Jiang, W. Mruczkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, and D. E. Browne, Quantum Science and Tech- nology7, 025021 (2022)

    2022

  78. [78]

    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, Phys. Rev. X13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    S. P. Fors, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, and A. F. Kockum, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15402 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Kelly, R

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jef- frey, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Mar- tinis, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 240504 (2014)

    2014

Showing first 80 references.