Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 95 references

Low-rank optimal control delivers analytic gradients at the cost of a low-rank simulation, enabling pulse design for open quantum systems that are too large for the full master equation.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:45 UTC pith:6EL6IWGZ

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful methods paper: the closed-form adjoint for low-rank quantum dynamics is new and cleanly derived, with honest numerical verification; the main caveat is that the gradient is for the low-rank surrogate, not the full Lindblad loss, though the paper is upfront about this.

arxiv 2607.14217 v1 pith:6EL6IWGZ submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph

Analytic gradients for low-rank quantum optimal control

Leo Goutte , Vincenzo Savona This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881S2249K15
keywords low-rank approximationquantum optimal controladjoint-state methodLindblad master equationGRAPEpulse optimizationsuperconducting qubitsanalytic gradients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces LROC, combining a low-rank factorization of the density matrix with the adjoint-state method to compute gradients of any differentiable control objective at the same reduced cost as the low-rank forward simulation. For high-purity states, this gives a quadratic improvement in time and memory over the full Lindblad master equation, avoiding the memory explosion of reverse-mode automatic differentiation. The authors demonstrate the method on four superconducting-circuit tasks, reaching fidelities consistent with the intrinsic dissipation limits. The central claim is that quantum computing protocols, which are designed to preserve purity, keep the density matrix effectively low-rank, making this compressed optimization both accurate and scalable.

Core claim

The central discovery is a complete optimization loop built around the low-rank master equation Ψ̇ = -i H Ψ + O[Ψ] - μ Ψ. The forward pass propagates the N×M factor Ψ; the adjoint state λ obeys a linear backward equation with terminal condition λ(T) = ∂Φ/∂Ψ*, and the gradient with respect to piecewise-constant pulse amplitudes is given by the simple formula ∂C/∂u = 2Δt Im tr(λ† H_k Ψ) + O(Δt²). The adjoint is explicit and closed-form, including the derivative of the pseudo-inverse, and any differentiable loss enters only through the terminal derivative and a running source term, leaving the adjoint dynamics fixed. This makes gradient-based pulse optimization feasible for large open quantum s

What carries the argument

The key object is the low-rank factorization ρ ≈ ΨΨ†, where Ψ is an N×M matrix, together with the low-rank master equation (6). The dissipative term O[Ψ] involves the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse Ψ⁺ = (Ψ†Ψ)⁻¹ Ψ†, which couples the columns and introduces nonlinearity; its derivative produces the B_s terms in the adjoint equation, corresponding to on-manifold jumps and off-manifold leakage. The analytic adjoint (9)–(10) and the GRAPE-like gradient formula (8) convert the low-rank forward simulation into a complete backpropagation at the same reduced cost, with the stored forward trajectory as the only memory overhead.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction presumes that, throughout the pulse, the true density matrix is well approximated inside a fixed, small M-dimensional subspace—that purity stays high—and if significant mixedness develops, the low-rank evolution and its adjoint gradient describe a different, wrong model.

What would settle it

Compute the gradient from Eq. (8) for a candidate pulse and compare it against a finite-difference gradient of the same objective evaluated on the full Lindblad master equation, sweeping the rank M in a strongly dissipative regime. If the normalized gradient error does not decrease toward zero as M grows, or saturates at a large value when dissipation dominates the unitary dynamics, the method's central claim fails in that regime.

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

If this is right

  • Pulse optimization for open quantum systems with high-purity states becomes tractable at system sizes where full Lindblad simulation is prohibitive.
  • The memory footprint of gradient computation scales as O(N M N_T), removing the substep factor that plagues reverse-mode automatic differentiation.
  • The adjoint equation is task-independent: new objectives require only the two derivatives ∂Φ/∂Ψ* and ∂ϕ/∂Ψ*, making the optimization modular.
  • The demonstrated fidelities for a 5-qubit GHZ state, cross-resonance CNOT, balanced cross-Kerr readout, and a parity-check primitive are consistent with intrinsic dissipation limits, validating the approach on realistic models.
  • The gradient accuracy is explicitly controlled by the time step Δt (quadrature error) and the rank M (truncation error), allowing straightforward convergence checks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the low-rank assumption holds broadly, the same analytic adjoint could be extended to tensor-network or locally purified representations, compressing both mixedness and entanglement and reaching even larger registers.
  • The method's practical range is tied to the hardware's tendency to preserve purity; a dynamically adaptive rank that tracks instantaneous mixedness would widen the regime of applicability beyond the fixed-M scheme used here.
  • The augmented-state formulation, which reduces quadrature error at the cost of dense storage, suggests a natural path to continuous pulse parametrizations (Fourier or spline coefficients) where the gradient is accumulated along the adjoint pass.
  • The explicit closed-form pseudo-inverse avoids the numerical instabilities that automatic differentiation encounters when the density matrix becomes nearly rank-deficient, a subtle advantage that grows with system size.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LROC, a gradient-based optimal control method for open quantum systems that avoids full density-matrix simulation. The approach combines a low-rank factorization of the density matrix with the adjoint-state method and a piecewise-constant GRAPE-like pulse parametrization. The forward evolution is governed by the low-rank master equation (6), and the main contribution is the analytic adjoint equation (9)–(10) and the resulting pulse gradient (8). The cost scales as O(N M^2) in time and O(N M) in memory, versus O(N^2) for the full Lindblad master equation. The method is demonstrated on four superconducting-circuit applications: five-qubit GHZ state preparation, a cross-resonance CNOT gate, dispersive readout with a nonlinear running cost, and a parity-check primitive for error correction. Final fidelities are verified with full master-equation simulations via QuantumToolbox.jl, and the code is openly available.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, this is a valuable contribution: it provides a practical route to pulse-level optimization in open systems whose Hilbert-space dimension makes full density-matrix simulation prohibitive, under the explicit assumption that the state remains close to a rank-M manifold. The adjoint derivation in Appendix A is explicit and self-contained, and the paper goes beyond a pure formalism by validating final fidelities against full master-equation simulations. The four applications cover distinct objective structures—linear terminal, multi-state average, nonlinear running, and nonlinear terminal—which demonstrates the modularity of the adjoint framework. The availability of the code and the reproducible verification procedure are additional strengths. The main caveat, which the paper partially acknowledges in Sec. IV, is that Eq. (8) is the gradient of the low-rank surrogate objective, not of the exact Lindblad loss; this should be stated more prominently. Overall, the central claim is sound and the paper is likely to be useful to the quantum control community.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. II.B, Eq. (8)] The phrase 'gradient of any differentiable objective' should be qualified: Eq. (8) is the exact gradient of the low-rank surrogate objective, not of the full Lindblad loss. The authors are aware of this (Sec. IV), but the abstract and introduction can be misread as claiming the stronger statement. Add one sentence clarifying that the gradient is exact for the low-rank dynamics and that its accuracy for the physical loss is controlled by the forward model's accuracy, verified by M-convergence and full master-equation simulation.
  2. [Sec. III] All application results are single optimization runs; no repeated-seed statistics or random initializations are reported. Since the optimization landscapes are nonconvex, the reported fidelities may depend on the initial pulse. Reporting mean and standard deviation over a few independent runs (e.g., 5–10 seeds) for at least the GHZ and CNOT tasks would strengthen the claim that the results are typical rather than exceptional.
  3. [Sec. II.C] The quadratic scaling advantage is stated for fixed M. For completeness, briefly discuss how M should be chosen and whether it is expected to grow with system size in the intended applications. The M-convergence checks in Fig. 2(d) are helpful, but a short comment on the practical selection of M would improve the presentation.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] Typo: 'Optimization of a the cross-resonance CNOT gate' should read 'Optimization of the cross-resonance CNOT gate'.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The sentence 'optimized two-step pulse of the sole .' is incomplete; it should probably read 'optimized two-step pulse of the sole drive.' Also, there are missing spaces in the main text, e.g., 'the optimization withM= 2over' in Sec. III.D.
  6. [Sec. III.D] Minor notation issue: 'withM= 2over a total time ofT= 100ns' should have spaces ('with M = 2 over a total time of T = 100 ns'). Please proofread for consistent spacing, especially in the applications sections and figure captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the adjoint gradient is derived from the low-rank dynamics by the Lagrangian method and is benchmarked against full master-equation simulation.

full rationale

The claimed new result is the analytic gradient Eq. (8), obtained from the Lagrange functional Eq. (A1) and the adjoint equation Eqs. (A3)-(A5). This is a derivation from the low-rank equation of motion Eq. (6), not a fit: no parameter is tuned to the final fidelities, and the loss enters only through the terminal/source derivatives ∂Φ/∂Ψ* and ∂ϕ/∂Ψ*. The low-rank model itself is imported as prior work [15,20,21] and is openly an approximation with an adjustable rank M; convergence in M and comparisons with QuantumToolbox.jl full master-equation simulations are external benchmarks, so the reported fidelities are not used as inputs to the model. The self-citations [20,21] support the forward low-rank dynamics but not the new adjoint construction, and the prior low-rank equation is independently stated with assumptions (high purity, M≪N) that do not include the present gradient result. The skeptic's concern—that Eq. (8) is the gradient of the low-rank surrogate, not exactly of the full Lindblad loss—is a real approximation-accuracy limitation, explicitly acknowledged in Sec. IV ('In dissipation-dominated regimes, the backward pass instead suffers gradient inaccuracy...'), but it is not a circularity: the derivative is of the stated model, the model's validity is checked externally, and no prediction reduces by construction to an input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are numerical hyperparameters (rank M, regularization, pulse smoothing) rather than fitted physical constants. The central load-bearing axiom is the low-rank assumption, which is stated and bounded by M-convergence checks.

free parameters (4)
  • Rank M = M=2 for GHZ, CNOT, QEC; M=4 for readout
    Truncation rank of the low-rank factorization. Chosen per task to balance accuracy and cost, not fitted to target fidelities; convergence in M is verified (Fig. 2d).
  • Auxiliary column weight ε = 1e-5
    Small weight placed on auxiliary columns of Ψ to keep the Gram matrix full rank and represent small mixedness. Numerical regularization, not physics.
  • Tikhonov regularization δ = 1e-8 tr(Ψ†Ψ)/M
    Added to Ψ†Ψ before inversion to stabilize the pseudo-inverse. Numerical hyperparameter, not fitted to data.
  • Pulse-smoothing width s = not stated
    Width of the Gaussian smoothing kernel in Eq. (C2). Controls pulse bandwidth; no explicit value is given in the text, so exact reproduction requires inspecting the code.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The open-system dynamics is governed by the Markovian Lindblad master equation with zero-temperature collapse operators.
    The entire formalism starts from Eq. (1). Non-Markovian environments or finite-temperature baths are outside the scope.
  • domain assumption The density matrix admits an accurate low-rank factorization ρ ≈ ΨΨ† with M≪N because quantum computing protocols preserve purity.
    Central premise introduced in the abstract and Sec. II.A. If violated, the low-rank evolution and its adjoint describe the wrong dynamics.
  • domain assumption The low-rank master equation Eq. (6) accurately approximates the Lindblad dynamics within the rank-M manifold.
    Equation (6) is taken from prior low-rank methods [20,21]. It is not exact for arbitrary Lindblad dynamics; its accuracy is controlled by M and checked numerically.
  • domain assumption Transmon qubits are modeled as five-level nonlinear oscillators with no RWA and a fixed T1 decay channel.
    Sec. III describes the device model. Results depend on this truncation and on neglecting higher transmon levels, dephasing, and temperature effects.
  • standard math A 2-design of input states accurately approximates the Haar-average gate fidelity.
    Sec. III.B uses the 2-design state set to estimate average gate fidelity, a standard result when the fidelity is a polynomial of degree ≤ 2 in the input state.
  • standard math The weak Pontryagin maximum principle and Wirtinger calculus justify the adjoint equation and gradient formula.
    Appendix A applies these standard variational tools to the low-rank evolution. Treating Ψ and Ψ* as independent is standard for non-holomorphic objectives.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21927 in / 18494 out tokens · 184780 ms · 2026-08-02T02:45:15.721387+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce low-rank optimal control (LROC), a method for designing control pulses in open quantum systems whose full density-matrix simulation is prohibitively expensive. The method exploits a feature of quantum computing itself: because protocols are designed to preserve purity, the density matrix is dominated by a few pure states and admits an accurate low-rank factorization. LROC propagates only this factorized form and, by deriving the corresponding adjoint equation, obtains the gradient of any differentiable objective at the same reduced cost as the simulation, leading to a quadratic improvement in time and memory compared to the full master equation. We illustrate the breadth of the method on four superconducting-circuit tasks: preparation of a five-qubit GHZ state, a CNOT gate, qubit readout, and an error correction primitive, modeled with realistic multilevel transmons, decay, and strong drives, in each case reaching fidelities consistent with the intrinsic dissipation limits. LROC thereby extends pulse-level optimization to system sizes beyond the reach of existing gradient-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14217 by Leo Goutte, Vincenzo Savona.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the LROC algorithm. A forward pass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Memory footprint and (b) total runtime as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Preparation of a 5-qubit GHZ state. (a) Evolution of the loss function (13) as a function of the optimization epoch. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Optimization of a the cross-resonance CNOT gate. (a) Loss function (18) during training. (b) Optimized pulses on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Optimal control of the balanced cross-Kerr transmon readout. (a) Convergence of the loss function Eq. (23) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Optimization of the mutual parity measurement. (a) Evolution of the loss function (26). (b)-(d) Optimal pulses. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Re- views of Modern Physics93, 025005 (2021), ISSN 0034- 6861, 1539-0756, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.93.025005

    2021

  2. [2]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021318 (2019), ISSN 1931-9401, URLhttps: //pubs.aip.org/apr/article/6/2/021318/570326/ A-quantum-engineer-s-guide-to-superconducting

    2019

  3. [3]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbrüggen, D. Sugny, et al., EPJ Quantum Technology 9, 19 (2022), ISSN 2196-0763, URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00138-x

    doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00138-x 2022

  4. [4]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte- Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296 (2005), ISSN 1090-7807, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1090780704003696

    2005

  5. [5]

    Machnes, U

    S. Machnes, U. Sander, S. J. Glaser, P. De Fouquières, A. Gruslys, S. Schirmer, and T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, Physical Review A84, 022305 (2011), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.84.022305

    2011

  6. [6]

    M. H. Goerz, F. Motzoi, K. B. Whaley, and C. P. Koch, npj Quantum Information3, 37 (2017), ISSN 2056-6387, URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41534-017-0036-0

    2017

  7. [7]

    George, J

    N. George, J. L. Allen, R. Kosut, and E. Gi- nossar, Scientific Reports16, 2773 (2025), ISSN 2045-2322, URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41598-025-32747-8

    2025

  8. [8]

    Abdelhafez, D

    M. Abdelhafez, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, Phys- ical Review A99, 052327 (2019), ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.99.052327

    2019

  9. [9]

    Gautier, E

    R. Gautier, E. Genois, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 070802 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.070802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.070802 2025

  10. [10]

    Y. Lu, S. Joshi, V. San Dinh, and J. Koch, Jour- nal of Physics Communications8, 025002 (2024), ISSN 2399-6528, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/2399-6528/ ad22e5

    doi:10.1088/2399-6528/ 2024

  11. [11]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 580 (1992), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.68.580

    1992

  12. [12]

    Mølmer and Y

    K. Mølmer and Y. Castin, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B 8, 49 (1996), ISSN 1355-5111, URLhttps://doi.org/ 11 10.1088/1355-5111/8/1/007

    work page doi:10.1088/1355-5111/8/1/007 1996

  13. [13]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Phys- ical Review Letters93, 207204 (2004), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.93.207204

    2004

  14. [14]

    Weimer, A

    H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Orús, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015008 (2021), ISSN 0034-6861, 1539-0756, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.93.015008

    2021

  15. [15]

    Le Bris and P

    C. Le Bris and P. Rouchon, Physical Review A87, 022125 (2013), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.87.022125

    2013

  16. [16]

    Joubert-Doriol and A

    L. Joubert-Doriol and A. F. Izmaylov, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics142, 134107 (2015), ISSN 0021-9606, 1089-7690, URLhttps://pubs. aip.org/jcp/article/142/13/134107/901966/ Problem-free-time-dependent-variational-principle

    2015

  17. [17]

    McCaul, K

    G. McCaul, K. Jacobs, and D. I. Bondar, Physical Review Research3, 013017 (2021), ISSN 2643- 1564, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.3.013017

    2021

  18. [18]

    Santos, X

    S. Santos, X. Song, and V. Savona, Quantum9, 1620 (2025), URLhttps://quantum-journal.org/papers/ q-2025-02-04-1620/

    2025

  19. [19]

    Gravina and V

    L. Gravina and V. Savona, Physical Review Research 6, 023072 (2024), ISSN 2643-1564, URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.023072

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.023072 2024

  20. [20]

    Goutte and V

    L. Goutte and V. Savona, Physical Review Research 8, 013085 (2026), ISSN 2643-1564, URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/v383-2vss

    work page doi:10.1103/v383-2vss 2026

  21. [21]

    Joubert-Doriol, I

    L. Joubert-Doriol, I. G. Ryabinkin, and A. F. Iz- maylov, The Journal of Chemical Physics141, 234112 (2014), ISSN 0021-9606, 1089-7690, URLhttps: //pubs.aip.org/jcp/article/141/23/234112/194230/ Non-stochastic-matrix-Schrodinger-equation-for

    2014

  22. [22]

    R. T. Q. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. Du- venaud, inProceedings of the 32nd International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems(Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2018), NIPS’18, p. 6572–6583

    2018

  23. [23]

    Doria, T

    P. Doria, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Physical Review Letters106, 190501 (2011), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.106.190501

    2011

  24. [24]

    Petruhanov and A

    V. Petruhanov and A. Pechen, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 305303 (2023), ISSN 1751-8113, 1751-8121, arXiv:2307.08479 [quant- ph], URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1751-8121/ace13f

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    L.-X. Xie, L. Z. d. Paula, W. Cai, Q.-X. Jie, L. Sun, C.- L. Zou, G.-C. Guo, Z.-J. Chen, and X.-B. Zou,Optimal control with flag qubits(2026), arXiv:2603.12162 [quant- ph], URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12162

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Schmidt, A

    R. Schmidt, A. Negretti, J. Ankerhold, T. Calarco, and J. T. Stockburger, Physical Review Letters107, 130404 (2011), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.130404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.130404 2011

  27. [27]

    Z.-J. Chen, H. Huang, L. Sun, Q.-X. Jie, J. Zhou, Z. Hua, Y. Xu, W. Wang, G.-C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, et al., Sci- ence Advances11, eadr0875 (2025), URLhttps://www. science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adr0875

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adr0875 2025

  28. [28]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York, 2002), ISBN 978-0-19-852063-4, oCLC: ocm49872077

    2002

  29. [29]

    Shillito, A

    R. Shillito, A. Petrescu, J. Cohen, J. Beall, M. Hauru, M. Ganahl, A. G. Lewis, G. Vidal, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034031 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.034031

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.18.034031 2022

  30. [30]

    Le Bris, P

    C. Le Bris, P. Rouchon, and J. Roussel, Physi- cal Review A92, 062126 (2015), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.92.062126

    2015

  31. [31]

    Campaioli, J

    F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi, PRX Quantum5, 020202 (2024), ISSN 2691-3399, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5. 020202

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5 2024

  32. [32]

    Werner, D

    A. Werner, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, M. Kliesch, T. Calarco, J. Eisert, and S. Montangero, Physical Review Letters116, 237201 (2016), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.116.237201

    2016

  33. [33]

    Guo and S

    Y. Guo and S. Yang, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 120302 (2024), ISSN 0256-307X, 1741-3540, URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0256-307X/41/12/120302

    2024

  34. [34]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)(2015), URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, PRX Quantum 2, 030203 (2021), ISSN 2691-3399, URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030203

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.030203 2021

  36. [36]

    M. H. Goerz, S. C. Carrasco, A. Marshall, and V. S. Malinovsky, Journal of Open Source Software10, 8813 (2025), ISSN 2475-9066, URLhttps://joss.theoj. org/papers/10.21105/joss.08813

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.08813 2025

  37. [37]

    Moses and V

    W. Moses and V. Churavy, inAdvances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, edited by H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2020), vol. 33, pp. 12472–12485, URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/ file/9332c513ef44b682e9347822c2e457ac-Paper.pdf

    2020

  38. [38]

    W. S. Moses, V. Churavy, L. Paehler, J. Hückelheim, S. H. K. Narayanan, M. Schanen, and J. Doerfert, in Proceedings of the International Conference for High Per- formance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analy- sis(Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2021), SC ’21, ISBN 9781450384421, URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3458817.3476165

    arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    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 Quantum5, 040326 (2024), ISSN 2691-3399, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PRXQuantum.5.040326

    2024

  40. [40]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Bran- dao, D. A. Buell, et al., Nature574, 505 (2019), ISSN 1476-4687, URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41586-019-1666-5

    2019

  41. [41]

    D. Sank, Z. Chen, M. Khezri, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, et al., Physical Review Letters117, 190503 (2016), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.190503

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.190503 2016

  42. [42]

    Kohler, Physical Review A98, 023849 (2018), ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934, URLhttps://link.aps

    S. Kohler, Physical Review A98, 023849 (2018), ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934, URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023849. 12

    doi:10.1103/physreva.98.023849 2018

  43. [43]

    Khezri, A

    M. Khezri, A. Opremcak, Z. Chen, K. C. Miao, M. McEwen, A. Bengtsson, T. White, O. Naaman, D. Sank, A. N. Korotkov, et al., Physical Review Applied 20, 054008 (2023), ISSN 2331-7019, URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.054008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.054008 2023

  44. [44]

    M. F. Dumas, B. Groleau-Paré, A. McDonald, M. H. Muñoz-Arias, C. Lledó, B. D’Anjou, and A. Blais, Physical Review X14, 041023 (2024), ISSN 2160-3308, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevX.14.041023

    2024

  45. [45]

    Ferrari, L

    F. Ferrari, L. Gravina, D. Eeltink, P. Scarlino, V. Savona, and F. Minganti, Physical Review Research7, 013276 (2025), ISSN 2643-1564, URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013276

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.013276 2025

  46. [46]

    Mercurio, Y.-T

    A. Mercurio, Y.-T. Huang, L.-X. Cai, Y.-N. Chen, V. Savona, and F. Nori, Quantum9, 1866 (2025), ISSN 2521-327X, URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2025-09-29-1866

    2025

  47. [47]

    D. Zhu, Z. P. Cian, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Biswas, L. Egan, Y. Zhu, A. M. Green, C. H. Alderete, N. H. Nguyen, et al., Nature Communications13, 6620 (2022), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttps://www.nature. com/articles/s41467-022-34279-5

    2022

  48. [48]

    Rigetti and M

    C. Rigetti and M. Devoret, Physical Review B81, 134507 (2010), ISSN 1098-0121, 1550-235X, URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.134507

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.81.134507 2010

  49. [49]

    J. M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, et al., Physi- cal Review Letters107, 080502 (2011), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.107.080502

    2011

  50. [50]

    Tripathi, M

    V. Tripathi, M. Khezri, and A. N. Korotkov, Phys- ical Review A100, 012301 (2019), ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.100.012301

    2019

  51. [51]

    E.MagesanandJ.M.Gambetta, PhysicalReviewA101, 052308 (2020), ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934, URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.052308

    doi:10.1103/physreva.101.052308 2020

  52. [52]

    M. A. Nielsen, Physics Letters A303, 249 (2002), ISSN 0375-9601, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0375960102012720

    2002

  53. [53]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Phys- ical Review A80, 012304 (2009), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.80.012304

    2009

  54. [55]

    A. B. Klimov, J. L. Romero, G. Björk, and L. L. Sánchez- Soto, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical40, 3987 (2007), ISSN 1751-8121, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/40/14/014

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/40/14/014 2007

  55. [56]

    A. B. Klimov, J. L. Romero, G. Björk, and L. L. Sánchez- Soto, Annals of Physics324, 53 (2009), ISSN 0003- 4916, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0003491608001541

    2009

  56. [57]

    Sheldon, E

    S. Sheldon, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gam- betta, Physical Review A93, 060302 (2016), ISSN 2469- 9926, 2469-9934, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.93.060302

    2016

  57. [58]

    Caneva, T

    T. Caneva, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. A84, 022326 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.022326

    doi:10.1103/physreva.84.022326 2011

  58. [59]

    Y. Baum, M. Amico, S. Howell, M. Hush, M. Liuzzi, P. Mundada, T. Merkh, A. R. Carvalho, and M. J. Biercuk, PRX Quantum2, 040324 (2021), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040324

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040324 2021

  59. [60]

    Cohen, A

    J. Cohen, A. Petrescu, R. Shillito, and A. Blais,Rem- iniscence of classical chaos in driven transmons(2022), arXiv:2207.09361 [quant-ph], URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/2207.09361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [61]

    Boutin, C

    S. Boutin, C. K. Andersen, J. Venkatraman, A. J. Fer- ris, and A. Blais, Physical Review A96, 042315 (2017), ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934, URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.042315

    doi:10.1103/physreva.96.042315 2017

  61. [62]

    Chatterjee, J

    A. Chatterjee, J. Schwinger, and Y. Y. Gao, Physical Review Applied23, 054057 (2025), ISSN 2331-7019, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevApplied.23.054057

    2025

  62. [63]

    Genois, N

    E. Genois, N. J. Stevenson, N. Goss, I. Siddiqi, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 034073 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/d9yg-d3qr

    doi:10.1103/d9yg-d3qr 2025

  63. [64]

    Bengtsson, A

    A. Bengtsson, A. Opremcak, M. Khezri, D. Sank, A. Bourassa, K. J. Satzinger, S. Hong, C. Erickson, B. J. Lester, K. C. Miao, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 100603 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.100603

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.100603 2024

  64. [65]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A69, 062320 (2004), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062320

    doi:10.1103/physreva.69.062320 2004

  65. [66]

    Didier, J

    N. Didier, J. Bourassa, and A. Blais, Physical Re- view Letters115, 203601 (2015), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.115.203601

    2015

  66. [67]

    A. A. Chapple, O. Benhayoune-Khadraoui, S. Richer, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 256002 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/r4v5-wyyt

    work page doi:10.1103/r4v5-wyyt 2025

  67. [68]

    Wang, F.-M

    C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, H. Chen, Y.-F. Du, C. Ying, J.-W. Wang, Y.-H.Huo, C.-Z.Peng, X.Zhu, M.-C.Chen, etal., Physical Review Letters135, 060803 (2025), ISSN 0031- 9007, 1079-7114, URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/98n9-13y4

    2025

  68. [69]

    C. Mori, V. Milchakov, F. D’Esposito, L. Ruela, S. Ku- mar, V. N. Suresh, W. Ardati, D. Nicolas, G. Cap- pelli, A. Ranadive, et al.,High-power readout of a transmon qubit using a nonlinear coupling(2025), arXiv:2507.03642 [quant-ph], URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/2507.03642

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [70]

    Beaulieu, J.-Z

    G. Beaulieu, J.-Z. Chen, M. Scigliuzzo, O. Benhayoune- Khadraoui, A. A. Chapple, P. A. Spring, A. Blais, and P. Scarlino,Fast, high-fidelity Transmon readout with intrinsic Purcell protection via nonperturbative cross- Kerr coupling(2026), arXiv:2601.04975 [quant-ph], URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04975

    arXiv 2026

  70. [71]

    G. P. Gehér, M. Jastrzebski, E. T. Campbell, and O. Crawford, npj Quantum Information11, 39 (2025), ISSN 2056-6387, URLhttps://www.nature. com/articles/s41534-025-00998-y

    2025

  71. [72]

    P. D. Kurilovich, T. Connolly, C. G. L. Bøttcher, D. K. Weiss, S. Hazra, V. R. Joshi, A. Z. Ding, H. Nho, S. Diamond, V. D. Kurilovich, et al.,High-frequency readout free from transmon multi-excitation resonances (2025), arXiv:2501.09161, URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/ 2501.09161

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [73]

    R. A. Mencia, T. Imaizumi, I. A. Golovchanskiy, A. Lizzit, and V. E. Manucharyan,Raising the Cavity Frequency in cQED(2025), arXiv:2511.22764 [quant-ph], URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2511.22764. 13

    arXiv 2025

  73. [74]

    A. V. Dixit, Z. L. Parrott, D. Chunikhin, B. Hauer, T. F. Q. Larson, and J. D. Teufel,Millimeter Wave Read- out of a Superconducting Qubit(2026), arXiv:2603.13837 [quant-ph], URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13837

    arXiv 2026

  74. [75]

    W. Dai, S. Hazra, D. K. Weiss, P. D. Kurilovich, T. Connolly, H. K. Babla, S. Singh, V. R. Joshi, A. Z. Ding, P. D. Parakh, et al.,Spectroscopy of drive-induced unwanted state transitions in superconducting circuits (2025), arXiv:2506.24070 [quant-ph] version: 1, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.24070

    arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Saira, J

    O.-P. Saira, J. Groen, J. Cramer, M. Meretska, G. De Lange, and L. DiCarlo, Physical Review Letters 112, 070502 (2014), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 112.070502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2014

  76. [77]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 (2020), ISSN 1947-5454, 1947-5462, URL https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/ 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605

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

  77. [78]

    Ali,Surface-code Superconducting Quantum Proces- sors: From Calibration To Logical Performance(2025), arXiv:2504.17082 [quant-ph], URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/2504.17082

    H. Ali,Surface-code Superconducting Quantum Proces- sors: From Calibration To Logical Performance(2025), arXiv:2504.17082 [quant-ph], URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/2504.17082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [79]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, J. Heinsoo, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, npj Quantum Information5, 69 (2019), ISSN 2056-6387, URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41534-019-0185-4

    2019

  79. [80]

    Remm, Ph.D

    A. Remm, Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich (2023), artwork Size: 188 p. Medium: application/pdf Pages: 188 p., URLhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/652933

    2023

  80. [81]

    J. F. Marques, B. M. Varbanov, M. S. Moreira, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, C. Zachariadis, F. Battistel, M. Beekman, N. Haider, W. Vlothuizen, et al., Nature Physics18, 80 (2022), ISSN 1745-2481, URLhttps: //www.nature.com/articles/s41567-021-01423-9

    2022

Showing first 80 references.