Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Optimizing LZSM protocol for high-fidelity gates in open-system fluxonium

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A one-period LZSM drive implements sub-2 ns high-fidelity gates on fluxonium, with multi-level analytics and open-system fidelity bounds that identify an optimal architecture window.

desk verdict Solid multi-level + open-system extension of LZSM gates for fluxonium; the FSW curve, leakage valleys, and architecture maps are usable and well-supported under the stated model. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07999 v1 pith:SCWENCVU submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph cond-mat.supr-con

Santiago Ferreyra , Valent{i}n Reparaz , Maria Jose Sanchez , Leandro Tosi , Daniel Dominguez This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.supr-con
keywords LZSMgatesfluxoniumLandau-Zener-Stückelberg-MajoranaleakagemitigationFloquet-Born-Markovopen-systemfidelitystrongdrivingsuperconductingqubits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Resonant Rabi gates are slow and error-prone for low-frequency qubits because gate speed is limited by the qubit frequency and large drives bring counter-rotating terms and leakage. This paper shows that a single-period Landau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majorana (LZSM) sinusoidal pulse, plus short idling intervals for phase correction, can implement fast π/2 gates on fluxonium once the multi-level structure is taken into account. Analytical expressions based on a Floquet-Schrieffer-Wolf effective two-level Hamiltonian give the drive amplitude and frequency that put the qubit on the equator; leakage is then suppressed by parking the drive at privileged frequencies ω21/n. A Floquet-Born-Markov open-system calculation that keeps the drive dependence of the system-bath coupling maps the resulting gate error across architecture space. The central practical claim is that, for moderate fluxonium parameters around EL/EJ ~ 0.1 and EC/EJ ~ 0.5, open-system errors below 10^{-5} with total gate times under 1.3 ns become available under realistic dielectric-loss noise, outperforming resonant control for small-gap qubits.

What carries the argument

The Floquet-Schrieffer-Wolf (FSW) renormalized qubit frequency ω̃q(Ã, ωd) that folds higher levels into an effective two-level Hamiltonian, together with the CHRW curve of solutions for a π/2 rotation and the moderated Floquet-Born-Markov master equation that retains drive-amplitude dependence of the bath rates.

What would settle it

Fabricate a fluxonium near EL/EJ = 0.1, EC/EJ = 0.5 with measured undriven T1 ≈ 500 μs, apply the predicted one-period LZSM Y(π/2) pulse train, and measure process fidelity; an open-system error remaining above ~10^{-4} or a gate time longer than ~2 ns would falsify the central performance claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For fluxonium, a one-period LZSM Y(π/2) protocol optimized on the multi-level Floquet-Schrieffer-Wolf analytical curve (positive ν for minimal idle time) reaches open-system gate error 1−Fg < 10^{-5} and total gate time tg < 1.3 ns in the architecture window EL/EJ ∼ 0.1, EC/EJ ∼ 0.5, under dielectric loss calibrated to T01 = 500 μs and Tb = 15 mK, while coherent leakage is the limiting error elsewhere and is minimized at drive frequencies ωd = ω21/n.

Load-bearing premise

The open-system error maps rest on a moderated Floquet-Born-Markov treatment that assumes Born-Markov dynamics, averages rates under the condition that the drive is fast compared with relaxation, and models noise solely as dielectric loss calibrated only in the undriven limit; if other channels or non-Markovian effects dominate under strong drive, the claimed 10^{-5} window is unreliable.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops analytical and numerical tools for optimizing one-period LZSM Y(\pi/2) gates on multi-level fluxonium. Starting from the CHRW solution of the ideal TLS, it constructs a Floquet–Schrieffer–Wolff (FSW) effective qubit Hamiltonian (Eqs. 8–9) that renormalizes the qubit frequency by virtual transitions to higher levels; the resulting (A_e, \omega_d) curve accurately reproduces the multi-level P_{01}=1/2 contour (Fig. 3a). Leakage is shown to be dominated by the |1\rangle o|2\rangle matrix element and is suppressed at the privileged frequencies \omega_d=\omega_{21}/n (Fig. 3c and App. E). Architecture scans (Fig. 3d) and an open-system Floquet–Born–Markov calculation under dielectric loss (Sec. V, App. F) identify a practical window EL/EJ\sim0.1, EC/EJ\sim0.5 where 1-F_g<10^{-5} and t_g<1.3 ns for T_1^0=500 \mu s and T_b=15 mK (Fig. 5).

Significance. The work supplies experimentally usable seed values (A_e, \omega_d, t_i, t_f) that incorporate multi-level renormalization, a transparent leakage-mitigation rule, and a computationally tractable open-system fidelity measure valid in the strong-drive regime. These tools are directly relevant to low-frequency fluxonium processors where resonant Rabi gates become slow or leaky. The analytic L_min estimate (App. E) and the architecture maps are falsifiable design guidelines; the FBM formalism recovers the coherent limit as T_1^0\to\infty and preserves the leakage valleys down to T_1^0=10 \mu s, giving a concrete performance bound under a standard noise model.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. VI and the abstract claim that LZSM “could outperform” resonant Rabi protocols, yet no side-by-side calculation of gate error versus gate time is presented for the same fluxonium parameters under identical dielectric-loss conditions. A short quantitative comparison (even for a single architecture point) would make the performance claim load-bearing rather than qualitative.
  2. App. F, Eqs. (F7)–(F8): the moderated FBM master equation averages rates under the assumption \omega_d \tau_rel \gg 1 and calibrates the super-Ohmic spectrum solely at A_e\to0 (Eqs. 15–16). While standard for long-T_1 devices, the open-system maps of Fig. 5 rest entirely on this model. A brief numerical check of the neglected oscillating terms (k\neq-q) or a comment on possible 1/f or quasiparticle channels under large A_e would strengthen the central 10^{-5}/1.3 ns claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. Several typographical slips remain: “indfidelity” (p. 5), “anharmonicty” (p. 3), “totalt g” (Fig. 3 caption), “Schrieffer-Wolf” inconsistently hyphenated, and “moderated rotating-wave approximation” used without a reference.
  2. Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 4 share the same horizontal axis (\nu) but different vertical scales; a common color or marker scheme for the privileged frequencies would improve readability.
  3. Eq. (13) and App. E give a useful rule of thumb, yet the prefactor 1/32 is obtained under a specific RWA truncation; a one-sentence caveat that higher-order multi-photon processes can shift the numerical prefactor would be helpful for device designers.
  4. The idle-time formulas (App. B) assume perfect knowledge of the renormalized \omega_q; a short remark on how experimental calibration would absorb residual phase errors would close the loop between theory and practice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: analytical curves, leakage estimates and open-system fidelities are computed from independent multi-level numerics and literature inputs, not forced by self-definition or fitted targets.

full rationale

The derivation chain begins from the driven multi-level fluxonium Hamiltonian (Eqs. 4–6), obtains an effective two-level description via Floquet–Schrieffer–Wolff (Eqs. 8–9, App. C) that is then inserted into the known CHRW conditions (Eqs. 2–3, App. A) to generate the P01=1/2 curve, evaluates coherent fidelity and leakage by direct Schrödinger integration (Eqs. 10–11), and finally solves a moderated Floquet–Born–Markov master equation (App. F) whose only free parameter γ is fixed once from the undriven T01 via Fermi’s golden rule (Eq. 16). Architecture ratios, Tb and T01 are external inputs scanned or taken from experiment; the resulting open-system error maps (Figs. 4–5) and the 10^{-5}/1.3 ns claim are therefore genuine numerical outputs of the model, not tautological restatements of the inputs. Self-citations supply the CHRW, FSW and FBM toolkits but do not encode the target fidelity numbers, so they remain non-load-bearing. No fitted-to-predicted reduction, uniqueness import or definitional loop appears.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a theoretical optimization study. It inherits standard quantum-optics and circuit-QED machinery (Floquet, Born-Markov, CHRW, Schrieffer-Wolff) and literature device/noise parameters. Free parameters are external inputs used for scans, not fitted to produce the central fidelity claim. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • T0_1 (undriven relaxation time) = 500 μs (main open-system maps); also 10 μs and ∞
    Set to literature-scale values (e.g. 500 μs, also scanned 10 μs–∞) to fix the system-bath coupling γ; open-system error maps depend on this choice.
  • Tb (bath temperature) = 15 mK
    Fixed at 15 mK for open-system figures; thermal occupation sets the heavy-fluxonium error floor.
  • Architecture energies {EJ, EC, EL} = EJ/2π=4 GHz; EC/EJ, EL/EJ scanned ~0.1–0.5
    Scanned over the fluxonium regime with EJ/2π fixed at 4 GHz; optimal window is a result of the scan, not a fit to data.
  • Hilbert-space truncation (N levels) = 5 levels
    Lowest 5 levels kept for multi-level dynamics; asserted sufficient by prior work but is a modeling choice that can affect leakage at large Ae.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Counter-rotating hybridized rotating-wave approximation (CHRW) accurately locates the P01=1/2 manifold for strong transverse drive.
    Sec. II and App. A; used as the analytical seed for all gate-parameter curves.
  • domain assumption Leading-order Floquet-Schrieffer-Wolff renormalization of ωq (Eq. 9 / App. C) captures multi-level corrections for the studied amplitude range.
    Sec. IV; higher-order multi-photon corrections are stated to be negligible after numerical checks.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov and moderated rotating-wave (ωd τrel ≫ 1) approximations yield a time-independent Floquet Liouvillian adequate for strong-drive gate fidelity.
    Sec. V and App. F; load-bearing for all open-system claims.
  • domain assumption Dielectric loss with super-ohmic S(ω)∝ω² coth(ω/2kBTb) is the dominant decoherence channel near the fluxonium sweet spot.
    Sec. V, citing Nguyen et al.; other channels (1/f flux noise, quasiparticles) are neglected.
  • domain assumption Fluxonium selection rules at φe=π (φij≠0 only for i+j odd) hold for the driven dynamics.
    Sec. III–IV; used to drop longitudinal and φ02 couplings.
  • standard math Standard Schrödinger / unitary evolution and average gate fidelity formulas (Pedersen et al.) apply to the projected computational subspace.
    Sec. IV, Eq. 10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing LZSM protocol for high-fidelity gates in open-system fluxonium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCWENCVU

@misc{pith2026260707999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing LZSM protocol for high-fidelity gates in open-system fluxonium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCWENCVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07999}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum gates based on resonant Rabi oscillations are inherently slow for small-frequency qubits. They are also prone to errors due to counter-rotating terms. However, when the anharmonicity is sufficiently high, as in the fluxonium architecture, alternative manipulation protocols can outperform standard resonant driving. In this work, we implement fast, high-fidelity quantum gates based on a one-period Landau-Zener-St\"uckelberg-Majorana (LZSM) driving protocol. We derive analytical expressions that simplify the exploration of the parameter space while accounting for the multi-level structure of the circuit. Furthermore, we analyze the role of leakage, discussing strategies to mitigate it and identifying regimes in which it becomes the dominant source of error. Finally, to evaluate the impact of dissipation on gate fidelity, we develop a robust formalism suitable for analyzing the open-system performance of quantum gates in the strong driving regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (c) the probability of finding the system in the state |1⟩ at the end of the protocol applied to the initial state |0⟩. The numerical results are obtained from inte￾grating the Schr¨odinger equation. The color code is cho￾sen such that the white contour indicates the midpoint where the state is pointing to the equator i.e. P01 = 1/2. The corresponding parameters would allow to implement π/2 rotations, and therefore … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Superconducting fluxonium circuit, consisting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: we show a color map of the minimum open-system gate error obtained with a fixed temperature of 15 mK and T 0 1 = 500 µs as a function of fluxonium parameters. The main distinction from the closed-system calculation shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Gate error before and after the optimization (dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Leakage rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Analytic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021318 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    S. Kwon, A. Tomonaga, G. Lakshmi Bhai, S. J. Devitt, and J.-S. Tsai, Gate-based superconducting quantum computing, Journal of Applied Physics129, 041102 (2021), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0029735/14770083/041102 1 online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0029735/14770083/041102 2021

  3. [3]

    Bloch and A

    F. Bloch and A. Siegert, Magnetic resonance for nonro- tating fields, Physical Review57, 522–527 (1940)

    work page 1940

  4. [4]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the schr¨ odinger equation with a hamiltonian periodic in time, Physical Review138, B979–B987 (1965)

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    D. A. Rower, L. Ding, H. Zhang, M. Hays, J. An, P. M. Harrington, I. T. Rosen, J. M. Gertler, T. M. Hazard, B. M. Niedzielski,et al., Suppressing counter-rotating errors for fast single-qubit gates with fluxonium, PRX Quantum5, 040342 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Fazio, G

    R. Fazio, G. M. Palma, and J. Siewert, Fidelity and leak- age of josephson qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5385 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Ferr´ on and D

    A. Ferr´ on and D. Dom´ ınguez, Intrinsic leakage of the josephson flux qubit and breakdown of the two-level ap- proximation for strong driving, Physical Review B81, 10.1103/physrevb.81.104505 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.81.104505 2010

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, S. T. Merkel, and F. K. Wil- helm, Analytic control methods for high-fidelity unitary operations in a weakly nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012308 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    C. J. Wood and J. M. Gambetta, Quantification and characterization of leakage errors, Phys. Rev. A97, 032306 (2018)

    2018

  3. [12]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chakram, T. Roy, N. Earnest, Y. Lu, Z. Huang, D. K. Weiss, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Universal fast-flux control of a coherent, low-frequency qubit, Phys. Rev. X11, 011010 (2021)

    2021

  4. [13]

    J. J. C´ aceres, D. Dom´ ınguez, and M. J. S´ anchez, Fast quantum gates based on landau-zener-st¨ uckelberg- majorana transitions, Physical Review A108, 10.1103/physreva.108.052619 (2023)

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    A. I. Ryzhov, O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and F. Nori, Alternative fast quantum logic gates using nonadiabatic landau-zener-st¨ uckelberg- majorana transitions, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033340 (2024)

    2024

  6. [15]

    F. N. S.N. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, Lan- dau–zener–st¨ uckelberg interferometry, Physics Reports 492, 1 (2010)

    2010

  7. [16]

    O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Nonadiabatic landau–zener–st¨ uckelberg–majorana tran- sitions, dynamics, and interference, Physics Reports 995, 1 (2023), nonadiabatic Landau-Zener-St¨ uckelberg- Majorana transitions, dynamics, and interference

    2023

  8. [17]

    W. D. Oliver, Y. Yu, J. C. Lee, K. K. Berggren, L. S. Levitov, and T. P. Orlando, Mach-zehnder interferometry in a strongly driven superconducting qubit, Science310, 1653 (2005)

    2005

  9. [18]

    W. D. Oliver and S. O. Valenzuela, Large-amplitude driv- ing of a superconducting artificial atom, Quantum Infor- mation Processing8, 261 (2009)

    2009

  10. [19]

    Sillanp¨ a¨ a, T

    M. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, T. Lehtinen, A. Paila, Y. Makhlin, and P. Hakonen, Continuous-time monitoring of landau-zener interference in a cooper-pair box, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 187002 (2006)

    2006

  11. [20]

    Ferr´ on, D

    A. Ferr´ on, D. Dom´ ınguez, and M. J. S´ anchez, Tailor- ing population inversion in landau-zener-st¨ uckelberg in- terferometry of flux qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 237005 (2012)

    2012

  12. [21]

    Ferr´ on, D

    A. Ferr´ on, D. Dom´ ınguez, and M. J. S´ anchez, Dynamic transition in landau-zener-st¨ uckelberg interferometry of dissipative systems: The case of the flux qubit, Phys. Rev. B93, 064521 (2016)

    2016

  13. [22]

    Reparaz, M

    V. Reparaz, M. J. S´ anchez, M. Gatto, D. Dominguez, and L. Tosi, Landau-zener-st¨ uckelberg spectroscopy of a fluxonium quantum circuit, Physical Review B112, 13 10.1103/164m-lqzh (2025)

    2025 doi

  14. [23]

    D. K. Weiss, H. Zhang, C. Ding, Y. Ma, D. I. Schus- ter, and J. Koch, Fast high-fidelity gates for galvanically- coupled fluxonium qubits using strong flux modulation, PRX Quantum3, 040336 (2022)

    2022

  15. [24]

    Manucharyan, J

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

    2009

  16. [25]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence flux- onium qubit, Physical Review X9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  17. [26]

    L. B. Nguyen, G. Koolstra, Y. Kim, A. Morvan, T. Chis- tolini, S. Singh, K. N. Nesterov, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, Z. Pedramrazi, B. K. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, S. Puri, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Blueprint for a high-performance fluxonium quantum processor, PRX Quantum3, ...

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    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 alter- native qu...

    2022

  19. [28]

    Somoroff, Q

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

    2023

  20. [29]

    Kohler, T

    S. Kohler, T. Dittrich, and P. H¨ anggi, Floquet-markovian description of the parametrically driven, dissipative har- monic quantum oscillator, Phys. Rev. E55, 300 (1997)

    1997

  21. [30]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H¨ anggi, Driven quantum tunneling, Physics Reports304, 229 (1998)

    1998

  22. [31]

    D. W. Hone, R. Ketzmerick, and W. Kohn, Statistical mechanics of floquet systems: The pervasive problem of near degeneracies, Phys. Rev. E79, 051129 (2009)

    2009

  23. [32]

    Hausinger and M

    J. Hausinger and M. Grifoni, Dissipative two-level system under strong ac driving: A combination of floquet and van vleck perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. A81, 022117 (2010)

    2010

  24. [34]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential prod- uct formulas of higher orders, inQuantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods(Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2005) p. 37–68

    2005

  25. [35]

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

    2007

  26. [36]

    Mickiewicz, V

    K. Mickiewicz, V. Link, and W. T. Strunz, Benchmark- ing floquet master equations for periodically driven open quantum systems (2026), arXiv:2606.06341 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  27. [37]

    J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. Tornberg, J. Koch, L. S. Bishop, A. A. Houck, B. R. Johnson, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Randomized benchmark- ing and process tomography for gate errors in a solid- state qubit, Physical Review Letters102, 10.1103/phys- revle...

    2009 doi

  28. [38]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistilla- tion, Physical Review A60, 1888–1898 (1999)

    1999

  29. [39]

    M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fi- delity of a quantum dynamical operation, Physics Letters A303, 249–252 (2002)

    2002

  30. [40]

    Najera-Santos, R

    B.-L. Najera-Santos, R. Rousseau, K. Gerashchenko, H. Patange, A. Riva, M. Villiers, T. Briant, P.-F. Cohadon, A. Heidmann, J. Palomo, M. Rosticher, H. le Sueur, A. Sarlette, W. C. Smith, Z. Leghtas, E. Flurin, T. Jacqmin, and S. Del´ eglise, High-sensitivity ac-charge detecti...

    2024

  31. [41]

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

    2012

  32. [42]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Campbell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high- fidelity two-qubit gates, Physical Review Applied10, 10.1103/physrevapplied.10.054062 (2018)

    2018 doi

  33. [43]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, 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, High fidelity two-qubit gates on fluxoniums using a tun- able coupler, npj Quantum Information8, 130 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.