pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00552 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🪐 quant-ph

Suppression of Universal Errors in DFS-Encoded Superconducting Geometric Logical T Gate

Cheng-Yun Ding , Li-Hua Zhang , Jian Zhou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords logical T gategeometric quantum gatesdecoherence-free subspacesuperconducting circuitserror suppressioncomposite pulsesfault-tolerant quantum computing
0
0 comments X

The pith

A geometric logical T gate using decoherence-free subspace encoding and multi-loop pulse optimization suppresses Rabi frequency, detuning, and inter-qubit crosstalk errors to the fourth order.

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

The paper proposes a scheme for a controlled logical T gate in superconducting circuits that combines decoherence-free subspace encoding with multi-loop optimized composite geometric pulses. The goal is to achieve high-order suppression of several common error sources through tailored trajectory design and additional parametric control. This matters for fault-tolerant quantum computing because the T gate is a key non-Clifford operation, and reducing error scaling can ease the resource demands of error correction protocols. The construction unifies different geometric and composite pulse approaches while adding inherent protection against collective dephasing. Numerical simulations in tunable circuits indicate the method outperforms both standard geometric composite gates and dynamical gates on the targeted noise channels.

Core claim

The authors establish that integrating decoherence-free subspace encoding with multi-loop optimized composite geometric pulse engineering produces a logical T gate in which Rabi frequency errors, detuning errors, and residual inter-qubit crosstalk errors are each suppressed to fourth order, while collective dephasing receives inherent suppression. Unified gate construction frameworks are derived for conventional geometric, composite geometric, and optimized composite geometric protocols by controlling additional parametric degrees of freedom in the pulse trajectories. Within the model of tunable superconducting quantum circuits, the resulting gate is shown to outperform conventional versions

What carries the argument

Multi-loop optimized composite geometric pulses guided by tailored trajectory design inside a decoherence-free subspace encoding of superconducting qubits.

If this is right

  • Rabi frequency errors are suppressed to fourth order.
  • Detuning errors reach fourth-order suppression.
  • Residual inter-qubit crosstalk errors are suppressed to fourth order.
  • Collective dephasing errors receive inherent suppression from the encoding.
  • The gate outperforms conventional composite geometric and dynamical constructions in robustness against the modeled noise sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Lower error orders could reduce the number of physical qubits needed for magic state distillation in larger fault-tolerant architectures.
  • The same trajectory optimization technique might be applied to other non-Clifford gates to achieve comparable error scaling.
  • The approach suggests a general route for combining geometric control with subspace encoding to address multiple noise channels simultaneously.

Load-bearing premise

The tailored trajectory design and multi-loop optimization can be physically realized in real tunable superconducting circuits without introducing unmodeled errors or control imperfections beyond those in the numerical model.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies controlled variations in Rabi frequency or detuning to a physical implementation of the proposed pulse sequence and measures whether the resulting gate error scales as the fourth power or lower.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00552 by Cheng-Yun Ding, Jian Zhou, Li-Hua Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of our superconducting implementation with DFS encoding. (a) Schematic of the 2D square transmon lattice via capacitive view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution trajectories for different geometric view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Gate fidelities of the single-loop geometric view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of gate robustness between our optimized composite geometric view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Gate fidelities evaluated under decoherence and three dominant noise channels. For Rabi error, panels (a)-(c) correspond to the two view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Gate fidelities of the two-loop logical OCGT gate scheme view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Gate fidelities of the OCGT scheme with and without DFS view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Performance of logical view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Optimization of the path parameter for the two-loop OCGT view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Gate fidelities as a function of the two tunable path param view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This equivalence originates from the inherent geo view at source ↗
read the original abstract

High-fidelity logical \emph{T}-gate realization constitutes a core prerequisite for large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computing. However, conventional magic state distillation requires massive physical qubit overhead across successive distillation rounds, alongside sophisticated measurement and feedback control, thereby inducing considerable spatial and temporal resource consumption. Herein, we propose a controlled superconducting geometric logical \emph{T} gate scheme that achieves high-order suppression of universal errors, by integrating decoherence-free subspace encoding with multi-loop optimized composite geometric pulse engineering. Guided by tailored trajectory design, we systematically establish unified gate construction frameworks for conventional geometric, composite geometric, and optimized composite geometric protocols. By flexibly controling additional parametric degrees of freedom, the proposed scheme achieves substantially enhanced robustness against diverse noise sources. Numerical simulations reveal that, within tunable superconducting quantum circuits, our geometric logical \emph{T} gate outperforms both conventional composite geometric and dynamical gates in suppressing Rabi frequency, detuning, and residual inter-qubit crosstalk errors that can all be suppressed to the fourth order, while additionally providing inherent suppression of collective dephasing errors. The present strategy alleviates intrinsic limitations of mainstream approaches and opens a promising avenue toward robust high-fidelity logical \emph{T} gate construction.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a DFS-encoded geometric logical T gate in tunable superconducting circuits, constructed via multi-loop optimized composite geometric pulse sequences. It claims that this approach suppresses Rabi-frequency, detuning, and residual inter-qubit crosstalk errors to fourth order while inherently suppressing collective dephasing, outperforming both conventional composite geometric and dynamical gates, as supported by numerical simulations.

Significance. If the numerical evidence can be verified and the scheme proves robust to hardware imperfections, the work would provide a resource-efficient route to high-fidelity logical T gates that reduces reliance on magic-state distillation overhead. The combination of DFS encoding with tailored geometric trajectories for higher-order error cancellation is a technically interesting direction for superconducting quantum control.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical Simulations] The central claim of fourth-order suppression of Rabi frequency, detuning, and crosstalk errors rests entirely on numerical simulations, yet the manuscript supplies no details on the Hamiltonian parameters, the explicit time-dependent control waveforms or pulse shapes, the error-strength range scanned, the precise gate-fidelity metric employed, or any scaling plots (e.g., log-log fidelity versus ε) used to extract the suppression order. Without this information the data cannot be assessed as supporting the O(ε^4) assertion.
  2. [Pulse Engineering and Trajectory Design] The multi-loop trajectory optimization is derived under the assumption that the control fields exactly follow the designed parametric paths. No sensitivity analysis or Monte-Carlo sampling of realistic control imperfections (finite bandwidth, amplitude/phase noise, timing jitter) is presented, even though such imperfections are known to be present in tunable superconducting circuits and can easily reintroduce lower-order error terms when cancellation depends on delicate multi-loop balancing.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typographical error: 'flexibly controling' should be 'flexibly controlling'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered the comments and made substantial revisions to the manuscript to provide the requested details on numerical simulations and to include sensitivity analysis for control imperfections. Our point-by-point responses are as follows.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical Simulations] The central claim of fourth-order suppression of Rabi frequency, detuning, and crosstalk errors rests entirely on numerical simulations, yet the manuscript supplies no details on the Hamiltonian parameters, the explicit time-dependent control waveforms or pulse shapes, the error-strength range scanned, the precise gate-fidelity metric employed, or any scaling plots (e.g., log-log fidelity versus ε) used to extract the suppression order. Without this information the data cannot be assessed as supporting the O(ε^4) assertion.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that these details are essential for verifying the claims. In the revised manuscript, we will provide a comprehensive description of the system Hamiltonian, including all parameters used in the simulations. We will also include the explicit parametric forms of the multi-loop trajectories and the corresponding time-dependent Rabi and detuning pulses. Additionally, we will specify the error ranges explored, the fidelity metric (average gate fidelity), and present log-log plots of infidelity versus error strength to confirm the fourth-order scaling. These additions will be placed in the main text or a supplementary information section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Pulse Engineering and Trajectory Design] The multi-loop trajectory optimization is derived under the assumption that the control fields exactly follow the designed parametric paths. No sensitivity analysis or Monte-Carlo sampling of realistic control imperfections (finite bandwidth, amplitude/phase noise, timing jitter) is presented, even though such imperfections are known to be present in tunable superconducting circuits and can easily reintroduce lower-order error terms when cancellation depends on delicate multi-loop balancing.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies a gap in our analysis. Although the geometric phase is robust to certain path deviations, we recognize the importance of testing against hardware-specific imperfections. In the revised version, we will add a new subsection performing Monte-Carlo simulations that incorporate finite pulse bandwidth, Gaussian noise in amplitude and phase, and timing jitter with parameters typical for superconducting qubit experiments. We will show the resulting fidelity distributions and discuss the conditions under which the fourth-order suppression holds. This will strengthen the practical relevance of our scheme. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: construction plus independent numerical validation

full rationale

The manuscript proposes a DFS-encoded geometric T-gate via tailored multi-loop trajectories and parametric optimization, then reports fourth-order error suppression from separate numerical integration of the resulting time-dependent Hamiltonian. No equation or claim reduces the reported suppression order to a fitted parameter defined by the result itself, nor does any load-bearing step rest on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The central result is therefore a derived property of the constructed control fields rather than a re-statement of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text. The scheme implicitly relies on standard assumptions of quantum control theory and numerical optimization of pulse trajectories.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5513 in / 1118 out tokens · 38319 ms · 2026-05-09T19:37:37.188844+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

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ⇝” and “→

    This constraint indicates that all evolution trajectories are confined purely to longitudinal lines on the Bloch sphere. Such trajectories enable straightforward experimental imple- mentation with time-independent driving detuning and phase. In the following, we analyze three distinct longitudinal-line path strategies, and reconstruct the corresponding ga...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This highlights the necessity of exploring superior evolu- tion trajectories via refined trajectory engineering. Encour- agingly, our proposed universally optimized geometric com- posite trajectory delivers prominent robustness performance, enabling simultaneous suppression of all three error mecha- nisms over a broad parameter regime. For demonstration, ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    6(b) show that the gate fidelity of our logical OCGT gate reaches approximately99.79%

    The results presented in Fig. 6(b) show that the gate fidelity of our logical OCGT gate reaches approximately99.79%. Addi- tional numerical verification confirms that the dominant infi- delity source arises from intrinsic decoherence, accounting for nearly0.2%total error, whereas high-frequency oscillation- induced leakage is almost fully eliminated. 200 ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation, Science270, 255 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Theory of quantum error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, Magic-state distillation with the four-qubit code, Quantum Inf. Comput.13, 195 (2013)

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low over- head, Phys. Rev. A86, 052329 (2012)

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    M. B. Hastings and J. Haah, Distillation with sublogarithmic overhead, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 050504 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    D. Ruiz, J. Guillaud, C. Vuillot, and M. Mirrahimi, Unfolded distillation: very low-cost magic state preparation for biased- noise qubits, npj Quantum Inf.120, 53 (2026)

    work page 2026

  12. [12]

    S.-H. Lee, F. Thomsen, N. Fazio, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, Low-overhead magic state distillation with color codes, PRX Quantum6, 030317 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Menon, J

    V . Menon, J. P. Bonilla-Ataides, R. Mehta, A. Gu, D. B. Tan, and M. D. Lukin, Magic tricycles: efficient magic state genera- tion with finite block-length quantum LDPC codes, Phys. Rev. X16, 021014 (2026)

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, inProceedings of the twenty- ninth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing(1997) pp. 176–188

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    M. V . Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A392, 45 (1984)

    work page 1984

  16. [16]

    Aharonov and J

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

    work page 1987

  17. [17]

    De Chiara and G

    G. De Chiara and G. M. Palma, Berry phase for a spin1/2par- ticle in a classical fluctuating field, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 090404 (2003)

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Zhu and P

    S.-L. Zhu and P. Zanardi, Geometric quantum gates that are ro- bust against stochastic control errors, Phys. Rev. A72, 020301 (2005)

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    Filipp, J

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

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Ekert, M

    A. Ekert, M. Ericsson, P. Hayden, H. Inamori, J. A. Jones, D. K. Oi, and V . Vedral, Geometric quantum computation, J. Mod. Opt.47, 2501 (2000)

    work page 2000

  21. [21]

    Zanardi and M

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Holonomic quantum computation, Phys. Lett. A264, 94 (1999)

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    Anandan, Non-adiabatic non-abelian geometric phase, Phys

    J. Anandan, Non-adiabatic non-abelian geometric phase, Phys. Lett. A133, 171 (1988)

    work page 1988

  23. [23]

    Wang and K

    X.-B. Wang and K. Matsumoto, Nonadiabatic conditional ge- ometric phase shift with NMR, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 097901 (2001)

    work page 2001

  24. [24]

    Zhu and Z

    S.-L. Zhu and Z. D. Wang, Implementation of universal quan- tum gates based on nonadiabatic geometric phases, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 097902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    Sj ¨oqvist, D.-M

    E. Sj ¨oqvist, D.-M. Tong, L. Mauritz Andersson, B. Hessmo, M. Johansson, and K. Singh, Non-adiabatic holonomic quan- tum computation, New J. Phys.14, 103035 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    G. F. Xu, J. Zhang, D. M. Tong, E. Sj ¨oqvist, and L. C. Kwek, Nonadiabatic holonomic quantum computation in decoherence- 16 free subspaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 170501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    A. A. Abdumalikov Jr, J. M. Fink, K. Juliusson, M. Pechal, S. Berger, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Experimental realization of non-Abelian non-adiabatic geometric gates, Nature496, 482 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Y . Xu, Z. Hua, T. Chen, X. Pan, X. Li, J. Han, W. Cai, Y . Ma, H. Wang, Y . P. Song, Z.-Y . Xue, and L. Sun, Experimental implementation of universal nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 230503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    G. Feng, G. Xu, and G. Long, Experimental realization of nonadiabatic holonomic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 190501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Zu, W.-B

    C. Zu, W.-B. Wang, L. He, W.-G. Zhang, C.-Y . Dai, F. Wang, and L.-M. Duan, Experimental realization of universal geomet- ric quantum gates with solid-state spins, Nature514, 72 (2014)

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Zhang, S.-L

    X.-D. Zhang, S.-L. Zhu, L. Hu, and Z. D. Wang, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation using a single-loop scenario, Phys. Rev. A71, 014302 (2005)

    work page 2005

  32. [32]

    Herterich and E

    E. Herterich and E. Sj ¨oqvist, Single-loop multiple-pulse nona- diabatic holonomic quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A94, 052310 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    P. Z. Zhao, X.-D. Cui, G. F. Xu, E. Sj ¨oqvist, and D. M. Tong, Rydberg-atom-based scheme of nonadiabatic geometric quan- tum computation, Phys. Rev. A96, 052316 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Hong, B.-J

    Z.-P. Hong, B.-J. Liu, J.-Q. Cai, X.-D. Zhang, Y . Hu, Z. D. Wang, and Z.-Y . Xue, Implementing universal nonadiabatic holonomic quantum gates with transmons, Phys. Rev. A97, 022332 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Chen and Z.-Y

    T. Chen and Z.-Y . Xue, High-fidelity and robust geometric quantum gates that outperform dynamical ones, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 064009 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Song, J.-F

    P.-Y . Song, J.-F. Wei, P. Xu, L.-L. Yan, M. Feng, S.-L. Su, and G. Chen, Fast realization of high-fidelity nonadiabatic holo- nomic quantum gates with a time-optimal-control technique in Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A109, 022613 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Ota and Y

    Y . Ota and Y . Kondo, Composite pulses in NMR as nona- diabatic geometric quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A80, 024302 (2009)

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    J. Zhou, S. Li, G.-Z. Pan, G. Zhang, T. Chen, and Z.-Y . Xue, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates that are insensitive to qubit-frequency drifts, Phys. Rev. A103, 032609 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Z.-Y . Fang, H. Xu, T. Chen, K. Wei, and C. Zhang, Nonadi- abatic geometric quantum gates by composite pulses based on superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A109, 042615 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Ding, W.-F

    C.-Y . Ding, W.-F. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, J. Zhou, and Z.-Y . Xue, Composite nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates with opti- mization on superconducting circuits, Front. Phys.21, 093203 (2026)

    work page 2026

  41. [41]

    K. Z. Li, P. Z. Zhao, and D. M. Tong, Approach to realizing nonadiabatic geometric gates with prescribed evolution paths, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023295 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Ding, L.-N

    C.-Y . Ding, L.-N. Ji, T. Chen, and Z.-Y . Xue, Path-optimized nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation on supercon- ducting qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 015012 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    C.-Y . Ding, Y . Liang, K.-Z. Yu, and Z.-Y . Xue, Nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation with shortened path on super- conducting circuits, Appl. Phys. Lett.119(2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    S. Li, J. Xue, T. Chen, and Z.-Y . Xue, High-fidelity geomet- ric quantum gates with short paths on superconducting circuits, Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2000140 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Li and Z.-Y

    S. Li and Z.-Y . Xue, Dynamically corrected nonadiabatic holo- nomic quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 044005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    W. Dong, F. Zhuang, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Doubly geometric quantum control, PRX Quantum2, 030333 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Andr ´e and E

    T. Andr ´e and E. Sj¨oqvist, Dark path holonomic qudit computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A106, 062402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    M.-Y . Mao, Z. Cheng, Y . Xia, A. M. Ole ´s, and W.-L. You, Machine-learning-inspired quantum optimal control of nonadi- abatic geometric quantum computation via reverse engineering, Phys. Rev. A108, 032616 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Jin and J

    Z.-y. Jin and J. Jing, Geometric quantum gates via dark paths in Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A109, 012619 (2024)

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Qin, Y .-H

    Z.-H. Qin, Y .-H. Yuan, Y . Liang, Z.-Y . Xue, and T. Chen, Ro- bustness enhancement of universal noncyclic geometric gates via evolution optimization, Phys. Rev. A113, 022608 (2026)

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    Z. Zhu, T. Chen, X. Yang, J. Bian, Z.-Y . Xue, and X. Peng, Single-loop and composite-loop realization of nonadiabatic holonomic quantum gates in a decoherence-free subspace, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 024024 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    Li, B.-J

    S. Li, B.-J. Liu, Z. Ni, L. Zhang, Z.-Y . Xue, J. Li, F. Yan, Y . Chen, S. Liu, M.-H. Yung, Y . Xu, and D. Yu, Superrobust ge- ometric control of a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 064003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    J. W. Zhang, L.-L. Yan, J. C. Li, G. Y . Ding, J. T. Bu, L. Chen, S.-L. Su, F. Zhou, and M. Feng, Single-atom verification of the noise-resilient and fast characteristics of universal nonadia- batic noncyclic geometric quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 030502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    M.-Z. Ai, S. Li, R. He, Z.-Y . Xue, J.-M. Cui, Y .-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental realization of nonadiabatic holonomic single-qubit quantum gates with two dark paths in a trapped ion, Fundamental Research2, 661 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Z. Ma, J. Xu, T. Chen, Y . Zhang, W. Zheng, S. Li, D. Lan, Z.- Y . Xue, X. Tan, and Y . Yu, Noncyclic nonadiabatic geometric quantum gates in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 054047 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Yang, L.-L

    X.-X. Yang, L.-L. Guo, H.-F. Zhang, L. Du, C. Zhang, H.-R. Tao, Y . Chen, P. Duan, Z.-L. Jia, W.-C. Kong, and G.-P. Guo, Experimental implementation of short-path nonadiabatic geo- metric gates in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044076 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. X. Wei, S. Srinivasan, E. Magesan, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, D. Klaus, O. Dial, and D. C. McKay, Demonstration of a high-fidelity CNOT gate for fixed- frequency transmons with engineeredZZsuppression, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 130501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    B. K. Mitchell, R. K. Naik, A. Morvan, A. Hashim, J. M. Kreikebaum, B. Marinelli, W. Lavrijsen, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Hardware-efficient microwave- activated tunable coupling between superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    K. X. Wei, E. Magesan, I. Lauer, S. Srinivasan, D. F. Bo- gorin, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, Y . Kim, D. Klaus, W. Lan- ders, N. Sundaresan, C. Wang, E. J. Zhang, M. Steffen, O. E. Dial, D. C. McKay, and A. Kandala, Hamiltonian engineering with multicolor drives for fast entangling gates and quantum crosstalk cancellation, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 060501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Z. Ni, S. Li, L. Zhang, J. Chu, J. Niu, T. Yan, X. Deng, L. Hu, J. Li, Y . Zhong, S. Liu, F. Yan, Y . Xu, and D. Yu, Scalable method for eliminating residualZZinteraction between super- conducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 040502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    Clarke and F

    J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting quantum bits, Nature453, 1031 (2008)

    work page 2008

  62. [62]

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconducting cir- cuits for quantum information: An outlook, Science339, 1169 (2013)

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum ¨uller, P. Krantz, J. I.- 17 J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Huang, D

    H.-L. Huang, D. Wu, D. Fan, and X. Zhu, Superconducting quantum computing: A review, Sci. China Inf. Sci.63, 180501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

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

    work page 2007

  66. [66]

    Reagor, C

    M. Reagor, C. B. Osborn, N. Tezak, A. Staley, G. Prawiroat- modjo, M. Scheer, N. Alidoust, E. A. Sete, N. Didier, M. P. da Silva,et al., Demonstration of universal parametric entan- gling gates on a multi-qubit lattice, Sci. Adv.4, eaao3603 (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    X. Li, Y . Ma, J. Han, T. Chen, Y . Xu, W. Cai, H. Wang, Y . Song, Z.-Y . Xue, Z.-q. Yin, and L. Sun, Perfect quantum state transfer in a superconducting qubit chain with parametrically tunable couplings, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054009 (2018)

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    W. Cai, J. Han, F. Mei, Y . Xu, Y . Ma, X. Li, H. Wang, Y . P. Song, Z.-Y . Xue, Z.-q. Yin, S. Jia, and L. Sun, Observation of topological magnon insulator states in a superconducting cir- cuit, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 080501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    J. Chu, D. Li, X. Yang, S. Song, Z. Han, Z. Yang, Y . Dong, W. Zheng, Z. Wang, X. Yu, D. Lan, X. Tan, and Y . Yu, Realiza- tion of superadiabatic two-qubit gates using parametric modu- lation in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 064012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Duan and G.-C

    L.-M. Duan and G.-C. Guo, Preserving coherence in quantum computation by pairing quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1953 (1997)

    work page 1953

  71. [71]

    Zanardi and M

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Noiseless quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3306 (1997)

    work page 1997

  72. [72]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594 (1998)

    work page 1998

  73. [73]

    P. G. Kwiat, A. J. Berglund, J. B. Altepeter, and A. G. White, Experimental verification of decoherence-free subspaces, Sci- ence290, 498 (2000)

    work page 2000

  74. [74]

    X. Wang, Z. Sun, and Z. D. Wang, Operator fidelity suscep- tibility: An indicator of quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. A79, 012105 (2009)

    work page 2009

  75. [75]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    work page 1976

  76. [76]

    Schwinger, Unitary operator bases, Proc

    J. Schwinger, Unitary operator bases, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.46, 570 (1960)

    work page 1960

  77. [77]

    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)

    work page 2009

  78. [78]

    Tuokkola, Y

    M. Tuokkola, Y . Sunada, H. Kivij ¨arvi, J. Albanese, L. Gr¨onberg, J.-P. Kaikkonen, V . Vesterinen, J. Govenius, and M. M ¨ott¨onen, Methods to achieve near-millisecond energy re- laxation and dephasing times for a superconducting transmon qubit, Nat. Commun.16, 5421 (2025)

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. G. Martinez, P. H. Prestegaard, B. M. Smitham, A. Joshi, E. Hedrick, S. Kumar, A. Yang, A. C. Pakpour-Tabrizi,et al., Millisecond lifetimes and coher- ence times in 2D transmon qubits, Nature647, 343 (2025)

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Ruschhaupt, X

    A. Ruschhaupt, X. Chen, D. Alonso, and J. Muga, Optimally robust shortcuts to population inversion in two-level quantum systems, New J. Phys.14, 093040 (2012)

    work page 2012

Showing first 80 references.