Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Heralded Leakage Detection with Preserved Computational-State Coherence in a Fixed-Frequency Transmon

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A resonant Rabi drive during dispersive readout makes a fixed-frequency transmon's computational states transparent to the probe while leaving leakage states visible, yielding 97.1% heralded leakage-detection fidelity with preserved computa

desk verdict Solid measured demonstration of heralded leakage detection; the coherence-preservation mechanism is quantitatively incomplete, but the core numbers stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17204 v1 pith:LAM3ZZ74 submitted 2026-07-19 quant-ph

Takeaki Miyamura , Zhiling Wang , Peter A. Spring , Hiroto Mukai , Kohei Matsuura , Jesper Ilves , Yoshiki Sunada , Yasunobu Nakamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords leakagedetectionsuperconductingqubitstransmondispersivereadoutRabidrivemeasurement-induceddephasingheraldederrorquantumcorrection
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

Leakage—population leaking from a qubit's 0 and 1 states into higher levels—is a quiet killer in superconducting quantum processors: it escapes the error model of quantum error correction and can persist for many cycles. This paper demonstrates a way to catch it on the fly without destroying the quantum information being processed. The trick is to shine a strong Rabi drive on the 0–1 transition while the usual dispersive measurement is running. The drive makes the two computational states look identical to the readout resonator, so the probe no longer collapses or dephases them; higher excited states keep their distinct pull and are flagged as leakage. In 80 ns the detector correctly identifies leakage in 97.1% of shots, and when it reports no leakage the qubit's state survives with 92.9% average fidelity. Because it requires no extra circuit elements, this could become a plug-in feature of standard transmon readout, giving error-correction decoders a direct, hardware-efficient leakage flag.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the dressed-state picture of a Rabi-driven qubit plus the resonator's photon-number noise spectrum. The drive splits the computational subspace into dressed states separated by Ω_q; the dispersive coupling χ n̂|e⟩⟨e| becomes transverse in this basis, so measurement-induced dephasing samples the noise at Ω_q rather than at zero. With the Lorentzian spectrum S_nn(ω)=n̄κ/(ω²+(κ/2)²), the induced relaxation rate is Γ_1ρ^meas=(χ²/2)S_nn(Ω_q), suppressed when Ω_q≫κ. Finite anharmonicity adds longitudinal noise, which the paper cancels by a drive detuning δ≈−Ω_q²/(2α), the spin-locking 'clock condition'. A recovery gate R_z(φ)R_x(θ)R_z(λ) undoes the drive's rotation of the computat

What would settle it

Measure Γ_1ρ^meas as a function of Rabi frequency Ω_q at fixed photon number n̄ and compare with the predicted Lorentzian χ² n̄ κ / [2(Ω_q²+(κ/2)²)]. If the extracted 'κ' from the decay curve disagrees with the independently measured resonator linewidth, or if the dephasing does not drop as 1/Ω_q² at large drive, the central suppression mechanism is wrong. A simpler check: with the Rabi drive off, the model predicts measurement-induced dephasing Γ_m = 2χ² n̄/κ; the paper finds ~1.6× this value, so eliminating that unexplained excess in a clean device would validate—or falsify—the quantitative

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery: driving the |g⟩–|e⟩ transition during dispersive readout makes the computational subspace transparent to the probe—the |g⟩ and |e⟩ resonator responses merge—while off-resonant |f⟩ and higher states remain visible. This yields 97.1(3)% leakage-detection fidelity in an 80-ns window (false-flag 2.3(3)%, undetected leakage 3.5(2)%). Conditioned on no leakage, tomography on an equal computational/leakage mixture gives 92.9(5)% average fidelity over six cardinal states. The detection is projective with POVM {|f⟩⟨f|, I−|f⟩⟨f|}; the drive's rotation is compensated by a recovery gate; no additional hardware is required.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative coherence-preservation story rests on the assumption that measurement-induced back-action is set by the single-Lorentzian photon-number noise spectrum S_nn(ω)=n̄κ/(ω²+(κ/2)²) sampled at the Rabi frequency; the paper's own data show ≈3× (and ≈1.6× without drive) more dephasing than this model predicts, with the origin unidentified, so the projected 10⁻³-level performance requires removing that excess.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fixed-frequency transmon processors can add single-shot, heralded leakage detection without adding any circuit elements; only the pulse schedule changes.
  • Post-selecting on the no-leakage outcome removes leakage population: for p_f=0.5 the conditional infidelity drops to 7.1%, and the measured p_f-dependence matches an analytical sixteen-pathway error model.
  • With an optimized resonator linewidth (κ_eff≈|χ|) the projected false-flag rate falls below 1% and conditional infidelity reaches ~1%; with tenfold longer T1 the back-action reaches ~2×10⁻⁴.
  • The protocol acts as a projective leakage measurement, directly useful for erasure-qubit architectures and dual-rail microwave-photonic communication where photon loss appears as |f⟩ population.
  • At small leakage fractions the residual error is set by T_Rabi (measurement-induced dephasing under the drive), giving a clear figure of merit for further hardware improvements.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct next step suggested by the mechanism is to sweep the Rabi drive strength against a two-pole Purcell filter design: the theory predicts S_nn(Ω_q) falling as 1/Ω_q⁴ in that regime, a sharp, testable signature distinct from the single-pole 1/Ω_q².
  • One could apply the same 'make the computational subspace transparent' trick to other dispersively coupled multilevel qubits or to higher leakage manifolds, flagging each excited level at a different readout frequency.
  • Interleaving this detector with a leakage-reduction unit would let the processor reset only the flagged qubits, potentially lowering average reset overhead; the flag also gives decoders a direct erasure signal for dual-rail microwave-photon communication.
  • Because the drive makes the qubit invisible to probe photons, the same technique could protect an idling qubit while neighbouring qubits on the same chip are being measured.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 paper reports a heralded leakage-detection protocol for a fixed-frequency transmon: during dispersive readout, a strong Rabi drive on the |g⟩–|e⟩ transition makes the computational states indistinguishable to the probe while leaving |f⟩ and higher states distinguishable. The authors characterize the scheme with 30,000-shot single-shot histograms, obtaining an assignment matrix with false-flag rate ε_FF = 2.3(3)% and undetected-leakage rate ε_UL = 3.5(2)%, corresponding to F_d = 97.1(3)% in an 80-ns window. They further prepare incoherent mixtures p_f |f⟩⟨f| + p_ge ρ_ge and, after the detection and a calibrated recovery gate, perform QST; for p_f = 0.5 the post-selected computational-subspace state has average fidelity 92.9(5)%. The paper also develops a dressed-state noise model in which measurement-induced dephasing is suppressed by sampling photon-number noise at the Rabi frequency (Eqs. 1–2), and uses this model, together with an error-budget decomposition, to analyze the detection errors and project performance for optimized device parameters.

Significance. The experimental core is valuable and credible: the central numbers are direct measurements with statistical uncertainties, the error decomposition is careful, and the QST-based conditional fidelities support the claim that the scheme can herald leakage while largely preserving computational-subspace states. The protocol requires no additional hardware beyond standard dispersive readout, which is an attractive practical feature. However, the paper's quantitative explanation of the coherence-preservation mechanism is incomplete: the measured measurement-induced dephasing exceeds the shot-noise model by roughly a factor of three at the operating point, and by ~1.6× even without the drive, with the origin unidentified. Because the projected performance in Secs. VIII–IX explicitly depends on removing this excess, the forward-looking claims are extrapolations rather than supported predictions. The demonstrated measurement itself stands, but the mechanism and projections need revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Supplemental Sec. VIII, Eqs. (S30)–(S35)] The quantitative coherence-preservation claim rests on the photon-number shot-noise spectrum S_nn(ω)=n̄κ/(ω²+(κ/2)²) sampled at the Rabi frequency. The paper's own data, however, show that the measured dressed-state dephasing exceeds this prediction by roughly a factor of three at the operating point, and that even without the Rabi drive the weak-probe dephasing exceeds the standard Γ_m=2χ²n̄/κ by about 1.6×, with the origin unidentified. The excess is absorbed into C_back in Eq. (S32), and Sec. IX C states that removing it is "a prerequisite for the estimates above." Thus the model as written does not quantitatively explain the observed coherence preservation, and the projected 10^-3-level back-action, the κ_eff≈|χ| optimum, and related estimates are not supported predictions. This is load-bearing for the central explanatory claim. I recommend either identifying and including the excess
  2. [Supplemental Sec. IX A and main text summary] The projection model is calibrated entirely at the present operating point: η=0.25 is chosen to match the measured separation error, C_back is chosen to match T_Rabi, and γ_rel, γ_leak are chosen to reproduce Table III. The linear photon-number scaling of the flip rates (p_ge→f = p_0 + γ_leak n̄_c τ_tot; p_f→ge = Γ_1,ef t_R + γ_rel n̄_f τ_tot) is introduced as a phenomenological model without derivation or validation at a second linewidth. Consequently, Fig. S8 is not a parameter-free prediction; its quantitative behavior is set by the calibration assumptions. The text should state this limitation explicitly so that readers do not mistake the projected false-flag rates and infidelities for validated device-independent scalings.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Sec. II G and Fig. 2(c)] The anomalous Rabi-oscillation points are attributed to an unidentified "spurious mode near the qubit frequency" and omitted, and this omission caps the drive at Ω_q/2π=186 MHz. Please provide the affected data and whatever frequency/power dependence is available so readers can assess the attribution. As written, the explanation is an ad hoc entity introduced to justify excluding the strongest-drive data.
  2. [Main text Fig. 4(e); Supplemental Sec. VI] The analytical model's agreement with Fig. 4(e) is presented as "validating the detection protocol and the error-budget analysis." However, the theory curve uses the measured T_Rabi, ε_sep, and ε_flip from the same device and operating point (Sec. VI). This is a consistency check of the error sum, not an independent prediction; the wording should be softened accordingly.
  3. [Main text summary; Supplemental Sec. IX A] The sentence "Since the photon-number noise scales as S_nn(Ω_q)∝n̄κ, reducing the effective resonator linewidth κ_eff ... suppresses the back-action" is correct only in the single-pole regime. The two-pole filter model of Sec. IX A gives a different, steeper scaling (∝Ω_q^-4 in the stop band). Please qualify the statement so that it does not overstate the transferability of the single-pole intuition.
  4. [Abstract] The word "hardware-agnostic" is stronger than what is demonstrated: the scheme still requires a Rabi drive on the computational transition and a dispersively coupled readout resonator. The final sentence of the abstract already says the scheme requires no additional circuit elements; it would be more accurate to phrase the contribution in those terms than as hardware-agnostic.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Measured demonstration is sound, but the Fig. 4(e) 'prediction' reduces to measured T_Rabi and error-budget inputs, and forward projections rest on a calibrated model with unexplained excess dephasing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 4(e), main text; Supplemental Material Sec. VI, Eq. (S28)]
    "We derive an analytical expression for 1−F by modeling the post-selected state including these error contributions (see Sec. VI of the Supplemental Material). The resulting prediction agrees well with the experimental data, validating the detection protocol and the error-budget analysis. [Eq. S28:] 1−F ≈ Γ̄t_R/2 + ε_flip2^{ge→f} + p_f/p_ge(ε_sep^{f→ge} + 1/2 ε_flip1^{f→ge})"

    Eq. S28 is not a parameter-free prediction: its inputs are the measured T_Rabi (through Γ̄) and the measured error-budget rates ε_sep and ε_flip from the two-detection analysis (Table III). Substituting these measured numbers into an identity that enumerates all detection pathways makes the 'prediction' an error-bookkeeping consistency check rather than an independent derivation. The agreement with the directly measured infidelity is therefore partly forced by construction, while the paper presents it as a validating prediction.

full rationale

The central experimental results—97.1(3)% leakage-detection fidelity, 2.3(3)% false-flag rate, 3.5(2)% undetected-leakage rate, and 92.9(5)% conditional state fidelity—are directly measured and are not circular. The basic mechanism (Rabi drive averaging the dispersive pull of |g⟩ and |e⟩) is an external, cited effect (quantum rifling, Ref. 31), not a self-citation. The paper's own noise model (Eqs. 1–2) is a standard Lorentzian photon-shot-noise expression; no step defines the predicted quantity in terms of the measured quantity by construction. However, the Fig. 4(e) curve described as a 'prediction' uses measured T_Rabi and measured ε_sep/ε_flip inputs, so its agreement is a self-consistency check, not an independent validation. The Sec. VIII performance projections are explicitly calibrated: η, C_back, γ_rel, and γ_leak are set at the present operating point, with C_back absorbing both model deviation and the unexplained excess dephasing. Sec. IX C then states that measured dephasing exceeds Eqs. (1)/(S39) by about 3× (and even undriven weak-probe dephasing exceeds Eq. S5 by ~1.6×), with unidentified origin, and that removing this excess is 'a prerequisite for the estimates above.' This is an honest, non-circular limitation, but it means the projected 10^-3-level back-action is a conditional extrapolation rather than a consequence of the verified theory. No load-bearing self-citation chain forces the main claim, so the paper does not merit a high circularity score; the partial reduction of a claimed prediction to measured inputs is the main issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The demonstrated numbers rest on measured device parameters (χ, κ_eff, α, T1, n̄) and standard circuit-QED axioms. The theoretical premise that load-bears beyond the raw measurements — the Lorentzian shot-noise spectrum of Eq. (2) sampled at Ω_q — is itself contradicted by a measured ≈3× excess dephasing, and the Sec. VIII–IX projections then add four fitted coefficients (η, C_back, γ_rel, γ_leak). Two unexplained postulates (spurious mode; excess probe noise) lack independent evidence. Net: the paper's measured claims require little beyond standard assumptions; its projected claims require several.

free parameters (6)
  • Rabi-drive detuning δ = +11 MHz (at Ω_q/2π = 186 MHz, n̄ = 2.28)
    Set to the empirically measured T_Rabi peak (Lorentzian fits, Fig. 2c and Fig. S3), not from Eq. (3), which overestimates the optimum at this Ω_q; the ac-Stark shift moves the optimum with probe power.
  • Rabi-drive strength Ω_q/2π = 186 MHz
    Chosen as the largest usable drive before the spurious-mode beating artifact (Sec. II G); the paper notes peak T_Rabi was still growing with Ω_q.
  • Readout probe offset and photon number = −10 MHz offset; n̄ ≈ 2.28 during detection
    Hand-selected to trade leakage-state contrast (|f⟩ pulls the resonator lower) against computational-subspace back-action.
  • Measurement efficiency η = 0.25
    Sec. VIII: determined so the model's ε_sep matches the measured ~2.0%; used in all Sec. VIII/IX projections.
  • Excess back-action factor C_back = ≈3× (reproduces T_Rabi = 1.07 μs)
    Sec. VIII/IX: absorbs the unexplained excess dephasing; the paper states removing this excess 'is a prerequisite for the estimates above.'
  • Per-photon flip rates γ_rel, γ_leak and probe-independent p_0 = γ_rel, γ_leak set to reproduce Table III; p_0 = 0.2%
    Phenomenological linear-in-n̄ flip model adopted in Sec. VIII for extrapolation to other κ.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Dispersive Hamiltonian of Eq. (S2): resonator–transmon coupling χ a†a b†b with constant χ per excitation and RWA; leakage states pull the resonator approximately as nχ.
    Standard circuit-QED model; χ measured via ac-Stark shift. Underlies the claim that |f⟩ remains distinguishable. Only |f⟩ — not |h⟩ and beyond — is quantitatively verified.
  • domain assumption Photon-number noise follows the coherent-state shot-noise autocorrelation ⟨δn(τ)δn(0)⟩ = n̄ e^{−κ|τ|/2}, giving the Lorentzian S_nn(ω) = n̄κ/(ω² + (κ/2)²) of Eq. (2).
    This is the load-bearing premise of the back-action-suppression account. The paper measures the resulting dephasing to be ≈3× larger than this predicts (Sec. IX C), so the assumption holds only approximately at the operating point.
  • standard math Dressed-basis relaxation follows Bloch–Redfield / Fermi's golden rule: Γ_1ρ^meas = (χ²/2) S_nn(Ω_q), Γ_2ρ^meas = Γ_1ρ^meas/2, with intrinsic part Γ_2ρ = 3Γ_1/4 + Γ_2ρ^meas (Eqs. S8–S11).
    Standard open-quantum-system theory; used to connect the measured T_Rabi to the noise spectrum.
  • domain assumption The detection is a projective measurement with POVM {|f⟩⟨f|, I − |f⟩⟨f|} on the qutrit.
    Verified experimentally on the superposition (|g⟩+|e⟩+|f⟩)/√3 (Sec. VII); the verification relies on the same detection hardware, so the POVM character is established on this device only.
  • domain assumption The binary classifier threshold, trained on prepared |g⟩, |e⟩, |f⟩ states, transfers to naturally occurring leakage populations.
    Natural leakage may populate higher levels (|h⟩…) or leave residual coherences; only prepared |f⟩ is characterized quantitatively (Fig. 3b), while higher states are asserted 'distinguishable' without histograms.
  • domain assumption The two-level readout error-decomposition of Ref. [40] applies with |g⟩ → {|g⟩,|e⟩} and |e⟩ → {|f⟩}, and state-preparation error is negligible.
    Adopted in Sec. III to split separation and flip errors; transfers the authors' own prior framework (Sunada et al.) to the merged computational mode.
  • ad hoc to paper A spurious mode near the qubit frequency causes the beating pattern at Ω_q/2π = 199 MHz and justifies omitting those data and capping the drive at 186 MHz.
    Introduced in Sec. II G to explain anomalous Rabi oscillations; no frequency, coupling, or independent characterization is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Flip rates scale linearly with photon number in the projection model (p_ge→f = p_0 + γ_leak n̄_c τ_tot; p_f→ge = Γ_1,ef t_R + γ_rel n̄_f τ_tot).
    Adopted phenomenologically in Sec. VIII for the κ-extrapolation; the text labels it a phenomenological assumption.
invented entities (2)
  • Spurious mode near the qubit frequency
    purpose: Explains the Rabi-oscillation beating at Ω_q/2π = 199 MHz; justifies omitting those data points and choosing 186 MHz as the operating drive strength.
    No frequency, coupling, or origin given; no falsifiable handle outside this device.
  • Excess probe-tone noise (candidate)
    purpose: Plausible origin for the unexplained ≈3× excess dephasing in the back-action model.
    The paper explicitly leaves the origin unidentified ('has not been identified', Sec. IX C).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heralded Leakage Detection with Preserved Computational-State Coherence in a Fixed-Frequency Transmon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LAM3ZZ74

@misc{pith2026260717204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heralded Leakage Detection with Preserved Computational-State Coherence in a Fixed-Frequency Transmon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LAM3ZZ74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17204}
}
read the original abstract

Leakage out of the computational subspace is a major error mechanism in superconducting quantum processors. Detecting leakage without disturbing the encoded quantum information can provide a heralded error signal that error-correction decoders exploit. However, standard dispersive readout collapses all qubit eigenstates indiscriminately. Here, we demonstrate heralded leakage detection on a fixed-frequency transmon by applying a Rabi drive on the computational transition during dispersive readout. The drive makes the computational states indistinguishable to the probe on the resonator while leaving the second and higher excited states distinguishable from the computational states. We achieve a leakage-detection fidelity of 97.1(3)% within the 80-ns detection window, with a false-flag rate of 2.3(3)% from the computational subspace. Conditioned on the no-leakage outcome, the post-detection state retains an average fidelity of 92.9(5)% across the six cardinal states for an equal mixture of computational and leakage population. The scheme requires no circuit elements beyond those used for standard dispersive readout, making it applicable to various types of superconducting qubits without hardware modification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17204 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Scheme of the leakage-detection protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Pulse sequence for the leakage detection experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Pulse sequence for the leakage detection and post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    The measured |f⟩-state population isp f = 0.471(6), and the state fi- delity of the|g⟩–|e⟩subspace is 97.6(5)%, confirming the successful preparation of the target mixed state

    Figure 4(b) shows the density matrix reconstructed via quantum state tomography for a target ofp f = 0.5 and ˆρge =|+⟩ ⟨+|. The measured |f⟩-state population isp f = 0.471(6), and the state fi- delity of the|g⟩–|e⟩subspace is 97.6(5)%, confirming the successful preparation of the target mixed state. The Rabi drive rotates the|g⟩–|e⟩subspace during the det...

  3. [3]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    B. M. Varbanov, F. Battistel, B. M. Tarasinski, V. P. Ostroukh, T. E. O’Brien, L. DiCarlo, and B. M. Terhal, Leakage detection for a transmon-based surface code, npj Quantum Inf.6, 102 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    K. C. Miao, M. McEwen, J. Atalaya, D. Kafri, L. P. Pryadko, A. Bengtsson, A. Opremcak, K. J. Satzinger, Z. Chen, P. V. Klimov, C. Quintana, R. Acharya, K. An- derson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. C. Bardin, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bush- nell, J. Campero, B. Chiaro, R. Collins,...

    2023

  7. [7]

    T. M. Stace and S. D. Barrett, Error correction and de- generacy in surface codes suffering loss, Phys. Rev. A81, 022317 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Battistel, B

    F. Battistel, B. Varbanov, and B. Terhal, Hardware- Efficient Leakage-Reduction Scheme for Quantum Er- ror Correction with Superconducting Transmon Qubits, PRX Quantum2, 030314 (2021)

    2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    McEwen, D

    M. McEwen, D. Kafri, Z. Chen, J. Atalaya, K. J. Satzinger, C. Quintana, P. V. Klimov, D. Sank, C. Gid- ney, A. G. Fowler, F. Arute, K. Arya, B. Buckley, B. Bur- kett, N. Bushnell, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. Dunsworth, C. Erickson, B. Foxen, M. Giustina, T. Huang, S. ...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Marques, H

    J. Marques, H. Ali, B. Varbanov, M. Finkel, H. Veen, S. Van Der Meer, S. Valles-Sanclemente, N. Muthusub- ramanian, M. Beekman, N. Haider, B. Terhal, and L. Di- Carlo, All-Microwave Leakage Reduction Units for Quan- tum Error Correction with Superconducting Transmon Qubits, Ph...

    2023

  3. [11]

    X. Yang, J. Chu, Z. Guo, W. Huang, Y. Liang, J. Liu, J. Qiu, X. Sun, Z. Tao, J. Zhang, J. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhou, W. Guo, L. Hu, J. Jiang, Y. Liu, X. Lin- peng, T. Chen, Y. Chen, J. Niu, S. Liu, Y. Zhong, and D. Yu, Coupler-Assisted Leakage Reduction for Scal- able Quantum E...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Lacroix, L

    N. Lacroix, L. Hofele, A. Remm, O. Benhayoune- Khadraoui, A. McDonald, R. Shillito, S. Lazar, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, D. Colao-Zanuz, A. Flasby, M. B. Panah, M. Kerschbaum, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, A. Wallraff, and S. Krinner, Fast Flux-Activated Leak- age Reduction for Superc...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Y. Xin, S. L. M. v. d. Meer, M. Serra-Peralta, T. H. F. Vroomans, M. Finkel, H. M. Veen, M. W. Beekman, and L. DiCarlo, Improved error correction with leakage re- duction units built into qubit measurement in a super- conducting quantum processor (2025), arXiv:2511.17460 [quant-ph]

    2025

  6. [14]

    Camps, O

    J. Camps, O. Crawford, G. P. Geh´ er, A. V. Gramolin, M. P. Stafford, and M. L. Turner, Leakage mobility in superconducting qubits as a leakage reduction unit, Phys. Scr.101, 115107 (2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    Mart ´ ın-V´ azquez, T

    G. Mart ´ ın-V´ azquez, T. Tolppanen, and M. Silveri, Passive leakage removal unit based on a disordered transmon array, Phys. Rev. A112, 032408 (2025), arXiv:2502.14391 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kurpiers, M

    P. Kurpiers, M. Pechal, B. Royer, P. Magnard, T. Wal- ter, J. Heinsoo, Y. Salath´ e, A. Akin, S. Storz, J.-C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Quan- tum Communication with Time-Bin Encoded Microwave Photons, Phys. Rev. Applied12, 044067 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Ilves, S

    J. Ilves, S. Kono, Y. Sunada, S. Yamazaki, M. Kim, K. Koshino, and Y. Nakamura, On-demand generation and characterization of a microwave time-bin qubit, npj Quantum Inf.6, 34 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. Yang, M. Khanahmadi, I. Strandberg, A. Gaikwad, C. Castillo-Moreno, A. F. Kockum, M. A. Ullah, G. Jo- hansson, A. M. Eriksson, and S. Gasparinetti, Determin- istic Generation of Frequency-Bin-Encoded Microwave Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 240803 (2025)

    2025

  11. [20]

    Jerger, P

    M. Jerger, P. Macha, A. R. Hamann, Y. Reshitnyk, K. Juliusson, and A. Fedorov, Realization of a Binary- Outcome Projection Measurement of a Three-Level Su- perconducting Quantum System, Phys. Rev. Applied6, 014014 (2016). 7

    2016

  12. [21]

    C. Liu, Y. Li, J. Wang, Q. Guan, L. Jin, L. Ma, R. Hu, T. Wang, X. Zhu, H.-F. Yu, C. Deng, and X. Ma, Con- verting qubit relaxation into erasures with a single flux- onium (2026), arXiv:2601.11086 [quant-ph]

    2026

  13. [22]

    J. Wang, R. A. Mencia, V. E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vavilov, Proposal for erasure conversion in integer fluxo- nium qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.21003 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  14. [23]

    C. C. Bultink, T. E. O’Brien, R. Vollmer, N. Muthusub- ramanian, M. W. Beekman, M. A. Rol, X. Fu, B. Tarasin- ski, V. Ostroukh, B. Varbanov, A. Bruno, and L. Di- Carlo, Protecting quantum entanglement from leakage and qubit errors via repetitive parity measurements, Sci. Adv.6...

    2020

  15. [25]

    Yoshihara, Y

    F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. Bylander, W. D. Oliver, and J.-S. Tsai, Flux qubit noise spectroscopy using Rabi oscillations under strong driving conditions, Phys. Rev. B89, 020503 (2014)

    2014

  16. [26]

    Gustavsson, F

    S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, J. Bylander, F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, T. P. Orlando, and W. D. Oliver, Dynam- ical Decoupling and Dephasing in Interacting Two-Level Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 010502 (2012)

    2012

  17. [27]

    Laucht, R

    A. Laucht, R. Kalra, S. Simmons, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. A. Mohiyaddin, S. Freer, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, A dressed spin qubit in silicon, Na- ture Nanotech.12, 61 (2017)

    2017

  18. [28]

    L. V. Abdurakhimov, I. Mahboob, H. Toida, K. Kakuyanagi, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. Saito, Driven- state relaxation of a coupled qubit-defect system in spin-locking measurements, Phys. Rev. B102, 100502 (2020)

    2020

  19. [29]

    Y. Sung, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, J. Braum¨ uller, F. Yan, J. I.-J. Wang, M. Kjaergaard, R. Winik, P. Krantz, A. Bengts- son, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, D. K. Kim, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavs- son, and W. D. Oliver, Multi-level quantum noise spec-...

    2021

  20. [30]

    Salhov, S

    A. Salhov, S. Nechushtan, and A. Retzker, Optimally Driven Dressed Qubits (2026), arXiv:2601.19719 [quant- ph]

    2026

  21. [33]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for details of the experimental setup, the the- ory of measurement-induced back-action suppression, the detection-error analysis, the mixed-state preparation, the recovery-gate calibration, the model of the post-...

  22. [35]

    X. He, P. Pakkiam, A. A. Gangat, M. J. Kewming, G. J. Milburn, and A. Fedorov, Effect of Measurement Back- action on Quantum Clock Precision Studied with a Su- perconducting Circuit, Phys. Rev. Applied20, 034038 (2023)

    2023

  23. [39]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Flux-driven Josephson parametric amplifier, Appl. Phys. Lett.93, 042510 (2008)

    2008

  24. [40]

    S. Kono, J. Ilves, A. F. van Loo, Y. Sunada, C. W. S. Chang, Y. Takeda, K. Yuki, T. Miyamura, K. Matsuura, K. Koshino, and Y. Nakamura, High-gain and large- bandwidth Josephson parametric amplifier influenced by Fabry-P´ erot interference (2026), arxiv:2604.13881 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  25. [44]

    J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. D. C´ orcoles, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. Rozen, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Stef- fen, Universal Quantum Gate Set Approaching Fault- Tolerant Thresholds with Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev...

    2012

  26. [45]

    E. A. Sete, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, Quan- tum theory of a bandpass Purcell filter for qubit readout, Phys. Rev. A92, 012325 (2015)

    2015

  27. [46]

    Kubica, A

    A. Kubica, A. Haim, Y. Vaknin, H. Levine, F. Brand˜ ao, and A. Retzker, Erasure Qubits: Overcoming theT 1 Limit in Superconducting Circuits, Phys. Rev. X13, 041022 (2023)

    2023

  28. [47]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Haim, J. Hung, N. Alidoust, M. Kalaee, L. DeLorenzo, E. Wollack, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, A. Kha- lajhedayati, R. Sanil, H. Moradinejad, Y. Vaknin, A. Ku- bica, D. Hover, S. Aghaeimeibodi, J. Alcid, C. Baek, J. Barnett, K. Bawdekar, P. Bienias, H. Carson, C. Chen, L...

    2024

  29. [48]

    Heralded Leakage Detection with Preserved Computational-State Coherence in a Fixed-Frequency Transmon

    K. S. Chou, T. Shemma, H. McCarrick, T.-C. Chien, J. D. Teoh, P. Winkel, A. Anderson, J. Chen, J. Cur- tis, S. J. d. Graaf, J. W. O. Garmon, B. Gudlewski, W. D. Kalfus, T. Keen, N. Khedkar, C. U. Lei, G. Liu, P. Lu, Y. Lu, A. Maiti, L. Mastalli-Kelly, N. Mehta, S. O. Mundhada,...

    2023 arXiv

  30. [49]

    (d) Same as (c) but post-selected on the{|g⟩,|e⟩}outcome

    (c) Real part of the reconstructed density matrix after the leakage detection and recovery gate, without conditioning on the detection outcome. (d) Same as (c) but post-selected on the{|g⟩,|e⟩}outcome. on the detection outcome. The diagonal populations re- main at 1/3, and the...

  31. [50]

    D. Sank, A. Opremcak, A. Bengtsson, M. Khezri, 18 0 100 200 300 400 q/2 (MHz) 10 4 10 2 100 meas 1 ( )/2n(MHz) (a) 1-pole, present 2-pole, present 2-pole, designed 10 20 30 40 | |/2 (MHz) 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 Iback (b) T1 = 27 µs T1 = 300 µs FIG. S9. (a) Measurement-induced...

    2025

  32. [51]

    Magnard, P

    P. Magnard, P. Kurpiers, B. Royer, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, M. Pechal, J. Heinsoo, S. Storz, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Fast and Unconditional All- Microwave Reset of a Superconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 060502 (2018)

    2018

  33. [52]

    Miyamura, Y

    T. Miyamura, Y. Sunada, Z. Wang, J. Ilves, K. Mat- suura, and Y. Nakamura, Generation of Frequency- Tunable Shaped Single Microwave Photons Using a Fixed-Frequency Superconducting Qubit, PRX Quantum 6, 020347 (2025)

    2025

  34. [53]

    Z. Wang, T. Miyamura, Y. Sunada, K. Sunada, J. Ilves, K. Matsuura, and Y. Nakamura, Generation of Frequency-Bin-Encoded Dual-Rail Cluster States via Time-Frequency Multiplexing of Microwave Photonic Qubits, PRX Quantum7, 010330 (2026)

    2026

  35. [54]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number splitting, Phys. Rev. A74, 042318 (2006)

    2006

  36. [55]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  37. [56]

    S. M. Girvin, Circuit QED: superconducting qubits cou- pled to microwave photons, inQuantum Machines: Mea- surement and Control of Engineered Quantum Systems, edited by M. Devoret, B. Huard, R. Schoelkopf, and L. F. Cugliandolo (Oxford University PressOxford, 2014) 1st ed., pp...

    2014

  38. [57]

    F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. Bylander, X. Jin, F. Yoshihara, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, T. P. Orlando, and W. D. Oliver, Rotating-frame relaxation as a noise spectrum analyser of a superconducting qubit undergoing driven evolution, Nat. Commun.4, 2337 (2013)

    2013

  39. [58]

    A. Y. Smirnov, Decoherence and relaxation of a quantum bit in the presence of Rabi oscillations, Phys. Rev. B67, 155104 (2003)

    2003

  40. [59]

    Szombati, A

    D. Szombati, A. Gomez Frieiro, C. M¨ uller, T. Jones, M. Jerger, and A. Fedorov, Quantum Rifling: Protect- ing a Qubit from Measurement Back Action, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 070401 (2020)

    2020

  41. [60]

    I. Zuk, D. Cohen, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. Retzker, Robust gates with spin-locked superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Research6, 013217 (2024)

    2024

  42. [61]

    Kosugi, S

    N. Kosugi, S. Matsuo, K. Konno, and N. Hatakenaka, Theory of damped Rabi oscillations, Phys. Rev. B72, 172509 (2005)

    2005

  43. [62]

    Sunada, S

    Y. Sunada, S. Kono, J. Ilves, S. Tamate, T. Sugiyama, Y. Tabuchi, and Y. Nakamura, Fast Readout and Reset of a Superconducting Qubit Coupled to a Resonator with an Intrinsic Purcell Filter, Phys. Rev. Applied17, 044016 (2022)

    2022

  44. [63]

    Zeytino˘ glu, M

    S. Zeytino˘ glu, M. Pechal, S. Berger, A. A. Abduma- likov, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Microwave-induced amplitude- and phase-tunable qubit-resonator coupling in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A91, 043846 (2015)

    2015

  45. [64]

    Pechal, L

    M. Pechal, L. Huthmacher, C. Eichler, S. Zeytino˘ glu, A. Abdumalikov, S. Berger, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Microwave-Controlled Generation of Shaped Single Pho- tons in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041010 (2014)

    2014

  46. [65]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. A96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  47. [66]

    Gambetta, W

    J. Gambetta, W. A. Braff, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Protocols for optimal readout of qubits using a continuous quantum nondemolition mea- surement, Phys. Rev. A76, 012325 (2007)

    2007

  48. [67]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mon- dal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Rapid High-Fidelity Single-Shot Dispersive Readout of Super- conducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied7, 054020 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.