Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Critical dressing of computational states by a non-computational mode coincides with spectral-order inversion and equal effective couplings, so accurate control of that dressing is required to optimize multi-qubit gates.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 05:03 UTC pith:P2IAFQZK

load-bearing objection Solid, usable spectroscopy of computational-state dressing in a three-element circuit; the coincidence of D=50% with spectral inversion and equal effective couplings is real and practical, even if D itself remains a model-derived conventional marker. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11514 v1 pith:P2IAFQZK submitted 2026-07-13 quant-ph

States dressing analysis in a transmon-transmon-bus system

P.A. Gladilovich , R.A. Migdisov , A.V. Sabluk , P.S. Burtsev , N.N. Abramov , N.Y. Rudenko , V.I. Chichkov , N.A. Maleeva This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords transmondressed statescomputational subspaceeffective couplingtwo-qubit gatessuperconducting qubitscouplerleakage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Superconducting processors lose multi-qubit gate fidelity when computational states become dressed by non-computational coupler or bus states. This paper studies a three-element circuit (transmon qubit, transmon coupler, half-wave bus) in which that dressing can be tuned over a wide range by flux. Spectroscopy matches a full Hamiltonian model for both mode frequencies and effective couplings. Using that model the authors compare three ways of estimating the dressing weight D: exact three-element diagonalization, an effective-mode reduction, and an unperturbed-mode reduction. They find that D reaches the conventional 50 percent threshold exactly where the spectral order of the upper and lower modes inverts and the two effective couplings become equal. The result shows that gate optimization must treat dressing as a controllable design variable rather than a fixed background error.

Core claim

In a flux-tunable transmon-transmon-bus system the participation weight D of the non-computational dressed state in the resonant computational pair reaches 50 percent at the same bias point where the upper and lower C-bus modes exchange character and the effective couplings g_Q-U and g_Q-L become equal (approximately 5.2 MHz). Accurate estimation of D, especially by the full three-element calculation, is therefore required to keep two-qubit operations inside the regime of acceptable incoherent error.

What carries the argument

The dressing weight D, defined as the participation |c|^2 of the dominant bare basis vector of the non-computational dressed state inside the resonant computational states; it is extracted by reverse projection of the full three-element eigenvectors (and by two simplified two-mode reductions) and is shown to track both spectral inversion and effective-coupling equality.

Load-bearing premise

That the conventional 50 percent participation threshold truly marks the physical change of dominant character that begins to degrade gate coherence, and that reverse projection of the non-computational eigenvector correctly quantifies the dressing felt by the computational subspace.

What would settle it

Measure T1 and gate error of an iSWAP-type interaction while sweeping the coupler through the critical frequency; if the incoherent-error contribution does not rise sharply once D exceeds 50 percent (or once the two effective couplings equalize), the claimed link between dressing and gate fidelity fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Two-qubit gates such as iSWAP can safely use effective couplings up to the critical value g_c_eff only if D is kept below 50 percent.
  • Coherence characterization must be performed at the actual operating bias of the gate, not on unperturbed modes at fixed detuning.
  • In multi-coupler architectures the effective-mode and unperturbed-mode estimators remain usable for bounding total non-computational dressing, while reverse projection does not.
  • If bus frequency shift can be read out directly, it becomes an experimental proxy for the dressing of the computational subspace.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed coincidence of D = 50 percent, spectral inversion, and coupling equality suggests a single hybridisation point that could be used as an in-situ calibration marker for coupler bias.
  • Because relaxation error scales as tau / T1,eff(D) while gate time scales as 1/g_eff, the usual linear trade-off between speed and decoherence is broken once D becomes appreciable; optimal-gate search routines should therefore treat D as an explicit constraint.
  • The same three-estimator comparison could be applied to fluxonium or multi-mode coupler circuits to test whether the critical-dressing point remains a universal design rule.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally and analytically studies dressing of computational states by a non-computational mode in a three-element superconducting circuit (transmon qubit Q, transmon coupler C, and λ/2 bus). Using a full Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) whose parameters are fixed from spectroscopy, the authors show that the model reproduces measured mode-frequency trajectories (Fig. 2) and effective couplings g_Q-U_eff and g_Q-L_eff (Fig. 3) across the full flux range of C, including a critical point f_U = f_c_U ≈ 4.252 GHz where the spectral order of the C-bus modes inverts and the two effective couplings become equal (≈ 5.2 MHz). They introduce a dressing weight D (participation of the dominant bare basis vector of the non-computational dressed state |U⟩ in the resonant computational states) and compare three estimators of D: exact diagonalization of the three-level system, an effective-mode reduction, and an unperturbed-mode reduction (Sec. III, Fig. 4). The full-system estimator reaches D = 50% precisely at the critical point; the other two estimators bound or underestimate D near criticality. The authors conclude that accurate estimation and control of D are essential for optimizing multi-qubit gates.

Significance. The work supplies a clean, experimentally validated spectroscopic demonstration that critical dressing coincides with spectral-order inversion and equality of effective couplings in a standard transmon-transmon-bus architecture. The three transparent estimators of D, derived from the same fixed Hamiltonian, give a practical tool for multi-coupler systems where reverse projection becomes cumbersome. The agreement between model and data for both frequencies and g_eff is quantitative and covers the full bias range, which is a genuine strength. While the paper does not measure T1(D) or gate-error-versus-D curves, the spectroscopic coincidence itself is a useful, falsifiable result for the community designing tunable-coupler gates.

major comments (2)
  1. Section III defines D via reverse projection of the non-computational eigenvector and adopts the conventional threshold D = 50% as the point at which dominant bare-state character changes. The central spectroscopic claim (coincidence of this threshold with spectral inversion and g_eff equality) is an internal property of the three-level Hamiltonian and is well supported by Figs. 2–4. However, the discussion (Sec. IV) repeatedly links D to gate-error budgets and T1,eff(D) by analogy with Refs. [22, 25] without any coherence or gate-fidelity data in the present device. Either a short measurement of T1 or T2 of the dressed computational states versus f_U, or a clear statement that the coherence link remains an untested extrapolation, is needed so that the optimization claim does not outrun the data.
  2. The reduced three-level Hamiltonians (Eqs. 5 and 6) are obtained by solving an inverse problem for the bare frequencies so that the eigenvalues match the measured dressed frequencies. The manuscript does not report the numerical values of the inverted bare frequencies or the residual error of this inversion across the flux range. Because the subsequent eigenvectors (and therefore D) depend on those bare frequencies, a brief table or supplementary plot of the inverted parameters and the reconstruction error would make the extraction of D fully reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and title use “states dressing”; the body consistently uses “dressing of computational states.” Standardize the phrasing.
  2. Fig. 4(a) background colors (orange/green) are helpful but the caption should explicitly state that they mark the regions |L⟩ ↔ |bus⟩ and |L⟩ ↔ |C⟩, respectively.
  3. Eq. (4) writes the bus term as ℏω_bus a†a while all other energies are given in frequency units (GHz/MHz). A uniform convention (h = 1 or explicit ℏ) would improve readability.
  4. The sentence “We name dressed states according to their dominant basis vector” (p. 2) is clear, but the subsequent inequalities that define the naming convention are only stated for the bus; a parallel statement for |U⟩ and |L⟩ would remove any ambiguity.
  5. Reference [22] is cited for the 15 % / 30 % error-budget numbers; a one-sentence reminder of the device and gate type used in that work would help the reader judge the analogy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Hamiltonian parameters are fitted once to spectroscopy, then D and the three estimators are computed from the fixed model; the D=50% coincidence with spectral inversion is a mathematical property of hybridization, not a forced prediction.

full rationale

The paper extracts circuit parameters (E_C, E_J, g_Q-C, g_C-bus, g_Q-bus) from spectroscopic measurements, writes the three-element Hamiltonian (Eq. 4), and validates that the same fixed model reproduces the measured mode-frequency trajectory (Fig. 2) and the two effective couplings g_Q-U_eff, g_Q-L_eff (Fig. 3) across the full flux range. Dressing D is subsequently obtained by projecting the eigenvectors of that Hamiltonian (full three-level form, reduced effective-mode form, or unperturbed-mode form). The observation that D reaches the conventional 50 % threshold precisely where the spectral order of the C-bus modes inverts and g_Q-U_eff = g_Q-L_eff is an algebraic consequence of two-mode hybridization inside the already-fitted Hamiltonian; it is not an independent prediction that re-uses a fitted constant under a new name. The three estimation methods are compared on the same eigenvectors and are shown to diverge only near criticality, which is useful information rather than a circular claim. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. 17, 19) supply background on related coupler architectures and do not underwrite the definition or calculation of D. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or load-bearing premise is imported from prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the experimental spectra it reports.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard circuit-QED Hamiltonian whose parameters are fitted to the device spectroscopy, on the conventional definition D as the participation weight of the non-computational bare state, and on the modeling choice that a three-level truncation (first excited states of Q, C, bus) is sufficient. No new physical entities are postulated; the three estimation methods are computational procedures, not new ontology.

free parameters (4)
  • E_C^Q = E_C^C = 285 MHz
    Charging energies extracted from spectroscopic measurements of the sample; fixed thereafter and used in all diagonalizations that produce D.
  • E_J^Q, E_j^Q, E_J^C, E_j^C = 4.7, 9.1, 4.4, 8.8 GHz
    Josephson energies of the asymmetric SQUIDs, fitted to the measured flux-tunable frequency ranges of Q and C.
  • g_Q-C, g_C-bus, g_Q-bus = 7.861, 14.675, 0.234 MHz
    Direct capacitive couplings extracted from avoided-crossing spectroscopy; they set the scale of all effective couplings and of D.
  • ω_bus/2π = 4.238 GHz
    Bare bus frequency obtained from spectroscopy and used as the reference for hybridization shifts.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The system is accurately described by the three-element circuit Hamiltonian of Eq. (4) truncated to the first excited manifold of each element.
    Invoked throughout Sections II–III; validated a posteriori by agreement with measured frequencies and g_eff but not independently proven for higher levels or additional modes.
  • ad hoc to paper D = 50% is the conventional threshold at which the dominant bare-state character of a dressed state is considered to have changed.
    Stated explicitly in Section III; used to color-code regions and to identify the critical point, yet no derivation shows that 50% is the point at which gate error changes qualitatively.
  • domain assumption Reverse projection of the non-computational eigenvector onto the computational subspace correctly quantifies the dressing that affects coherence of the computational states.
    Used to define the full-system estimator of D (Section III); rests on the symmetry of the interaction but is not measured against actual T1 or gate fidelity in this work.
invented entities (2)
  • Dressing parameter D no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar figure of merit that quantifies participation of the dominant non-computational bare state inside the resonant computational states.
    Defined operationally in Section III from the expansion coefficients of the dressed eigenvectors; no independent experimental observable is introduced that would falsify D outside the model.
  • Effective-mode and unperturbed-mode estimators of D no independent evidence
    purpose: Two reduced computational procedures that approximate the full-system D without diagonalizing the complete three-element Hamiltonian.
    Introduced in Section III as practical tools for multi-coupler systems; their accuracy is judged only against the same model that defines the full-system D.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 16197 in / 3308 out tokens · 34475 ms · 2026-07-14T05:03:58.481375+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The multi-qubit gates fidelity of superconducting quantum processors can be limited due to the dressing of computational states by noncomputational ones. Here, we experimentally and analytically investigate a transmon-transmon-bus system where the computational states dressing is tunable over a broad range. We estimate the dressing using three methods: a full three-element model, an effective mode approach, and an unperturbed mode approach. The obtained results highlight the importance of the accurate estimation and control of the computational states dressing in order to optimize gates on superconducting platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11514 by A.V. Sabluk, N.A. Maleeva, N.N. Abramov, N.Y. Rudenko, P.A. Gladilovich, P.S. Burtsev, R.A. Migdisov, V.I. Chichkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Circuit diagram and (b) false-colored optical mi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Experimental data (points) and model data (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of experimental and model data for the effective coupling of qubit Q to the upper (U) and lower (L) modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of three methods for estimating the dressing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

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

29 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    CMOS-compatible processing and room-temperature characterization at the wafer level for scalable quan- tum computing

    S. J. K. Lang, T. Mayer, J. Weber, C. Dhieb, I. Eisele, W. Lerch, Z. Luo, C. M. Guiz´ an, E. Music, L. Sturm-Rogon, D. Zahn, R.N. Pereira and C. Kutter, “CMOS-compatible processing and room-temperature characterization at the wafer level for scalable quan- tum computing”, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 054052 (2025); doi:10.1103/42nj-fjg8

    work page doi:10.1103/42nj-fjg8 2025

  2. [2]

    CMOS-Compatible, Wafer-Scale Processed Superconducting Qubits Exceeding Energy Relaxation Times of 200us

    T. Mayer, J. Weber, E. Music, C. M. Guizan, S. J. K. Lang, L. Schwarzenbach, C. Dhieb, B. Kiliclar, A. Maiwald, Z. Luo, W. Lerch, D. Zahn, I. Eisele, R. N. Pereira and C. Kutter, “CMOS-Compatible, Wafer-Scale Processed Superconducting Qubits Exceeding Energy Relaxation Times of 200u” (2025); arXiv:2505.08424; doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.08424

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.08424 2025

  3. [3]

    2D transmons with lifetimes and coherence times exceeding 1 millisecond

    M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. G. C. Martinez et. al. (Col- laboration), “2D transmons with lifetimes and coherence times exceeding 1 millisecond” (2025); arXiv:2503.14798; doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.14798

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14798 2025

  4. [4]

    Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box

    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); doi:10.1103/physreva.76.042319. 7

    doi:10.1103/physreva.76.042319 2007

  5. [5]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush et. al. (Collabora- tion), “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor”, Nature574, 505 (2019); doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 2019

  6. [6]

    Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson and W. D. Oliver, “Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play”, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 369 (2020); doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605

    doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605 2020

  7. [7]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni et. al. (Collaboration), “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold”, Nature638, 920 (2024); doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y 2024

  8. [8]

    Coupling superconduct- ing qubits via a cavity bus

    J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Coupling superconduct- ing qubits via a cavity bus”, Nature449, 443 (2007); doi:10.1038/nature06184

    doi:10.1038/nature06184 2007

  9. [9]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. C´ orcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor”, Nature567, 491 (2019); doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1040-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1040-7 2019

  10. [10]

    Lattice surgery realized on two distance-three repetition codes with superconducting qubits

    I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, J. Knoll, I. Hesner, L. B¨ odeker, L. Colmenarez, L. Hofele, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, A. Flasby, M. B. Panah, D. C. Zanuz, M. M¨ uller and A. Wallraff, “Lattice surgery realized on two distance-three repetition codes with superconducting qubits”, Nat. Phys.22, 189 (2026); doi:10.1038/s41567-025-03090-6

    doi:10.1038/s41567-025-03090-6 2026

  11. [11]

    Scal- able Low-overhead Superconducting Non-local Coupler with Exponentially Enhanced Connectivity

    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, “Scal- able Low-overhead Superconducting Non-local Coupler with Exponentially Enhanced Connectivity”, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 034096 (2026); doi:10.1103/kfy3-bwgr

    doi:10.1103/kfy3-bwgr 2026

  12. [12]

    Real- ization of High-Fidelity Perfect Entanglers between Re- mote Superconducting Quantum Processors

    J. Song, S. Yang, P. Liu, H.-L. Zhang, G.-M. Xue, Z.-Y. Mi, W.G. Zhang, F. Yan, Y.-R. Jin and H.-F. Yu, “Real- ization of High-Fidelity Perfect Entanglers between Re- mote Superconducting Quantum Processors”, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 050603 (2025); doi:10.1103/npr7-b7kq

    doi:10.1103/npr7-b7kq 2025

  13. [13]

    High-Fidelity, Frequency-Flexible Two-Qubit Fluxo- nium Gates with a Transmon Coupler

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung et. al. (Collaboration), “High-Fidelity, Frequency-Flexible Two-Qubit Fluxo- nium Gates with a Transmon Coupler”, Phys. Rev. X. 13, 031035 (2023); doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.031035

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.031035 2023

  14. [14]

    Realization of High-Fidelity CZ Gate Based on a Double-Transmon Coupler

    R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, Y. Nakamura and H. Goto, “Realization of High-Fidelity CZ Gate Based on a Double-Transmon Coupler”, Phys. Rev. X14, 041050 (2024); doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.041050

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.041050 2024

  15. [15]

    24 Days-Stable CNOT Gate on Flux- onium Qubits with Over 99.9% Fidelity

    W. Lin, H. Cho, Y. Chen, M. G. Vavilov, C. Wang and V. E. Manucharyan, “24 Days-Stable CNOT Gate on Flux- onium Qubits with Over 99.9% Fidelity”, PRX Quantum 6, 010349 (2025); doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010349

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010349 2025

  16. [16]

    Tunable Induc- tive Coupler for High-Fidelity Gates Between Flux- onium Qubits

    H. Zhang, C. Ding, D.K. Weiss, Z.Huang, Y. Ma, C. Guinn, S. Sussman, S. P. Chitta, D. Chen, A. A. Houck, J. Koch and D. I. Schuster, “Tunable Induc- tive Coupler for High-Fidelity Gates Between Flux- onium Qubits”, PRX Quantum5, 020326 (2024); doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020326

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020326 2024

  17. [17]

    High fidelity two-qubit gates on fluxoniums us- ing a tunable coupler

    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 us- ing a tunable coupler”, npj Quantum Inf.8, 130 (2022); doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00644-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00644-x 2022

  18. [18]

    Superconducting qubit-resonator quantum pro- cessor with effective all-to-all connectivity

    M. Renger, J. Verjauw, N. Wurz et. al. (Collabora- tion), “Superconducting qubit-resonator quantum pro- cessor with effective all-to-all connectivity”, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013148 (2026); doi:10.1103/8x68-cx1w

    work page doi:10.1103/8x68-cx1w 2026

  19. [19]

    Three-mode tunable coupler for superconducting two- qubit gates

    E. Y. Egorova, A. S. Kazmina, I. A. Simakov, I. N. Moskalenko, N. N. Abramov, D. A. Kalacheva, V. B. Lubsanov, A. N. Bolgar, N. Maleeva and I. S. Besedin, “Three-mode tunable coupler for superconducting two- qubit gates”, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 064056 (2025); doi:10.1103/2h4m-mg2p

    work page doi:10.1103/2h4m-mg2p 2025

  20. [20]

    Coupler-Assisted Leakage Reduction for Scal- able Quantum Error Correction with Superconduct- ing Qubits

    X. Yang, J. Chu, Z. Guo et. al. (Collabora- tion), “Coupler-Assisted Leakage Reduction for Scal- able Quantum Error Correction with Superconduct- ing Qubits”, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 170601 (2024); doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.170601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.170601 2024

  21. [21]

    Simulation of the three-qubit repetition code on the chain of superconducting qubits with couplers

    N. G. Berezkin, I. A. Simakov and G. S. Mazhorin, “Simulation of the three-qubit repetition code on the chain of superconducting qubits with couplers”, Pisma v Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoi Fiziki51, 22 (2025); doi:10.61011/PJTF.2025.22.61587.20451

    work page doi:10.61011/pjtf.2025.22.61587.20451 2025

  22. [22]

    Above 99.9% Fidelity Single-Qubit Gates, Two-Qubit Gates, and Readout in a Single Super- conducting Quantum Device

    F. Marxer, J. Mro˙ zek, J. Andersson et. al. (Collab- oration), “Above 99.9% Fidelity Single-Qubit Gates, Two-Qubit Gates, and Readout in a Single Super- conducting Quantum Device” (2025); arXiv:2508.16437; doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.16437

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16437 2025

  23. [23]

    Dupont-Roc, and G

    C.Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions(Wiley, New York, 1992)

    1992

  24. [24]

    Coherence Times of Dressed States of a Superconducting Qubit under Ex- treme Driving

    C. Wilson, T. Duty, F. Persson, M. Sandberg, G. Johansson and P. Delsing, “Coherence Times of Dressed States of a Superconducting Qubit under Ex- treme Driving”, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 257003 (2007); doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.257003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.257003 2007

  25. [25]

    Long-Distance Transmon Coupler with cz-Gate Fidelity above 99.8%

    F. Marxer, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, S. W. Jolin et. al. (Collabo- ration), “Long-Distance Transmon Coupler with cz-Gate Fidelity above 99.8%”, PRX Quantum4, 010314 (2023); doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.010314

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.010314 2023

  26. [26]

    Low-loss interconnects for modular superconducting quantum processors

    J. Niu, L. Zhang, Y. Liu et al. (Collaboration), “Low-loss interconnects for modular superconducting quantum processors”, Nat. Electron.6, 235 (2023); doi:10.1038/s41928-023-00925-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41928-023-00925-z 2023

  27. [27]

    Coherent Josephson Qubit Suitable for Scalable Quan- tum Integrated Circuits

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant et. al. (Collaboration), “Coherent Josephson Qubit Suitable for Scalable Quan- tum Integrated Circuits”, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 080502 (2013); doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.080502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.080502 2013

  28. [28]

    Deterministic multi-qubit entanglement in a quantum network

    Y. Zhong, H. S. Chang, A. Bienfait, ´E. Dumur, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, H. Yan, D. I. Schuster and A. N. Cleland, “Deterministic multi-qubit entanglement in a quantum network”, Nature590, 571 (2021); doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03288-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03288-7 2021

  29. [29]

    Tunable Coupling Scheme for Implementing High-Fidelity Two-Qubit Gates

    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”, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054062 (2018); doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.10.054062

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.10.054062 2018