Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dynamical Sweet and Sour Regions in Bichromatically Driven Floquet Qubits

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Driving a qubit with two commensurate tones can suppress DC and AC noise together, yielding continuous manifolds of doubly dynamical sweet spots along which drive parameters stay tunable.

desk verdict Solid analytic and numerical Floquet analysis of bichromatic qubit drives, but the central AC-noise claim rests on an unproven mapping between the quasienergy derivative and the actual dephasing rate. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22606 v1 pith:2NBPNAXA submitted 2025-05-28 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

D. Dominic Briseño-Colunga , Bibek Bhandari , Debmalya Das , Long B. Nguyen , Yosep Kim , David I. Santiago , Irfan Siddiqi , Andrew N. Jordan
show 1 more author
Justin Dressel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords FloquetqubitsbichromaticdrivingdynamicalsweetspotsdephasingquasienergygapACStarkshift1/fnoisetwo-tonefluxmodulation
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

The paper works out what happens to a two-level qubit when it is driven by two commensurate tones instead of one, and it argues that this removes a central design trade-off: monochromatic drives that suppress low-frequency $1/f$ noise tend to be highly sensitive to drive-amplitude noise, while drives that avoid amplitude noise are more sensitive to DC bias fluctuations. It derives analytic expressions for the Floquet quasienergy gap and the dephasing rate, and uses them to map out 'doubly dynamical sweet spots' where both the DC bias derivative $\partial_b \Delta\epsilon$ and the AC amplitude derivative $\partial_\Omega \Delta\epsilon$ vanish simultaneously. If the picture is right, bichromatic Floquet engineering lets a qubit keep tunable drive parameters without sacrificing coherence, which is directly relevant to gate operation in superconducting and spin qubits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Floquet quasienergy gap $\Delta\epsilon=\epsilon_+-\epsilon_-$ of the driven two-level system, computed in the extended Hilbert space of Shirley's Floquet theory. All noise sensitivities are expressed as derivatives of this gap: DC bias noise enters through $\partial_b\Delta\epsilon$, which Eq. (9) identifies with the Floquet-mode weight $g_0^\phi$, while AC amplitude noise enters through $\partial_\Omega\Delta\epsilon$ and the weights $g_{N_1}^\phi$, $g_{N_2}^\phi$ at the drive harmonics. For analytic access, the paper uses multi-mode Floquet theory and generalized Van Vleck (GVV) nearly-degenerate perturbation theory, which turn the gap and the AC Stark shift $\chi$ into expressions built from first-kind Bessel functions $J_{k}(\Omega\cos\nu/(N_1\omega))$ and $J_{k}(\Omega\sin\nu/(N_2\omega))$. These Bessel-function formulas are what connect drive parameters to coherence and what identify the sweet and sour manifolds.

What would settle it

Take the exact numerically computed Floquet modes of the bichromatic Hamiltonian and check whether $g_0^\phi$ equals $\partial_b\Delta\epsilon$ and whether the damping at the drive harmonics is captured by $\partial_\Omega\Delta\epsilon$; if either equality fails, the predicted sweet and sour regions do not track the dephasing rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a bichromatic drive of the form $d(t)=\Omega\cos\nu\cos(N_1\omega t)+\Omega\sin\nu\cos(N_2\omega t)+b$ can be tuned so that the Floquet quasienergy gap $\Delta\epsilon$ is flat in both the DC bias $b$ and the drive amplitude $\Omega$, something a single-tone drive cannot do simultaneously. The paper demonstrates this in the weak-driving and intermediate-driving regimes by calculating $\Delta\epsilon$ analytically and, for the fast-driving regime, by adding the AC Stark shift via generalized Van Vleck perturbation theory. The resulting parameter maps show continuous manifolds on which $\partial_b\Delta\epsilon\approx 0$ and $\partial_\Omega\Delta\epsilon\approx 0$ overlap, giving coherence lifetimes beyond the fixed-frequency optimum of roughly $1.5\times 10^{7}\,w_q^{-1}$, and they also identify 'sour' regions where the remaining AC sensitivity dominates. The key quantitative claim is that these manifolds, not isolated points, are what a two-tone drive offers a noise-limited qubit.

Load-bearing premise

The central map assumes the dephasing-rate formula of Eq. (7), with DC sensitivity equal to $\partial_b\Delta\epsilon$ and AC sensitivity tied to $\partial_\Omega\Delta\epsilon$, remains valid for bichromatic drives despite having been derived for monochromatic ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With optimal base frequency $\omega^*=\Theta$, coherence lifetimes can exceed the fixed-frequency bound of about $1.5\times10^7\,w_q^{-1}$ set by the sour-region AC noise.
  • Drive parameters can be varied continuously along a doubly sweet manifold without losing noise protection, so a bichromatic qubit does not have to sacrifice tunability for coherence.
  • The analytic gap formulas provide a direct design rule for choosing tone frequencies, amplitudes, and mixing angle $\nu$ to maximize $T_\phi$ without heavy numerics.
  • The sweet/sour classification warns that near-resonant single-tone regimes should be avoided or compensated, since suppressing DC sensitivity there only exposes AC amplitude noise.
  • The framework extends naturally to higher-order multiphoton resonances in the fast-driving regime, where the AC Stark shift sets the sweet-spot structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the derivation of Eq. (7) and the identity $\partial_b\Delta\epsilon=g_0^\phi$ comes from the monochromatic case, a numerical check of those relations on the exact bichromatic Floquet modes would settle the map before any hardware is built.
  • The same Bessel-function machinery is generic in $N_1$ and $N_2$, so the sweet/sour structure found for $N_1=3$, $N_2=1$ is likely to persist for other tone pairs, though the manifold locations will shift.
  • Adding the instrumentation noise that the paper explicitly leaves out should enlarge the sour regions, since the $S(k\omega)$ weights are already in Eq. (7); this is a concrete extension of the model.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-level system driven by a bichromatic tone d(t) = Ω[cosν cos(N1ωt) + sinν cos(N2ωt)] + b, using Floquet theory to compute the quasienergy gap and the dephasing rate under 1/f and thermal noise. It derives analytic approximations for the quasienergy gap in the weak-driving and fast-driving regimes (RWA and generalized Van Vleck perturbation theory), compares them with exact numerical Floquet simulations, and uses the resulting expressions for ∂bΔε and ∂ΩΔε to identify dynamical sweet spots, sour spots, and continuous manifolds of 'doubly dynamical sweet spots.' The central claim is that bichromatic driving can alleviate the trade-off between DC noise robustness and AC amplitude-noise robustness that is present for monochromatic drives, while retaining tunability of the drive parameters.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper offers a useful design principle for driven superconducting and semiconducting qubits: two-tone driving can simultaneously reduce sensitivity to low-frequency bias noise and to drive-amplitude noise, and the identified doubly sweet manifolds provide tunable operating regions with enhanced coherence. The paper's strengths include clearly stated approximations for the analytic gap expressions, independent exact Floquet simulations that validate the GVV results in the fast-driving regime (Fig. 5), and the systematic mapping of sweet and sour regions in a two-parameter drive space. The analytic expressions are parameter-free in the sense that no data are fitted to obtain the gap formulas. However, the central AC-noise claim rests on an asserted but not derived identification of AC dephasing with ∂ΩΔε; this gap in the derivation must be closed before the main conclusion can be regarded as quantitatively supported.

major comments (1)
  1. [II B, Eq. (11), Fig. 4] The optimization ω* = Θ used in Fig. 4 rests on Eq. (12), which is derived from the approximate gap Eq. (11). Equation (11) is obtained in Appendix C under the small-mixing-angle condition (ν ≪ π/4) and the fast-driving assumption, but Fig. 4 scans ν ∈ [0, π/2] at Ω = 0.4 w_q, where those approximations are not uniformly valid. The statement that Eq. (11) 'still accurately predicts the positions of the minima and maxima' beyond its derivation is not supported by a quantitative comparison with exact numerics in the parameter range of Fig. 4. If the approximate gap becomes inaccurate in this regime, the locations of the claimed doubly sweet manifolds and the associated choice of ω* could shift.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B] The sentence 'with Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) of the main text' should refer to Eq. (1); Eq. (8) in the main text is the definition of g_kφ.
  2. [Appendix C] The phrase 'In the fast driving regime (ω ≈ w_q)' contradicts Sec. II C, where the fast-driving regime is defined as ω ≫ w_q; this should be corrected.
  3. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: Refs. [20] and [26] are the same paper, and Refs. [21] and [25] are the same paper; these should be consolidated.
  4. [Eq. (C32)] The substitution '(N1+N2)ω → ω' is unclear; the relationship between the ω appearing in Eq. (C32) and the base drive frequency ω used in Eq. (11) should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Fig. 5(a)] The text says the GVV result 'disagrees' with numerics when Ω1 ≤ ω, but with ω = 10 w_q this condition corresponds to Ω1/w_q ≤ 10, a narrow region on the linear scale shown; a vertical marker or a log-scale inset would make the breakdown region visible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: analytic quasienergy and lifetime results derive from the model Hamiltonian and an external noise model, with no fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The Floquet Hamiltonian (Eqs. 4-6) is constructed directly from the model Hamiltonian and drive (Eqs. 1-2), and the analytic quasienergy-gap expressions (Eqs. 11-19, App. C) are derived via RWA and generalized Van Vleck perturbation theory from that Hamiltonian, with no fitted constants. The numerical results are obtained from independent exact Floquet diagonalization. The dephasing model in Eq. (7) is imported from external prior work (Ref. [22], Huang et al.), not from the authors' own papers, and the relation ∂_b Δε = g0φ (Eq. 9) is a Hellmann-Feynman-type identity for the exact Floquet states, so the DC-sensitivity analysis does not reduce to a self-citation. The only self-cited work (Ref. [6]) enters as experimental motivation in the introduction and is not load-bearing for the analytical or numerical claims. The skeptical concern that AC amplitude noise is represented by ∂ΩΔε rather than by the individual |g_kφ|²S(kω) terms in Eq. (7) is a validity or completeness gap in the mapping, not a circularity: ∂ΩΔε is computed independently from the quasienergy spectrum and is neither defined in terms of the predicted lifetime nor fitted to it. Accordingly, no step of the derivation is equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

The central claim rests on standard Floquet/perturbation theory and a noise model from prior literature. The only free parameters are noise-environment constants and drive control parameters; no new physical entities are introduced. The most sensitive assumption is the dephasing-rate formula and its mapping of quasienergy derivatives to actual noise sensitivities.

free parameters (6)
  • V_f = 9.0e-6 w_q
    Amplitude of 1/f flux noise in the spectral density; chosen based on previous experiments (Refs. [22,37]). Affects numerical coherence lifetimes but not the analytic quasienergy formulas.
  • V_d = 3.0e-6 w_q
    Amplitude of thermal/dielectric noise; taken from Ref. [22].
  • sqrt(|ln omega_ir tau|) = 4
    Infrared regularization factor for the 1/f noise divergence; adopted from Refs. [22,37].
  • w_q/k_B T_E = 1.43
    Qubit frequency to temperature ratio, described as typical for low-frequency qubits.
  • Omega (AC drive strength) = 0.1 to 0.4 w_q in figures
    Control parameter scanned to map the sweet and sour regions; not fitted to data.
  • nu (mixing angle) = varied in [0, pi/2]
    Control parameter controlling the relative amplitude of the two drive tones.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Floquet theorem and the extended Hilbert space formalism
    Used throughout to define quasienergies, Floquet modes, and the Floquet Hamiltonian; standard mathematical framework.
  • domain assumption Dephasing-rate formula Eq. (7) with the relation ∂bΔε = g0φ
    Imported from Ref. [22]; assumes weak qubit-environment coupling through σx and that low-frequency noise dominates dephasing. Its validity for bichromatic drives is not independently derived.
  • domain assumption Commensurate drive frequencies (N1, N2 integers)
    Required for a common Floquet period; stated in Sec. I A.
  • ad hoc to paper Small mixing angle (ν≪π/4) for the analytic gap expression Eq. (11)
    Used in Sec. II B and Appendix C to derive the approximate quasienergy gap; the authors note the expression deviates beyond this regime.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation in the fast-driving regime
    Used to derive Eq. (13); appropriate when the drive frequency is large compared to the qubit gap and higher harmonics are off-resonant.
  • standard math Generalized Van Vleck perturbation expansion in powers of w_q/omega
    Standard perturbation theory for Floquet systems, following Refs. [43,47]; used to compute the AC Stark shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical Sweet and Sour Regions in Bichromatically Driven Floquet Qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NBPNAXA

@misc{pith2026250522606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical Sweet and Sour Regions in Bichromatically Driven Floquet Qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NBPNAXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22606}
}
abstract

Modern superconducting and semiconducting quantum hardware use external charge and microwave flux drives to both tune and operate devices. However, each external drive is susceptible to low-frequency (e.g., $1/f$) noise that can drastically reduce the decoherence lifetime of the device unless the drive is placed at specific operating points that minimize the sensitivity to fluctuations. We show that operating a qubit in a driven frame using two periodic drives of distinct commensurate frequencies can have advantages over both monochromatically driven frames and static frames with constant offset drives. Employing Floquet theory, we analyze the spectral and lifetime characteristics of a two-level system under weak and strong bichromatic drives, identifying drive-parameter regions with high coherence (sweet spots) and highlighting regions where coherence is limited by additional sensitivity to noise at the drive frequencies (sour spots). We present analytical expressions for quasienergy gaps and dephasing rates, demonstrating that bichromatic driving can alleviate the trade-off between DC and AC noise robustness observed in monochromatic drives. This approach reveals continuous manifolds of doubly dynamical sweet spots, along which drive parameters can be varied without compromising coherence. Our results motivate further study of bichromatic Floquet engineering as a powerful strategy for maintaining tunability in high-coherence quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic depiction of a two-level system (repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. On the left axis (black curves), the DC sensitivity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quasienergy gap sensitivities to (a) DC noise ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Quasienergy gap sensitivities to (a,d) DC noise ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) On left axis, Floquet quasienergy gap plotted as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pareto Front Engineering of Dynamical Sweet Spots in Superconducting Qubits

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optimized arbitrary periodic flux waveforms yield Pareto-optimal T1/Tphi trade-offs and an upper bound on T1 for superconducting fluxonium qubits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Multiphoton Resonance: AC Stark Shift and Power Broadening Using Eq. (C24), the generalised Van-Vleck (GVV) Hamiltonian for the degeneracy condition−b/2≈b/2−mN 1ω−lN 2ω is given by [43], HGVV = −b/2 +χ−(w q/2) ˜J−m,1 ˜J−l,2 −(wq/2) ˜J−m,1 ˜J−l,2 b/2−mN 1ω−lN 2ω−χ .(C33) To calculate the level shiftsχcorresponding to the transition ϕ+ 00 to ϕ− −m,−l E , we...

    work page

  2. [2]

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

    2009

  3. [3]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, 15 M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Stabilization and operation of a Kerr-cat qubit, Nature584, 205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y . Nakamura, Y . A. Pashkin, and J. Tsai, Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box, Na- ture398, 786 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconduct- ing qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schus- ter, 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)

    2007

  7. [7]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y . Kim, A. Hashim, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, B. Bhandari, D. Das, R. K. Naik, J. M. Kreikebaum, A. N. Jordan,et al., Programmable Heisenberg interactions between Floquet qubits, Nat. Phys.20, 240 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Bhandari, I

    B. Bhandari, I. Huang, A. Hajr, K. Yanik, B. Qing, K. Wang, D. I. Santiago, J. Dressel, I. Siddiqi, and A. N. Jordan, Sym- metrically threaded SQUIDs as next generation Kerr-cat qubits, arXiv:2405.11375 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    A. Hajr, B. Qing, K. Wang, G. Koolstra, Z. Pedramrazi, Z. Kang, L. Chen, L. B. Nguyen, C. J¨unger, N. Goss, I. Huang, B. Bhandari, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, High-coherence Kerr-cat qubit in 2D architecture, Phys. Rev. X1...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Bechtold, D

    A. Bechtold, D. Rauch, F. Li, T. Simmet, P.-L. Ardelt, A. Re- gler, K. M ¨uller, N. A. Sinitsyn, and J. J. Finley, Three-stage decoherence dynamics of an electron spin qubit in an optically active quantum dot, Nat. Phys.11, 1005 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Ithier, E

    G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Es- teve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y . Makhlin, J. Schriefl, and G. Sch ¨on, Decoherence in a superconducting quantum bit cir- cuit, Phys. Rev. B72, 134519 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Guo, S.-B

    Q. Guo, S.-B. Zheng, J. Wang, C. Song, P. Zhang, K. Li, W. Liu, H. Deng, K. Huang, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Dephasing-insensitive quantum information storage and processing with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130501 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    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 supercon- ducting qubit undergoing driven evolution, Nat. Comm.4, 2337 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    J. Jing, P. Huang, and X. Hu, Decoherence of an electrically driven spin qubit, Phys. Rev. A90, 022118 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

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

    2003

  8. [16]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

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

    2025

  10. [18]

    Kobayashi, J

    T. Kobayashi, J. Salfi, C. Chua, J. Van Der Heijden, M. G. House, D. Culcer, W. D. Hutchison, B. C. Johnson, J. C. Mc- Callum, H. Riemann,et al., Engineering long spin coherence times of spin–orbit qubits in silicon, Nat. Mater.20, 38 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Tanttu, W

    T. Tanttu, W. H. Lim, J. Y . Huang, N. Dumoulin Stuyck, W. Gilbert, R. Y . Su, M. Feng, J. D. Cifuentes, A. E. Seed- house, S. K. Seritan,et al., Assessment of the errors of high- fidelity two-qubit gates in silicon quantum dots, Nat. Phys.20, 1 (2024)

    2024

  13. [23]

    Huang, P

    Z. Huang, P. S. Mundada, A. Gyenis, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, and J. Koch, Engineering dynamical sweet spots to pro- tect qubits from1/fnoise, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 034065 (2021)

    2021

  14. [24]

    S. M. Anton, C. M ¨uller, J. S. Birenbaum, S. R. O’Kelley, A. D. Fefferman, D. S. Golubev, G. C. Hilton, H.-M. Cho, K. D. Ir- win, F. C. Wellstood, G. Sch ¨on, A. Shnirman, and J. Clarke, Pure dephasing in flux qubits due to flux noise with spectral density scaling as1/f α, Ph...

    2012

  15. [25]

    T. M. Hazard, A. Gyenis, A. Di Paolo, A. T. Asfaw, S. A. Lyon, A. Blais, and A. A. Houck, Nanowire superinductance fluxo- nium qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 010504 (2019)

    2019

  16. [26]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y .-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V . E. Manucharyan, High-coherence fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. X9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  17. [27]

    Yoshihara, K

    F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, A. O. Niskanen, Y . Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Decoherence of flux qubits due to1/fflux noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 167001 (2006)

    2006

  18. [29]

    Didier, E

    N. Didier, E. A. Sete, J. Combes, and M. P. da Silva, ac flux sweet spots in parametrically modulated superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 054015 (2019)

    2019

  19. [30]

    Hajati and G

    Y . Hajati and G. Burkard, Dynamic sweet spot of driven flopping-mode spin qubits in planar quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B110, 245301 (2024)

    2024

  20. [31]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semicon- ductor quantum dots, Science309, 2180 (2005)

    2005

  21. [32]

    Medford, L

    J. Medford, L. Cywi ´nski, C. Barthel, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Han- son, and A. C. Gossard, Scaling of dynamical decoupling for spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 086802 (2012)

    2012

  22. [33]

    J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, R. Kalra, T. Sekiguchi, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. Mc- Callum, A. S. Dzurak,et al., Storing quantum information for 30 seconds in a nanoelectronic device, Nat. Nanotech9, 986 (2014)

    2014

  23. [34]

    Ezzell, B

    N. Ezzell, B. Pokharel, L. Tewala, G. Quiroz, and D. A. Lidar, Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A perfor- mance survey, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 064027 (2023)

    2023

  24. [35]

    B. Qing, A. Hajr, K. Wang, G. Koolstra, L. B. Nguyen, J. Hines, I. Huang, B. Bhandari, Z. Padramrazi, L. Chen,et al., Kerr-cat qubit operations below the fault-tolerant threshold, arXiv:2411.04442 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [36]

    N. E. Frattini, R. G. Corti ˜nas, J. Venkatraman, X. Xiao, Q. Su, C. U. Lei, B. J. Chapman, V . R. Joshi, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. Puri, and M. H. Devoret, Observation of pair- wise level degeneracies and the quantum regime of the Arrhe- nius law in a double-well par...

    2024

  26. [37]

    Bluhm, S

    H. Bluhm, S. Foletti, I. Neder, M. Rudner, D. Mahalu, V . Uman- sky, and A. Yacoby, Dephasing time of GaAs electron-spin qubits coupled to a nuclear bath exceeding 200µs, Nat. Phys. 7, 109 (2011)

    2011

  27. [38]

    A. Kou, W. C. Smith, U. V ool, R. T. Brierley, H. Meier, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium-based artificial molecule with a tunable magnetic 16 moment, Phys. Rev. X7, 031037 (2017)

    2017

  28. [39]

    J. M. Martinis, S. Nam, J. Aumentado, K. M. Lang, and C. Urbina, Decoherence of a superconducting qubit due to bias noise, Phys. Rev. B67, 094510 (2003)

    2003

  29. [40]

    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

  30. [41]

    E. S. Fried, P. Sivarajah, N. Didier, E. A. Sete, M. P. da Silva, B. R. Johnson, and C. A. Ryan, Assessing the influence of broadband instrumentation noise on parametrically modulated superconducting qubits, arXiv:1908.11370 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  31. [42]

    J. A. Valery, S. Chowdhury, G. Jones, and N. Didier, Dynamical sweet spot engineering via two-tone flux modulation of super- conducting qubits, PRX Quantum3, 020337 (2022)

    2022

  32. [43]

    P. S. Mundada, A. Gyenis, Z. Huang, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Floquet-engineered enhancement of coherence times in a driven fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 054033 (2020)

    2020

  33. [44]

    S.-K. Son, S. Han, and S.-I. Chu, Floquet formulation for the investigation of multiphoton quantum interference in a super- conducting qubit driven by a strong ac field, Phys. Rev. A79, 032301 (2009)

    2009

  34. [45]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the Schr¨odinger equation with a hamil- tonian periodic in time, Phys. Rev.138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  35. [46]

    Ho, S.-I

    T.-S. Ho, S.-I. Chu, and J. V . Tietz, Semiclassical many-mode Floquet theory, Chem. Phys. Lett.96, 464 (1983)

    1983

  36. [47]

    Deng, J.-L

    C. Deng, J.-L. Orgiazzi, F. Shen, S. Ashhab, and A. Lupascu, Observation of Floquet states in a strongly driven artificial atom, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 133601 (2015)

    2015

  37. [48]

    J. O. Hirschfelder, Almost degenerate perturbation theory, Chem. Phys. Lett.54, 1 (1978)

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.