Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

99.9%-fidelity in measuring a superconducting qubit

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superconducting qubit readout hits 99.8% fidelity in 202 ns without a first-stage amplifier, with pure measurement fidelity above 99.9%.

desk verdict Direct 99.8% readout is real and impressive; the 99.9% pure-fidelity claim is an unquantified correction and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13849 v2 pith:6BNTAKWM submitted 2024-12-18 quant-ph

Can Wang , Feng-Ming Liu , He Chen , Yi-Fei Du , Chong Ying , Jian-Wen Wang , Yong-Heng Huo , Cheng-Zhi Peng
show 4 more authors
Xiaobo Zhu Ming-Cheng Chen Chao-Yang Lu Jian-Wei Pan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 85.25.Cp03.67.Lx42.50.Pq
keywords superconductingqubitquantummeasurementlongitudinalcouplingreadoutfidelityJosephsonjunctionnonlinearresonatorerrorcorrectionmultiplexed
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 claims a new readout architecture for superconducting qubits that reaches a measurement fidelity of 99.8% in 202 ns — and an estimated pure measurement fidelity above 99.9% — without using any cryogenic first-stage amplifier. It argues that a Josephson junction coupling the qubit to a transmission-line resonator realizes a genuine longitudinal (ZZ) interaction, eliminating residual transversal (XX) coupling by destructive interference. The nonlinearity of the junction also creates bistable resonator states that suppress qubit decay error and measurement-induced excitation. A sympathetic reader would care because readout has been the slow, lossy bottleneck of superconducting quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The key object is the Josephson-junction-coupled quarter-wavelength resonator, whose interaction Hamiltonian contains a longitudinal ZZ term, gZZ σz a†a, alongside a transversal XX term that can be cancelled by capacitive-coupling interference at ϕext = 0. The junction also gives the resonator nonlinearity, producing bistable 'bright' and 'dark' photon-number branches; operating on the correct branch provides a large frequency shift for |1> while keeping |0> nearly empty, and the bistability holds the resonator state steady even if the qubit decays during the measurement.

What would settle it

A direct experiment that measures the pure measurement fidelity without relying on preparation-error subtraction — for example, by varying the post-heralding vacancy time from 1 µs to 10 µs and checking whether the extracted 0.1% thermal population stays consistent, or by performing a full state-tomography-based readout calibration that independently quantifies the X12 gate error — would settle whether the >99.9% figure is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a longitudinal-interaction readout scheme, implemented with a Josephson junction as the coupler, achieves both high speed and ultrahigh fidelity: a measured average readout fidelity of 99.5% at 202 ns without pre-excitation, improving to 99.8% with an X12 gate that pre-excites |1> to |2>, and a pure measurement fidelity estimated above 99.9% after subtracting preparation errors. The architecture provides genuine longitudinal coupling by cancelling the unwanted transversal interaction at zero external flux, and the junction's nonlinearity creates a bright/dark bistable resonator response that holds the |0> state even under strong drive, decoupling the resonator from later qubit decay.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the pure measurement fidelity is above 99.9% depends on estimates that subtract about 0.1% thermal excitation accumulated in a 1 µs vacancy after heralding and an unquantified X12 gate error; if those preparation-error numbers are wrong or incomplete, the inferred pure measurement fidelity would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Readout no longer requires a Josephson parametric amplifier or other first-stage cryogenic amplification, simplifying the millikelvin wiring and reducing device cost for large-scale processors.
  • The suppression of Purcell decay and measurement-induced excitation means readout time can be pushed well below 200 ns without sacrificing fidelity, approaching gate-operation speeds.
  • The genuine longitudinal coupling opens the possibility of frequency shifts beyond the dispersive limit, potentially enabling even faster or more selective readout in future designs.
  • The scheme is compatible with multiplexing and with reset protocols, so it can be integrated into quantum error correction cycles.
  • Fine-tuning junction parameters and resonator coupling quality factor is predicted to further raise fidelity beyond the demonstrated 99.9%.
  • The demonstrated fidelity surpasses the state-of-the-art dispersive readout result without needing the amplifier that prior work used, setting a new benchmark for amplifier-free measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The inference from 99.8% raw to >99.9% 'pure' fidelity rests on two preparation-error estimates — a ~0.1% thermal population accumulating in the 1 µs post-heralding vacancy and an unquantified non-ideal X12 gate error — so the true pure-measurement number is only as good as those estimates.
  • If the same architecture scales to a multi-qubit chip with multiplexed readout, it could simultaneously solve the two classic readout bottlenecks — amplifier noise and decay-induced misclassification — which is the main reason the result matters for error correction.
  • A natural testable extension is to vary the post-heralding vacancy time and the X12 gate calibration, independently check the preparation-error budget, and verify whether the inferred pure fidelity stays above 99.9% under those variations.
  • The paper does not report the resonator's measured photon occupancy or the exact discrimination threshold used; an independent reproduction that measures the IQ-separation SNR directly would clarify how much of the 99.8% comes from the longitudinal shift versus the bistability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a superconducting qubit readout architecture based on a Josephson-junction longitudinal coupler between a transmon qubit and a quarter-wavelength transmission-line resonator. The authors report that the transversal (XX) coupling can be largely canceled by destructive interference with capacitive contributions at zero external flux, and that the nonlinear resonator's steady states suppress decay and measurement-induced transitions. They benchmark the readout by measuring assignment probabilities and claim a 99.8% fidelity in 202 ns without a first-stage amplifier, and a 'pure measurement fidelity' above 99.9% after subtracting estimated preparation errors. The data are based on 10 rounds of 30,000 measurements.

Significance. If the directly measured 99.8% fidelity is confirmed, this is a significant advance: it demonstrates that a simple architecture without a cryogenic first-stage amplifier can reach state-of-the-art readout speed and fidelity, which would simplify large-scale quantum processors. The longitudinal-coupling design and the use of the resonator's nonlinear steady states are conceptually interesting. The paper also includes reasonable statistics (10 rounds of 30,000 measurements). However, the headline >99.9% pure measurement fidelity is not directly measured; it is an inference from subtracting preparation errors that are only loosely quantified in the main text.

major comments (2)
  1. [Finally, we benchmarked... (last paragraph of benchmarking section)] The conclusion that 'the pure measurement fidelity is larger than 99.9%' is not supported by the numbers reported. The measured infidelity converges to 0.2%. To infer a pure infidelity below 0.1%, the total preparation error must exceed 0.1%. The text only states that 'about 0.1% population of excited state can be accumulated in the 1 µs vacancy after the heralding measurement' and that 'the non-ideal X gate from |0⟩ to |1⟩ is also a source of preparation error,' without giving the magnitude of the X-gate error or an uncertainty on the thermal estimate. For example, if the thermal estimate is 0.08% and the X-gate error is 0.01%, the inferred pure infidelity would be 0.11%, below 99.9%. Please provide numerical values and uncertainties for both contributions and a propagation-of-error analysis, or revise the headline claim to match the directly measured 99.8%.
  2. [Abstract vs. benchmarking section] The abstract states 'a measurement fidelity of 99.8% in 202 ns', but the benchmarking section states 'When the measurement time reaches 202 ns, the readout fidelity is 99.5%.' These two numbers are inconsistent as written. The authors should clarify which curve (with or without X12 pre-excitation) is referred to in each case, and reconcile the numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The phrase 'the Transmon qubit' should be 'a transmon qubit' for grammatical correctness.
  2. [Benchmarking section] The sentence 'The non-ideal X gate from |0⟩ to |1⟩' is ambiguous: it could refer to the state-preparation pulse or to the X12 gate used for pre-excitation from |1⟩ to |2⟩. Please disambiguate these two gates and their respective errors.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states 'Presentation of the multiple steady states' but Figure 2b shows the readout signal distributions; please rephrase for clarity.
  4. [Conclusion] The statement 'fine-tuning the device parameters, such as the Josephson energy of CJJ and the coupling quality factor of the resonator' is vague; consider providing a sentence on how these parameters affect the readout fidelity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the raw 99.8% readout fidelity is directly measured, and the >99.9% pure-measurement figure is an explicitly qualified correction, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing result is an experimental measurement of assignment fidelity, (P(0|1)+P(1|0))/2, with raw data from 10 rounds of 30,000 measurements each (Figure 3). The claimed 99.8% fidelity at 202 ns is directly measured. The abstract's 'above 99.9%' pure measurement fidelity is admittedly an estimate obtained by subtracting preparation errors: 'we estimate that about 0.1% population of excited state can be accumulated in the 1 μs vacancy after the heralding measurement (see SM). The non-ideal X gate from |0⟩ to |1⟩ is also a source of preparation error.' This is a correction based on a physical model, not a parameter fitted to the readout being characterized, and the paper does not use any self-citation as the load-bearing argument. The cited prior work by overlapping authors (ref. [14], and possibly [25]) is used only to justify the multilevel-readout and reset protocols, not the central fidelity claim. The unquantified X-gate error is a support/uncertainty limitation in the corrected estimate, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. The Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and the interference cancellation are derived from independent device characterization, and the measurement protocol is benchmarked against external state-of-the-art results.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measured claim is device-level and does not rest on a parameter-free derivation. The headline >99.9% figure rests on estimated preparation-error corrections rather than direct measurement. The architecture claims rest on cancellation of transverse coupling, which depends on simulated capacitance values. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Thermal excitation fraction after heralding = ~0.1% (estimated)
    Used to subtract preparation error from the measured 0.2% infidelity to infer >99.9% pure measurement fidelity; not directly measured in the main text and detailed in the supplemental material.
  • X12 gate preparation error = not specified
    Mentioned as a source of preparation error and implicitly subtracted when estimating pure measurement fidelity; no numerical value or calibration data is given in the main text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Small coupling junction energy (E_J,C/h = 2.0 GHz) allows separate quantization of qubit and resonator.
    Invoked to derive the interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. 1; validity depends on the device parameter regime.
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation is valid for the interaction Hamiltonian.
    Used to obtain the simplified interaction Hamiltonian Eq. 1 from the full circuit model.
  • domain assumption Parasitic capacitance estimates (4 fF through the junction, 2.9 fF from the planar electrode) accurately predict the transverse-coupling cancellation at phi_ext = 0.
    The 'genuine longitudinal' claim rests on destructive interference of XX contributions; errors in the capacitance estimates would leave residual transverse coupling.
  • ad hoc to paper The preparation-error model (0.1% thermal excitation in the 1 μs vacancy plus X12 gate error) fully accounts for the gap between the measured 99.8% and the inferred >99.9% pure fidelity.
    The 99.9% claim is obtained by subtracting this model; it is not directly measured and the supplemental material is not available for audit.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear resonator's steady states prevent qubit decay during readout from changing the recorded outcome.
    The bright-state persistence and bifurcation behavior are central to the claimed suppression of decay error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 99.9%-fidelity in measuring a superconducting qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BNTAKWM

@misc{pith2026241213849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 99.9%-fidelity in measuring a superconducting qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BNTAKWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13849}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the significant progress in superconducting quantum computation over the past years, quantum state measurement still lags nearly an order of magnitude behind quantum gate operations in speed and fidelity. The main challenge is that the strong coupling and readout signal used to probe the quantum state may also introduce additional channels which may cause qubit state transitions. Here, we design a novel architecture to implement the long-sought longitudinal interaction scheme between qubits and resonators. This architecture not only provides genuine longitudinal interaction by eliminating residual transversal couplings, but also introduces proper nonlinearity to the resonator that can further minimize decay error and measurement-induced excitation error. Our experimental results demonstrate a measurement fidelity of 99.8% in 202 ns without the need for any first-stage amplification. After subtracting the residual preparation errors, the pure measurement fidelity is above 99.9%. Our scheme is compatible with the multiplexing readout scheme and can be used for quantum error correction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Realization of genuine longitudinal coupling. (a) Schematic of the sample architecture: a quarter-wavelength resonator is coupled to the qubit through a Josephson junction for readout. (b) The resonator’s dispersive shift as a function of external flux. The dashed line and the shaded area represent the contribution of ZZ and XX interaction, respectively. (c) Illustration of interaction terms at ϕext = 0. The red bar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Characteristics of the nonlinear resonator. (a) The photon number’s dependence on readout frequency. The continuously driven resonator varies from dark state to bright state as the probing frequency increases and is strongly bifurcated in the middle of the graph. The dashed lines indicate the region where we made our measurements. (b) Presentation of the multiple steady states. The readout signal distribution corres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Demonstration of the ultrahigh fidelity quantum measurement. The red and black line show the experimental measurement fidelity with and without pre-excitation of the qubit from |1⟩ to |2⟩. The insets are the IQ distribution of two typical parameters as indicated by the squares. The measurement time here is 202 ns. In conclusion, we have developed an innovative readout architecture capable of achieving a measurement … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The Arm Qubit: A Superconducting Qubit Co-Designed for Coherence and Coupling

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A simulated two-mode 'arm qubit' design predicts a 17 ns CZ gate with error below 1e-4, a 27 ns readout with error 1e-4, and low crosstalk, all without a Purcell filter.

  2. Quantum logic operations and algorithms in a single 25-level atomic qudit

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single 137Ba+ ion acts as a 25-level qudit with 99.51% heralded SPAM fidelity, and runs Bernstein-Vazirani and Toffoli circuits on up to four virtual qubits.

  3. AutoQuREO: A Framework for Automated Quantum Resource Estimation and Optimization

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AutoQuREO automates full-stack quantum resource estimation by learning surrogate models from small compilations and using them for scalable multi-objective co-design, demonstrated on Trotter simulation, iQPE with erro...

  4. Suppression of measurement-induced state transitions in cos{\phi}-coupling transmon readout

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A cos-phi-coupled transmon readout is experimentally free of measurement-induced state transitions up to roughly 300 photons, with flux-controlled activation of specific transitions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 69, 062320 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Xu, Z.-Z

    S. Xu, Z.-Z. Sun, K. Wang, H. Li, Z. Zhu, H. Dong, J. Deng, X. Zhang, J. Chen, Y . Wu, et al. , Nature Physics 20, 1469 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Jafferis, A

    D. Jafferis, A. Zlokapa, J. D. Lykken, D. K. Kolchmeyer, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, H. Neven, and M. Spiropulu, Nature 612, 51 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, Physica Scripta 2009, 014020 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Physical review letters 98, 190504 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell,et al., Nature 508, 500 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    D. Sank, Z. Chen, M. Khezri, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Camp- bell, Y . Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler,et al., Phys- ical review letters 117, 190503 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Mutus, T

    J. Mutus, T. White, E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, R. Barends, J. Bochmann, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, et al., Applied Physics Letters 103 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    T. Roy, S. Kundu, M. Chand, A. Vadiraj, A. Ranadive, N. Nehra, M. P. Patankar, J. Aumentado, A. Clerk, and R. Vi- jay, Applied Physics Letters 107 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Magnard, A. Potoˇcnik, Y . Salath´e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, et al., Physical Review Applied 7, 054020 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’brien, D. Hover, M. Schwartz, V . Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, Science 350, 307 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    S. S. Elder, C. S. Wang, P. Reinhold, C. T. Hann, K. S. Chou, B. J. Lester, S. Rosenblum, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. 5 Schoelkopf, Physical Review X 10, 011001 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Wang, M.-C

    C. Wang, M.-C. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Fundamental Research 1, 16 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Mallet, F

    F. Mallet, F. R. Ong, A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, and D. Esteve, Nature Physics 5, 791 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Applied Physics Letters 96 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Jeffrey, D

    E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, J. Mutus, T. White, J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, et al. , Physical review letters 112, 190504 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Sunada, S

    Y . Sunada, S. Kono, J. Ilves, S. Tamate, T. Sugiyama, Y . Tabuchi, and Y . Nakamura, Physical Review Applied 17, 044016 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    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, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, et al., Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 77, 180502 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Didier, J

    N. Didier, J. Bourassa, and A. Blais, Physical review letters 115, 203601 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Richer, N

    S. Richer, N. Maleeva, S. T. Skacel, I. M. Pop, and D. DiVin- cenzo, Physical Review B 96, 174520 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Boissonneault, J

    M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 77, 060305 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Letters 94, 123602 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Y . Zhou, Z. Zhang, Z. Yin, S. Huai, X. Gu, X. Xu, J. Allcock, F. Liu, G. Xi, Q. Yu, et al., Nature Communications 12, 5924 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Johnson, C

    J. Johnson, C. Macklin, D. Slichter, R. Vijay, E. Weingarten, J. Clarke, and I. Siddiqi, Physical review letters 109, 050506 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Swiadek, R

    F. Swiadek, R. Shillito, P. Magnard, A. Remm, C. Hellings, N. Lacroix, Q. Ficheux, D. C. Zanuz, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, et al., PRX Quantum 5, 040326 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    P. A. Spring, L. Milanovic, Y . Sunada, S. Wang, A. F. van Loo, S. Tamate, and Y . Nakamura, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04967 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.