Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

The perfect entangler spectrum as a tool to analyze crosstalk

T0 review · 3 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 Scanning a spectator qubit's frequency with the perfect entangler spectrum reveals dynamic crosstalk and identifies the resonance causing it.

desk verdict A solid new detection tool for dynamic crosstalk, but the mechanism analysis is partly a fitting exercise and needs robustness checks before the strong explanatory claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03137 v2 pith:6AFE3DNH submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Matthias G. Krauss , Christiane P. Koch This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords perfectentanglerspectrumcrosstalkdetectionspectatorqubittunablecouplerparametricgatestransmonmultiphotonresonancetwo-qubitgatecharacterization
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

Crosstalk during a two-qubit gate is hard to detect because the gate still looks entangling and the unwanted effect is hidden in the dynamics of qubits that are not supposed to participate. This paper introduces the perfect entangler spectrum as a diagnostic: scan the frequency of a spectator qubit, and for each frequency evaluate a functional $J$ that measures both how far the reduced two-qubit gate is from being a perfect entangler and how differently the gate acts when the spectator is in $|0\rangle$ versus $|1\rangle$. Peaks in this spectrum signal dynamic crosstalk, and the paper shows, for a controlled-phase and a $\sqrt{i\mathrm{SWAP}}$ gate on fixed-frequency transmons with a tunable coupler, that every peak can be traced to a specific static or drive-induced resonance, including multiphoton resonances at harmonics of the drive frequency. Because the spectrum can be measured with two two-qubit gate tomographies per frequency point, it offers a practical way to find spectator frequencies that do not harm gate operation and to separate crosstalk that destroys entangling power from crosstalk that only adds a local phase.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the resonance measure of Eq. (7), a single real number $M^{(n)}_{\omega_r}$ that counts, for each reference frequency, how many $n$-th-order $X$-transitions of the dressed system have frequencies near $\omega_r$. The spectrum $J(\omega_3)$ is the diagnostic; the measure is the explanatory engine. The paper also relies on the perfect-entangler functional of Eqs. (1)-(2), built from local invariants $g_1,g_2,g_3$, to turn a three-qubit unitary into a distance to the perfect-entangler polyhedron, and on the similarity term $S$ of Eq. (3) that detects when the gate on the first two qubits depends on the spectator state.

What would settle it

If the perfect entangler spectrum is scanned with the drive turned off, peaks that persist must be static resonances and peaks that vanish must be drive-induced; a peak attributed to a drive-induced multiphoton resonance that persists with zero drive would falsify the mechanism assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that all features of the perfect entangler spectrum are rationalized in terms of the mechanisms that lead to crosstalk. For a three-transmon system with a parametrically driven tunable coupler, the spectrum is the curve, minimized over time, of $J = J_{PE}^{(q_3=0)} + J_{PE}^{(q_3=1)} + w_S S$, where each subspace term is the perfect-entangler functional of Eq. (2) and $S$ penalizes differences between the two-qubit gates obtained when the spectator qubit is in its two logical states. The paper identifies two families of crosstalk mechanisms: static resonances, which are level degeneracies already present in the undriven Hamiltonian, and drive-induced resonances, which appear only under the flux drive and include first- and second-order $X$-transitions involving harmonics of the drive frequency $\omega_\phi$ (up to $4\omega_\phi$ for first-order and $6\omega_\phi$ for second-order transitions). It supports this by building a resonance measure $M^{(n)}_{\omega_r}$ from all allowed transitions weighted by a Gaussian and showing that peaks in $M$ align with peaks in the PE spectrum for both the CZ and $\sqrt{i\mathrm{SWAP}}$ protocols, including a peak split attributed to a drive-induced AC-Stark shift.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the alignment between peaks in the perfect entangler spectrum and peaks in the resonance measure reflects actual crosstalk physics, not the freedom to tune the coupler frequency and the Gaussian peak width used to compute the measure until the curves match.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A crosstalk-free spectator frequency is directly visible as a region of small $J$, so the spectrum can guide the choice of qubit operating points in tunable-coupler architectures.
  • The decomposition of $J$ into the two subspace terms and the similarity term $S$ distinguishes crosstalk that leaves the gate perfectly entangling, and therefore correctable by local rotations, from crosstalk that destroys the entangling power.
  • For the CZ gate, deviations from the constant offset in the second-order resonance measure expose both additional drive-frequency transitions and small shifts of the $|11\rangle\leftrightarrow|02\rangle$ transition frequency caused by dressing from the spectator qubit.
  • The experimental protocol requires only two two-qubit gate tomographies per spectator frequency, and a fixed-time measurement preserves the main spectral features, so the spectroscopy is practical on current hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not developed in the paper is to use the fixed-time variant as a regular hardware calibration scan: run the two-tomography protocol at the spectator frequencies flagged by the resonance measure, and use the measured spectrum to choose or reject frequency allocations on a chip.
  • Because the paper attributes one peak splitting to a drive-induced AC-Stark shift, a systematic sweep of drive amplitude at that spectator frequency would make the attribution quantitative: the splitting should grow with amplitude, while a static degeneracy would not.
  • The same construction could be applied to two or more simultaneous spectators, and the multi-spectator scan would reveal whether crosstalk contributions add linearly or interfere; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the perfect entangler (PE) spectrum as a diagnostic for dynamic crosstalk in multi-qubit gate operation. For a three-transmon system with a tunable coupler, it extends the perfect-entangler functional to a combined measure J (Eq. (4)) that penalizes non-perfect entangling gates in the spectator-|0> and |1> subspaces and dissimilarity between the two subspaces. Scanning the spectator frequency and taking the minimum of J over the protocol time yields the PE spectrum; peaks are claimed to signal spectator-induced crosstalk. The paper demonstrates the idea on CZ and sqrt(iSWAP) gates using direct numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and introduces a resonance measure M (Eq. (7)) built from undriven eigenstates to attribute peaks to static and drive-induced resonances. An experimental protocol based on two two-qubit gate tomographies and a fixed-time variant are also discussed.

Significance. The PE spectrum is a potentially useful and conceptually clean crosstalk diagnostic: it directly separates crosstalk that destroys entangling power or entangles the spectator from correctable single-qubit phases, and it identifies "safe" spectator frequencies. The central detection claim is supported by the direct simulation of J, which is evaluated from the full dynamics and is not fitted. The proposed experimental implementation is efficient and plausible. The mechanism-analysis claim is currently weaker: the resonance measure M contains tuned parameters and is compared to the PE spectrum after adjustment, so the good agreement is partly a fitting exercise; the paper itself acknowledges one unexplained peak from AC-Stark shifts. These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the detection tool.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (7)] The resonance measure M has two adjustable parameters: the undriven coupler frequency omega_c is set to 7.266 GHz (CZ) and 7.000 GHz (sqrt(iSWAP)) explicitly "in order to improve alignment" with the PE spectrum, and the Gaussian width sigma/2pi = 4 MHz is chosen as "a good choice." Because M is evaluated after seeing the PE spectrum, the alignment in Figs. 2 and 3 cannot be read as an independent confirmation of the mechanism analysis. Please report how the peak positions and widths of M change as omega_c and sigma are varied over physically reasonable ranges, and, ideally, provide a parameter-free prediction such as a resonance location for a different anharmonicity or drive amplitude.
  2. [Secs. III.B and IV] The statement at the end of Sec. III.B that "all features of the PE spectrum are rationalized in terms of the mechanisms that lead to crosstalk" is not fully supported by the sqrt(iSWAP) analysis in Sec. IV. The left peak near 4.45 GHz is attributed to a drive-induced AC-Stark shift that is not captured by M, and the supporting correlation with drive amplitude is reported as "data not shown." Please include the supporting data or modify the rationalization claim to state that M covers static and drive-induced resonances in the undriven eigenbasis and that time-dependent shifts are treated separately.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (4); Sec. V] The detection functional J depends on the heuristic weights w_U = 0.8 and w_S = 0.5, and Sec. V states that these weights can be adjusted to maximize contrast. To establish the PE spectrum as a robust diagnostic, please demonstrate that the positions of peaks and crosstalk-free regions are stable under reasonable variations of w_U and w_S, or provide a principled method for choosing them. Without this, the spectrum's sensitivity to weight choices is unquantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (7)] The normalization factor is typeset as "1√2πσ2", which should be 1/(sigma sqrt(2 pi)); the text also contains the typo "Appces. B and C."
  2. [Fig. 1 and Sec. III.A] The caption and the main text disagree on line colors: the main text refers to blue and red lines for the two subspace terms, while the caption describes blue and orange curves.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The expression as rendered ("g3 q g2 1 + g2 2 - g1") is garbled; please typeset the intended formula, presumably g3 sqrt(g1^2 + g2^2) - g1, in standard notation.
  4. [Sec. V, Fig. 4] The fixed-time comparison uses T = 690 ns chosen because it "provided the largest contrast"; please specify how this time was selected and state how the conclusions depend on T.
  5. [Appendix D] In Eqs. (D1)-(D3) the integration limit is written as t and then later t is sent to infinity; since u(t) has finite duration, the intention is understandable, but the notation should be cleaned up, for example by using a fixed pulse length T.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Resonance measure M is calibrated to the PE spectrum via omega_c and sigma, weakening the mechanistic rationalization, but the PE spectrum itself is computed directly from simulated dynamics and is not fitted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.B, Eq. (7), and Sec. IV (Fig. 2, Fig. 3)]
    "In the calculation of the ωij in Eq. (7), ωc was adjusted to 7.266 GHz (compared to an average of ≈ 7.25 GHz) in order to improve alignment of M(n)ωr with the peaks in the PE spectrum."

    The resonance measure M(n)ωr is the load-bearing evidence for the claim that all PE-spectrum features are rationalized by static and drive-induced resonances. One of its inputs, the undriven coupler frequency ωc, is explicitly adjusted to the target PE spectrum ('in order to improve alignment'), and for the sqrt(iSWAP) gate ωc = 7.000 GHz is 'determined to yield the best match' with PE-spectrum peaks. The Gaussian width σ/2π = 4 MHz is also declared 'a good choice to identify all relevant features'. Thus the observed alignment of M with the PE spectrum is partly purchased by calibration rather than being an independent confirmation of the mechanism analysis. The paper then concludes that 'all features of the PE spectrum are rationalized in terms of the mechanisms that lead to crosstalk'.

  2. other [Sec. IV, last paragraph]
    "This can be attributed to the drive leading to a time-dependent AC-Stark shift of the associated levels. Time-dependent effects are not captured when determining the eigenergies needed to calculate Mωr in Eq. (7). We have confirmed this interpretation by comparing spectra for various drive strengths (data not shown), which indeed shows a correlation of the peak splitting with the drive amplitude."

    This passage is not circular by itself, but it is a missing support that the paper itself flags: the one PE-spectrum peak not matched by M is attributed to an AC-Stark effect that explicitly lies outside the resonance measure, and the confirming comparison is 'data not shown'. The paper therefore supplements M with a post-hoc, unpublished check when claiming that all features are rationalized. This is a limitation of the mechanism analysis rather than a construction-level circularity of the PE spectrum.

full rationale

The central contribution is the perfect entangler spectrum: min over time of J (Eq. (4)), computed by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for each spectator frequency. This quantity is not fitted to any target; its peaks emerge from the simulated dynamics. The PE functional in Eq. (1) is taken from the authors' earlier papers [41,42], but that is standard, published prior art and is not the result being derived here; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The main circularity risk lies in the mechanistic explanation: the resonance measure M (Eq. (7)) is used to claim that 'all features of the PE spectrum are rationalized' by static and drive-induced resonances, yet M's coupler frequency is adjusted to 7.266 GHz (and 7.000 GHz for sqrt(iSWAP)) specifically to improve alignment with the PE-spectrum peaks, and its Gaussian width is chosen as 'a good choice'. These adjustments make the agreement between M and the spectrum partially a fitting exercise. The heuristic weights wU=0.8 and wS=0.5 add further tuning knobs. This prevents a fully independent confirmation of the mechanism analysis, but it does not make the detection tool circular: the PE spectrum itself is a direct dynamical observable, and the parameter adjustments do not force the detailed multiphoton peak structure (e.g., the 5ωφ and 6ωφ peaks of the CZ gate) to align. The paper also acknowledges one peak splitting that M cannot capture, with the confirming data not shown. On balance, the crosstalk-detection claim is self-contained, while the mechanistic rationalization is partially calibrated, yielding a score of 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection functional J is evaluated directly from simulated dynamics, so the core claim is not derived from a fitted model. However, the mechanism identification uses a resonance measure with tuned parameters, and the heuristic weights wU and wS shape the spectrum. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • weight w_U = 0.8
    Chosen heuristically in Sec. III to make features of the PE spectrum readily identifiable; enters J in Eq. (2a) and affects the absolute value and peak heights.
  • weight w_S = 0.5
    Chosen heuristically in Sec. III for the similarity term in Eq. (4); balances S against the per-subspace PE functionals.
  • coupler frequency for resonance measure omega_c = 7.266 GHz (CZ), 7.000 GHz (sqrt(iSWAP))
    Set in Sec. III.B and Sec. IV to improve alignment of M with PE spectrum peaks; differs from the average drive value near 7.25 GHz. This is a fit-to-spectrum parameter.
  • Gaussian width sigma in resonance measure = sigma/2pi = 4 MHz
    Chosen in Sec. III.B to identify all relevant features; controls sensitivity of M.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Two-qubit gates are classified by local invariants g1, g2, g3 and the perfect-entangler polyhedron.
    Used as the starting point for J_PE in Sec. II.A; standard theory from Makhlin and Zhang et al.
  • domain assumption The logical subspace for the three-qubit system is spanned by the three transmon qubits with the tunable coupler in its ground state, and the Hamiltonian Eq. (5) with a truncated Hilbert space accurately describes the dynamics.
    All simulations propagate the time-dependent Schrodinger equation under Eq. (5); no convergence or truncation-size details are given.
  • domain assumption The drive can be treated in a dressed basis where it decomposes into diagonal (Z) and off-diagonal (X) parts, and the resonance measure M built from X-transitions captures the crosstalk mechanisms.
    Apps. B-D justify this for a simplified two-level model; the extension to the full system is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The perfect entangler spectrum as a tool to analyze crosstalk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6AFE3DNH

@misc{pith2026250603137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The perfect entangler spectrum as a tool to analyze crosstalk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6AFE3DNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03137}
}
read the original abstract

Crosstalk is a key obstacle to scaling up quantum computers. It may arise from persistent qubit-qubit couplings or dynamically during gate operation, with the latter being particularly difficult to detect. Here, we introduce the perfect entangler spectrum as a means to identify dynamic crosstalk leading to undesired entanglement. It leverages the geometric classification of two-qubit gates in terms of perfect entanglers. We exemplify application of the spectroscopy for fixed-frequency transmons and parametrically driven gates: When scanning the frequency of a spectator qubit, peaks in the perfect entangler spectrum signal dynamic crosstalk, and analysis of the peaks reveals the mechanisms causing the crosstalk. We discuss the experimental implementation of the crosstalk spectroscopy which requires two two-qubit gate tomographies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , we indicate the static resonances by vertical blue lines. The strongest static resonances appear if the spec￾tator frequency is the same as one of the other qubits’, i.e., ω3 = ω1/2 (dashed vertical lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of the PE spectrum (black line) to the resonance measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Perfect entangler spectrum (black line) and resonance analysis, quantified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of spectra, obtained with the fixed-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, The Physical Implementation of Quan- tum Computation, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 771 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    perfect entan- gler

    Since the two two-qubit gates are the same (up to a relative phase), application of the gate protocol leaves the three-qubit state separable with respect to the spectator qubit but rotates the spectator qubit, with φ the relative phase between the two-qubit gates. Thus, measuring the ˆσx and ˆσy components of the spectator qubit state yields this phase. A...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Sarovar, T

    M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors, Quantum 4, 321 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Ash- Saki, M

    A. Ash- Saki, M. Alam, and S. Ghosh, Experimental Characterization, Modeling, and Analysis of Crosstalk in a Quantum Computer, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 1, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Ketterer and T

    A. Ketterer and T. Wellens, Characterizing Crosstalk of Superconducting Transmon Processors, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 20, 034065 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Strohm, K

    T. Strohm, K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, D. Basile- witsch, G. Reuber, A. Hoursanov, T. Ehmer, D. Vodola, and S. Luber, Ion-Based Quantum Computing Hard- ware: Performance and End-User Perspective (2024), arXiv:2405.11450 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, S. A. Caldwell, B. R. John- son, and C. A. Ryan, Methods for Measuring Magnetic Flux Crosstalk between Tunable Transmons, Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 064022 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Kosen, H.-X

    S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, M. Rommel, R. Rehammar, M. Ca- puto, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, A. F. Kockum, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, L. Chen, C. Kriˇ zan, A. Nylander, A. Os- man, A. F. Roudsari, D. Shiri, G. Tancredi, J. Govenius, and J. Bylander, Signal Crosstalk in a Flip-Chip Quan- tum Processor, PRX Quantum 5, 030350 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    K. A. Landsman, Y. Wu, P. H. Leung, D. Zhu, N. M. Linke, K. R. Brown, L. Duan, and C. Monroe, Two-qubit entangling gates within arbitrarily long chains of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022332 (2019). 12

    2019

  2. [10]

    Schwerdt, L

    D. Schwerdt, L. Peleg, Y. Shapira, N. Priel, Y. Florshaim, A. Gross, A. Zalic, G. Afek, N. Akerman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, Scalable Architecture for Trapped- Ion Quantum Computing Using rf Traps and Dynamic Optical Potentials, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041017 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Rudinger, C

    K. Rudinger, C. W. Hogle, R. K. Naik, A. Hashim, D. Lobser, D. I. Santiago, M. D. Grace, E. Nielsen, T. Proctor, S. Seritan, S. M. Clark, R. Blume-Kohout, I. Siddiqi, and K. C. Young, Experimental Characteri- zation of Crosstalk Errors with Simultaneous Gate Set Tomography, PR...

    2021

  4. [12]

    J. M. Gambetta, A. D. C´ orcoles, S. T. Merkel, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, C. A. Ryan, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Characterization of Addressability by Simul- taneous Randomized Benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 240504 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Z. Zhou, A. Ji, and Y. Ding, Characterization and Miti- gation of Crosstalk in Quantum Error Correction (2025), arXiv:2503.04642 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Mundada, G

    P. Mundada, G. Zhang, T. Hazard, and A. Houck, Sup- pression of Qubit Crosstalk in a Tunable Coupling Su- perconducting Circuit, Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 054023 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Parrado-Rodr ´ ıguez, C

    P. Parrado-Rodr ´ ıguez, C. Ryan-Anderson, A. Bermudez, and M. M¨ uller, Crosstalk Suppression for Fault-tolerant Quantum Error Correction with Trapped Ions, Quantum 5, 487 (2021), arXiv:2012.11366 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, B. Kan- nan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. Mc- Nally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Realization of High-Fidelity CZ and Z ...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. X. Wei, S. Srinivasan, E. Magesan, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, D. Klaus, O. Dial, and D. C. McKay, Demonstration of a High-Fidelity cnot Gate for Fixed-Frequency Transmons with Engineered Z Z Sup- pression, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130501 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Flannery, R

    J. Flannery, R. Matt, L. I. Huber, K. Wang, C. Axline, R. Oswald, and J. P. Home, Physical coherent cancella- tion of optical addressing crosstalk in a trapped-ion ex- periment, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 015012 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    D. C. McKay, S. Sheldon, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Three-Qubit Randomized Benchmark- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 200502 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Morvan, L

    A. Morvan, L. Chen, J. M. Larson, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Optimizing frequency allocation for fixed- frequency superconducting quantum processors, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 023079 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Zhang, H

    J. Zhang, H. Wang, Q. Ding, J. Gu, R. Assouly, W. D. Oliver, S. Han, K. R. Brown, H. H. Li, and Y. Chen, Qplacer: Frequency-Aware Component Place- ment for Superconducting Quantum Computers (2024), arXiv:2401.17450 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ai and Y.-x

    H. Ai and Y.-x. Liu, Scalable Parameter Design for Superconducting Quantum Circuits with Graph Neural Networks (2025), arXiv:2411.16354 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Z. Zhou, R. Sitler, Y. Oda, K. Schultz, and G. Quiroz, Quantum Crosstalk Robust Quantum Control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 210802 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Watanabe, Y

    S. Watanabe, Y. Tabuchi, K. Heya, S. Tamate, and Y. Nakamura, Z Z -interaction-free single-qubit-gate op- timization in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012616 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    X. You, Y. Lu, T. Kim, D. M. K¨ urk¸ c¨ uolu, S. Zhu, D. Van Zanten, T. Roy, Y. Lu, S. Chakram, A. Gras- sellino, A. Romanenko, J. Koch, and S. Zorzetti, Crosstalk-robust quantum control in multimode bosonic systems, Phys. Rev. Applied 22, 044072 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Von L¨ upke, F

    U. Von L¨ upke, F. Beaudoin, L. M. Norris, Y. Sung, R. Winik, J. Y. Qiu, M. Kjaergaard, D. Kim, J. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, L. Viola, and W. D. Oliver, Two-Qubit Spectroscopy of Spatiotemporally Correlated Quantum Noise in Superconducting Qubits, PRX Quantum 1, 010305 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Greggio, R

    L. Greggio, R. Robin, M. Mirrahimi, and A. Petrescu, Strongly driven transmon as an incoherent noise source (2025), arXiv:2505.24549 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Stehlik, D

    J. Stehlik, D. M. Zajac, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, M. Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Tunable Coupling Architecture for Fixed-Frequency Transmon Supercon- ducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080505 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Zhang, C

    H. Zhang, C. Ding, D. Weiss, Z. Huang, Y. Ma, C. Guinn, S. Sussman, S. P. Chitta, D. Chen, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Tunable Inductive Coupler for High- Fidelity Gates Between Fluxonium Qubits, PRX Quan- tum 5, 020326 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Lange, L

    F. Lange, L. Heunisch, H. Fehske, D. P. DiVincenzo, and M. J. Hartmann, Cross-talk in superconducting qubit lat- tices with tunable couplers - comparing transmon and fluxonium architectures (2025), arXiv:2504.10298 [quant- ph]

    2025

  23. [31]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grigorev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V. Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, High fidelity two-qubit gates on fluxoniums using a tun- able coupler, npj Quantum Inf 8, 130 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Heunisch, C

    L. Heunisch, C. Eichler, and M. J. Hartmann, Tun- able coupler to fully decouple and maximally localize superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 064037 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    X. Dai, D. Tennant, R. Trappen, A. Martinez, D. Melan- son, M. Yurtalan, Y. Tang, S. Novikov, J. Grover, S. Disseler, J. Basham, R. Das, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. Niedzielski, S. Weber, J. Yoder, D. Lidar, and A. Lupascu, Calibration of Flux Crosstalk in Large-Scale Flux-Tunable...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Balewski, A

    J. Balewski, A. Winick, Y. Xu, N. Vora, G. Huang, D. Santiago, J. Emerson, and I. Siddiqi, First-principle crosstalk dynamics and Hamiltonian learning via Rabi experiments (2025), arXiv:2502.05362 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Krinner, S

    S. Krinner, S. Lazar, A. Remm, C. Andersen, N. Lacroix, G. Norris, C. Hellings, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Benchmarking Coherent Errors in Controlled-Phase Gates due to Spectator Qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 024042 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Malekakhlagh, E

    M. Malekakhlagh, E. Magesan, and D. C. McKay, First- principles analysis of cross-resonance gate operation, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042605 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Cai, X.-Y

    T.-Q. Cai, X.-Y. Han, Y.-K. Wu, Y.-L. Ma, J.-H. Wang, Z.-L. Wang, H.-Y. Zhang, H.-Y. Wang, Y.-P. Song, and L.-M. Duan, Impact of Spectators on a Two-Qubit Gate in a Tunable Coupling Superconducting Circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 060505 (2021). 13

    2021

  30. [38]

    P. Zhao, K. Linghu, Z. Li, P. Xu, R. Wang, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Quantum Crosstalk Analysis for Simultaneous Gate Operations on Superconducting Qubits, PRX Quantum 3, 020301 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge ; New York, 2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Makhlin, Nonlocal Properties of Two-Qubit Gates and Mixed States, and the Optimization of Quantum Com- putations, Quantum Inf

    Y. Makhlin, Nonlocal Properties of Two-Qubit Gates and Mixed States, and the Optimization of Quantum Com- putations, Quantum Inf. Process. 1, 243 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Geometric theory of nonlocal two-qubit operations, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042313 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Watts, J

    P. Watts, J. Vala, M. M. M¨ uller, T. Calarco, K. B. Wha- ley, D. M. Reich, M. H. Goerz, and C. P. Koch, Opti- mizing for an arbitrary perfect entangler. I. Functionals, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062306 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    M. H. Goerz, G. Gualdi, D. M. Reich, C. P. Koch, F. Mot- zoi, K. B. Whaley, J. Vala, M. M. M¨ uller, S. Montangero, and T. Calarco, Optimizing for an arbitrary perfect en- tangler. II. Application, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062307 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    D. C. McKay, S. Filipp, A. Mezzacapo, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Universal Gate for Fixed- Frequency Qubits via a Tunable Bus, Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 064007 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Reagor, C

    M. Reagor, C. B. Osborn, N. Tezak, A. Staley, G. Prawiroatmodjo, M. Scheer, N. Alidoust, E. A. Sete, N. Didier, M. P. Da Silva, E. Acala, J. Angeles, A. Best- wick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, S. Cald- well, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Cu...

    2018

  38. [46]

    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)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin,...

    2019

  40. [48]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavs- son, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High-Fidelity, Frequency-Flexibl...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Zhang, X

    X. Zhang, X. Zhang, C. Chen, K. Tang, K. Yi, K. Luo, Z. Xie, Y. Chen, and T. Yan, Characterization and Op- timization of Tunable Couplers via Adiabatic Control in Superconducting Circuits (2025), arXiv:2501.13646 [quant-ph]

    2025

  42. [50]

    Majer, J

    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 superconducting qubits via a cavity bus, Nature 449, 443 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    E. A. Sete, N. Didier, A. Q. Chen, S. Kulshreshtha, R. Manenti, and S. Poletto, Parametric-Resonance En- tangling Gates with a Tunable Coupler, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 16, 024050 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Acharya, I

    Google Quantum AI, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Bue...

    2023

  45. [53]

    G. B. P. Huber, F. A. Roy, L. Koch, I. Tsitsilin, J. Schirk, 14 N. J. Glaser, N. Bruckmoser, C. Schweizer, J. Romeiro, G. Krylov, M. Singh, F. X. Haslbeck, M. Knudsen, A. Marx, F. Pfeiffer, C. Schneider, F. Wallner, D. Bunch, L. Richard, L. S¨ odergren, K. Liegener, M. Werning...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Bertet, C

    P. Bertet, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Para- metric coupling for superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B 73, 064512 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    A. O. Niskanen, K. Harrabi, F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, S. Lloyd, and J. S. Tsai, Quantum Coherent Tunable Coupling of Superconducting Qubits, Science 316, 723 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    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 de- rived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    S. A. Caldwell, N. Didier, C. A. Ryan, E. A. Sete, A. Hud- son, P. Karalekas, R. Manenti, M. P. Da Silva, R. Sin- clair, E. Acala, N. Alidoust, J. Angeles, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, L. Capel- luto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Curtis, S. ...

    2018

  50. [58]

    Ganzhorn, G

    M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, D. J. Egger, A. Fuhrer, M. Mer- genthaler, C. M¨ uller, P. M¨ uller, S. Paredes, M. Pechal, M. Werninghaus, and S. Filipp, Benchmarking the noise sensitivity of different parametric two-qubit gates in a single superconducting quantum computing platform, ...

    2020

  51. [59]

    Petrescu, C

    A. Petrescu, C. Le Calonnec, C. Leroux, A. Di Paolo, P. Mundada, S. Sussman, A. Vrajitoarea, A. A. Houck, and A. Blais, Accurate Methods for the Analysis of Strong-Drive Effects in Parametric Gates, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 19, 044003 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Romer, D

    A. Romer, D. M. Reich, and C. P. Koch, Reconstruct- ing the unitary part of a noisy quantum channel (2025), arXiv:2507.17648

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kishmar, P

    M. Kishmar, P. D. Kurilovich, A. Klots, T. Connolly, I. L. Aleiner, and V. D. Kurilovich, Quasiparticle-induced decoherence of a driven superconducting qubit (2025), arXiv:2505.00769 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Chowdhury, M

    S. Chowdhury, M. Hays, S. R. Jha, K. Serniak, T. P. Or- lando, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Theory of Quasi- particle Generation by Microwave Drives in Supercon- ducting Qubits (2025), arXiv:2505.00773 [quant-ph]

    2025

  55. [63]

    Helsen, M

    J. Helsen, M. Ioannou, J. Kitzinger, E. Onorati, A. H. Werner, J. Eisert, and I. Roth, Shadow estimation of gate-set properties from random sequences, Nat Com- mun 14, 5039 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Mangini, M

    S. Mangini, M. Cattaneo, D. Cavalcanti, S. Filippov, M. A. C. Rossi, and G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, Tensor network noise characterization for near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 033217 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum op- timal control in quantum technologies. strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in eu...

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M. M. M¨ uller, D. M. Reich, M. Murphy, H. Yuan, J. Vala, K. B. Whaley, T. Calarco, and C. P. Koch, Optimiz- ing entangling quantum gates for physical systems, Phys. Rev. A 84, 042315 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Sugawara and T

    M. Sugawara and T. Satoh, SU(4) gate design via unitary process tomography: Its application to cross- resonance based superconducting quantum devices (2025), arXiv:2503.09343 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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