Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

High-fidelity two-qubit gates with transmon qubits using bipolar flux pulses and tunable couplers

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bipolar flux pulses plus a tunable coupler yield 99.48% transmon two-qubit gates

desk verdict Credible 99.48% CPhase demonstration on a tunable-coupler transmon device; the abstract overclaims an 8-qubit validation and the 99.9% projection leans on an unproven echo assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04965 v2 pith:BQQ4Q2RO submitted 2025-09-05 quant-ph cond-mat.supr-con

Nikita S. Smirnov , Aleksei R. Matanin , Anton I. Ivanov , Vladimir V. Echeistov , Nikita D. Korshakov , Elizaveta I. Malevannaya , Viktor I. Polozov , Bogdan K. Getmanov
show 10 more authors
Anastasia A. Solovieva Daria A. Moskaleva Elizaveta A. Krivko Dmitry O. Moskalev Dmitry A. Mikhalin Igor S. Korobenko Denis E. Shirokov Ilya A. Ryzhikov Alexander V. Andriyash Ilya A. Rodionov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.supr-con
keywords transmonqubitstunablecouplerbipolarfluxpulsesCPhasegatecross-entropybenchmarkingnoiseechosuperconductingquantumprocessorresidualZZcoupling
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

This paper tries to show that two established techniques for superconducting qubits—tunable couplers that switch qubit-qubit coupling off, and bipolar 'net-zero' flux pulses whose average area is zero—can be combined into one two-qubit gate that is fast, quiet, and easy to calibrate. The measured payoff is a controlled-phase gate with 99.48(9)% fidelity, residual always-on qubit-qubit (ZZ) coupling below 5 kHz, and leakage to coupler states below 1e-5 for 20-ns pulses. The scheme makes the acquired phase a function of a single intermediate pulse amplitude, so any CPhase angle (not just 180 degrees) is reachable without retiming the waveform. Numerical three-qutrit simulations with measured coherence times put the decoherence contribution at 3.4e-4 and suggest the same design can reach below 1e-3 total error with better pulse shaping or longer coherence.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bipolar net-zero flux pulse: a positive Gaussian-smoothed pulse followed by an equal negative pulse on one qubit. Each strong pulse drives the non-adiabatic |101⟩↔|200⟩ population exchange while the detuned tunable coupler supplies effective coupling strength g~CZ up to 40 MHz; the opposite-polarity second pulse cancels the net flux and refocuses low-frequency noise in an echo-like manner. The machinery also includes the coupler's energy-level engineering: keeping the coupler more than 1 GHz detuned makes the leakage-state overlap grow as g1c^2/Delta^2 while the desired coupling grows as g1c^2/Delta, so strong coupling is possible with under 1% leakage overlap and s

What would settle it

Deliberately add low-frequency flux noise on Q1 while interleaving the CPhase gate, and see whether the measured fidelity degrades as if dephasing were set by the echo time (48.5 microseconds) or the Ramsey time (4.5 microseconds); a scaling closer to Ramsey invalidates the sub-1e-3 error projection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a CPhase gate can be executed as a three-step diabatic protocol: bring |101⟩ into resonance with |200⟩ with a positive flux pulse while the tunable coupler strengthens the effective coupling; apply a weak bipolar pulse of adjustable amplitude a_int to set the conditional phase; then apply a negative pulse of the same shape to complete the exchange and echo low-frequency flux noise. Because the two strong pulses have opposite polarity, their net flux is zero, so long-timescale flux-line distortions do not build up; because the coupler is kept strongly detuned, the computational states hybridize with coupler leakage states by under 1% while still giving an effective c

Load-bearing premise

The simulated 99.9% projection assumes the bipolar pulse pair fully cancels low-frequency flux noise during the ~100-ns gate, so the qubit keeps its long echo dephasing time (48.5 microseconds) rather than its short Ramsey time (4.5 microseconds); if that cancellation is incomplete, the simulated 3.4e-4 decoherence error is optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Arbitrary CPhase angles, including non-Clifford fractional phases, can be calibrated by a single intermediate-pulse amplitude, so a continuous family of two-qubit gates is available without waveform redesign.
  • Residual ZZ coupling below 5 kHz lets qubits idle and run simultaneous single-qubit gates with small frequency detunings, easing frequency crowding on multi-qubit chips.
  • Net-zero flux waveforms reject long-timescale flux-line distortions, so the gate does not require pre-distortion corrections and is reproducible on programmable control hardware.
  • Leakage to coupler-associated states is predicted below 1e-6 for 20-ns Gaussian-smoothed pulses, and coherence simulations put the floor near 3.4e-4, so the remaining gap to 99.9% is a pulse-shaping problem, not an architecture problem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the echo-like cancellation is as complete as assumed, the gate error should be nearly independent of the amplitude of slow flux noise on Q1; injecting low-frequency noise and measuring XEB fidelity would test this directly.
  • The three-step pulse template (strong +, weak phase-setting, strong −) is not tied to transmon specifics; fixed-frequency qubit platforms with a tunable coupler and comparable anharmonicity could reuse the same calibration logic.
  • Amplitude-only phase setting suggests variational or randomized circuits that need many different two-qubit phases could be compiled in situ without retiming the pulse clock.
  • The abstract claims 8-qubit validation while the body reports a 4-qubit processor; the scheme's crosstalk behaviour at 8 qubits, with each coupler parked at the ZZ-free point, remains an open check.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a flux-pulse scheme for CPhase gates on transmon qubits with a tunable coupler. A bipolar net-zero pulse pair drives a diabatic |101>–|200> exchange, and an intermediate weak bipolar pulse sets the conditional phase. The authors report a measured CPhase fidelity of 99.48(9)% from interleaved XEB on a two-qubit device, with residual ZZ below 5 kHz. They decompose the cycle error into leakage and purity components, and Lindblad simulations indicate a decoherence error of 3.4e-4 for 40-ns pulses, from which they claim 99.9% fidelity is achievable. The gate is also implemented on a 4-qubit processor with CZ fidelities 99.13–99.34%. The core experimental claim is directly benchmarked; the main concerns are the unsupported forward-looking simulation projection and several internal inconsistencies in the reported error-budget arithmetic.

Significance. If the measured result stands, the 99.48(9)% CPhase fidelity is competitive with the current state of the art, and the combination of tunable-coupler isolation (ZZ<5 kHz), bipolar net-zero pulsing, and a two-parameter calibration protocol is practically valuable. The paper includes a direct interleaved XEB measurement with explicit leakage and purity decomposition, and experimental validation on a 4-qubit processor. The main caveat is that the forward-looking '99.9% / error <1e-4' projection rests on an unvalidated echo-protection assumption; the measured central result is not affected by this caveat.

major comments (4)
  1. [Leakage and decoherence contribution to gate errors (Eq. 5, Table I)] The Lindblad simulation sets Q1's pure dephasing from T2E,gate=48.5 us rather than T2R,gate=4.5 us, invoking the built-in echo of the bipolar pulse. This is load-bearing for the simulated 1-F=3.4e-4 and the subsequent '99.9% fidelity is achievable' statement. However, the gate is not a simple free-precession echo: during each 20-ns pulse the system traverses the |101>–|200> avoided crossing with time-dependent detunings and population exchange, and the +V and -V segments have different instantaneous frequencies and coupler participation. A quasi-static flux offset therefore need not cancel to first order. The text itself notes that the 20-ns delay is not echo protected. If the effective dephasing is closer to T2R,gate, the simulated error becomes roughly an order of magnitude larger and the 99.9% projection is unsupported. Please either rerun the simulation with a conservative T2R-based
  2. [CPhase implementation (Eq. 4)] The factor 1.5 in Eq. (4) is not derived. It is the only element that brings the extracted decoherence error (0.03(0.18)%) into agreement with the simulation (3.4e-4); with a factor of 1, the estimate is 0.18(0.18)%. Because the subsequent sentence states that the simulation 'compares well' with the experimental estimate, the choice of 1.5 appears to be made to match the simulation. Please provide an explicit timing/error-budget derivation for the factor, or replace the estimate with a direct measurement of the unprotected delay contribution.
  3. [CPhase implementation (Eq. 3, Fig. 2c)] The reported fidelity is inconsistent with Eq. (3). With reference error 0.29(2)% and interleaved cycle error 0.81(3)%, p=p2/p1=0.9948. Substituting into Eq. (3) with D=4 gives F=0.9961, i.e., 99.61%, not 99.48(9)%. The quoted 99.48% corresponds to p itself. Please correct Eq. (3), redefine D, or clarify the definition of 'fidelity'; the headline number must be consistent with the stated formula.
  4. [Abstract and Fig. 3b / Conclusion] The abstract claims numerical simulations show an error below 1e-4 is achievable, while the body reports 1-F=3.4e-4 for the 40-ns gate and states '99.9% fidelity is achievable' (1e-3). Figure 3b shows values near 3e-4, not below 1e-4. These quantitative claims need to be harmonized; the 1e-4 statement is not supported by the data shown in the manuscript.
minor comments (4)
  1. [CPhase implementation] Typo: 'complete |100> <-> |200> transition' should be '|101> <-> |200>'.
  2. [Scalability / Table II] Typo: 'Table II ummarizes' should be 'summarizes'.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'systems energy levels' should be 'system's energy levels'; the phrase 'time-scale control pulse reproducibility' is awkward and could be clarified.
  4. [Data Availability] The statement 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is not ideal for reproducibility; consider depositing the XEB data and simulation scripts in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central 99.48% fidelity is a measured XEB result; numerical projections rest on stated coherence assumptions rather than on fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental claim is a measured interleaved cross-entropy benchmarking fidelity of 99.48(9)% for a bipolar-pulse tunable-coupler CPhase gate. XEB is an external randomized benchmarking protocol, and the quoted fidelity is not derived from the model or from the simulation; therefore it is not circular. The residual ZZ coupling (<5 kHz) is measured directly via conditional-phase Ramsey experiments, and the arbitrary CPhase-angle sweep is measured by quantum state tomography. The numerical projection of error below 1e-3 is a stated model result: the Lindblad simulation uses the independently measured echo dephasing time T2E,gate = 48.5 µs for Q1, with the explicitly stated assumption that the bipolar pulse suppresses low-frequency flux noise. This is a testable physical assumption, not a redefinition of the target; if the echo is incomplete the projection would be optimistic, but that is a correctness/risk issue, not circularity. The apparent agreement between simulation (3.4e-4) and the experimental decoherence estimate (3.3e-4) involves Eq. (4), where the 1.5 coefficient is not fully derived in the text; however, it is consistent with three 20-ns unprotected delays (60 ns) relative to a 40-ns reference cycle, and it functions as an error attribution rather than as the source of the main measured fidelity. Self-citations (Refs. 37-42) concern device fabrication, readout hardware, and IMPA, and are not load-bearing premises of the gate derivation. No circular step can be exhibited.

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

No new physical entities (particles, mediators, forces, dimensions) are introduced; the scheme repackages known circuit elements and control pulses. The free parameters listed are calibration constants and modeling inputs. The most fragile item is the 1.5 factor in Eq. (4), which is an ad hoc constant that materially changes the decoherence estimate. The echo-time assumption is the most consequential modeling input for the paper's forward-looking fidelity projection.

free parameters (5)
  • Strong pulse amplitude V = calibrated in situ (no numeric value reported)
    Amplitude of the Gaussian-smoothed pulses required for complete |101>-|200> population exchange; calibrated experimentally, not derived. It is one of the two stated calibration knobs.
  • Intermediate pulse amplitude a_int = calibrated in situ; swept in Fig. 2a inset
    Sets the acquired CPhase angle phi_2Q. The claim of arbitrary controlled-phase gates depends on this control parameter; no numeric model predicts the phase from amplitude.
  • Pulse duration tp and delay td = 20 ns each in both devices
    Chosen by hand to balance leakage (longer = less leakage) against gate speed; no optimization or trade-off study is shown. These choices affect the measured 99.48% fidelity.
  • Factor 1.5 in Eq. (4) = 1.5
    Ad hoc constant in the decoherence error estimate connecting the reference purity error to the unprotected delay. No derivation is given; with 1.5 the estimate (0.03%) matches the simulation (3.4e-4), while with 1.0 it would be about 0.18%.
  • Coupler coherence times T1,c and T_phi,c = 1 microsecond (assumed)
    Unmeasured; assumed in the Lindblad simulation. The authors state this explicitly and also show the coupler contributes about an order of magnitude less error, but it is still a free modeling input.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The circuit is described by a Duffing oscillator Hamiltonian with rotating-wave approximation (Eq. 1).
    Standard modeling for transmon qubits and couplers; invoked in the device setup and Methods.
  • domain assumption Dispersive coupling conditions gjc << Delta_jc for qubit-coupler detuning, and g1c ~ g2c >> g12.
    Used to derive the effective two-qubit Hamiltonian (Eq. A1) and the coupling formulas (Eqs. A2-A3) that underpin the ZZ-free parking point and the CPhase mechanism.
  • domain assumption The |101>-|200> transition is effectively two-level with coupling gCZ; single- and two-photon subspace Hamiltonians (Eqs. A4-A5) capture the relevant dynamics, and the |020> state can be neglected.
    This is the basis of the CPhase gate mechanism and the leakage analysis. The neglect of |020> is explicit in the Methods section.
  • ad hoc to paper The intermediate weak pulse does not interfere with the strong exchange pulses; the acquired phase is additive and independently calibratable.
    Asserted in Section 'CPhase implementation' ('does not interfere ... can be calibrated independently'). This is needed for the claim of arbitrary CPhase gates via amplitude alone, but is supported only by the phase-vs-amplitude sweep inset of Fig. 2a, not by fidelity data across the full phase range.
  • domain assumption Bipolar net-zero pulsing provides built-in echo-like protection against low-frequency flux noise, justifying the use of echo dephasing time T2E rather than Ramsey T2R in the simulation.
    Used in Section 'Leakage and decoherence contribution to gate errors' near Eq. (5) to simulate a 3.4e-4 decoherence error and project 99.9% fidelity. It relies on the NZ/SNZ literature (Refs 21-24); the experiment's T2E vs T2R difference at the gate point gives partial support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-fidelity two-qubit gates with transmon qubits using bipolar flux pulses and tunable couplers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQQ4Q2RO

@misc{pith2026250904965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-fidelity two-qubit gates with transmon qubits using bipolar flux pulses and tunable couplers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQQ4Q2RO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04965}
}
abstract

High-fidelity two-qubit gates are essential for scalable quantum computing. We present a scheme based on superconducting transmon qubits and a control pulse delivery protocol that enables arbitrary controlled-phase gates modulated solely by an independent arbitrary waveform generator pulse. We combined a tunable coupler design with bipolar flux-pulsing to demonstrate a high-fidelity gate with a peak performance of $99.5\%$. Our gates inherit the advantages of both approaches: minimal residual ZZ coupling, built-in echo-like low-frequency noise protection, and time-scale control pulse reproducibility, while remaining easy to calibrate. We optimize the system energy levels to mitigate leakage to the coupler and suppress residual interactions. Numerical simulations of the scheme as three qutrits indicate that an error below $1 \times 10^{-3}$ is achievable. We confirm the scalability potential of the proposed scheme on high-fidelity 4-qubit and 8-qubit quantum processors

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04965 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: False-color micrograph of the 4-qubit processor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Numerical simulations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Energy level diagrams of the 2-qubit device: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme, et al., Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buck- ley, D...

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    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, npj Quantum Information 8, 130 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    I. A. Simakov, G. S. Mazhorin, I. N. Moskalenko, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grigorev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchi- mova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V. Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, et al., PRX Quantum 4, 040321 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    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 76, 042319 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    I. S. Besedin, M. A. Gorlach, N. N. Abramov, I. Tsitsilin, I. N. Moskalenko, A. A. Dobronosova, D. O. Moskalev, A. R. Matanin, N. S. Smirnov, I. A. Rodionov, et al., Physical Review B 103, 224520 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    W. Cai, J. Han, F. Mei, Y. Xu, Y. Ma, X. Li, H. Wang, Y. Song, Z.-Y. Xue, Z.-q. Yin, et al., Physical review letters 123, 080501 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    A. H. Karamlou, I. T. Rosen, S. E. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, A. Di Paolo, L. Ding, P. M. Harrington, M. Hays, R. Das, D. K. Kim, et al., Nature 629, 561 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Neill, P

    C. Neill, P. Roushan, M. Fang, Y. Chen, M. Kolodru- betz, Z. Chen, A. Megrant, R. Barends, B. Campbell, B. Chiaro, et al., Nature Physics 12, 1037 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    F. W. Strauch, P. R. Johnson, A. J. Dragt, C. J. Lobb, J. R. Anderson, and F. C. Wellstood, Physical Review Letters 91, 167005 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    DiCarlo, J

    L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop, B. R. Johnson, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frun- zio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 460, 240244 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Foxen, C

    B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. Bardin, S. Boixo, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, R. Collins, 11 E. Farhi, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, ...

    2020

  6. [14]

    J. M. Martinis and M. R. Geller, Physical Review A 90, 022307 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Barends, C

    R. Barends, C. Quintana, A. Petukhov, Y. Chen, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, R. Collins, O. Naaman, S. Boixo, F. Arute, K. Arya, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gid- ney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, P. Klimov...

    2019

  8. [16]

    J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Ma- jer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review B 77, 180502 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Nature Physics 7, 565570 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    R. H. Koch, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. Clarke, Physical Review Letters 98, 267003 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    F. Yan, J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, D. G. Cory, T. P. Orlando, Y. Nakamura, J.- S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Physical Review B 85, 174521 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Foxen, J

    B. Foxen, J. Y. Mutus, E. Lucero, E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, A. Megrant, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quin- tana, P. Roushan,...

    2019

  13. [21]

    M. Rol, F. Battistel, F. Malinowski, C. Bultink, B. Tarasinski, R. Vollmer, N. Haider, N. Muthusubra- manian, A. Bruno, B. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Physical Review Letters 123, 120502 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, G. J. Norris, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Nature Physics 16, 875880 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Negrneac, H

    V. Negrneac, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, F. Battistel, R. Sagastizabal, M. Moreira, J. Marques, W. Vlothuizen, M. Beekman, C. Zachariadis, N. Haider, A. Bruno, and L. DiCarlo, Physical Review Letters 126, 220502 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Scarato, K

    C. Scarato, K. Hanke, A. Remm, S. Lazr, N. Lacroix, D. C. Zanuz, A. Flasby, A. Wallraff, and C. Hellings, Re- alizing a continuous set of two-qubit gates parameterized by an idle time (2025), arXiv:2503.11204 [quant-ph]

    2025

  17. [25]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Physical Review Applied 10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Nature Physics 14, 595600 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    P. Zhao, D. Lan, P. Xu, G. Xue, M. Blank, X. Tan, H. Yu, and Y. Yu, Physical Review Applied 16, 024037 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    P. Zhao, K. Linghu, Z. Li, P. Xu, R. Wang, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, PRX Quantum 3, 020301 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braumller, A. Vepslinen, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. McNally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Physical Review X 11, 021058 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Y. Xu, J. Chu, J. Yuan, J. Qiu, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, X. Tan, Y. Yu, S. Liu, J. Li, F. Yan, and D. Yu, Physical Review Letters 125, 240503 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Wallman, C

    J. Wallman, C. Granade, R. Harper, and S. T. Flammia, New Journal of Physics 17, 113020 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 184, 12341240 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Jozsa, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 23152323 (1994)

    R. Jozsa, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 23152323 (1994)

    1994

  27. [35]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Physical Review Letters 103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Lucero, J

    E. Lucero, J. Kelly, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, M. Mariantoni, M. Neeley, A. D. OConnell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, T. Yamamoto, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Physical Review A 82, 042339 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    A. R. Matanin, K. I. Gerasimov, E. S. Moiseev, N. S. Smirnov, A. I. Ivanov, E. I. Malevannaya, V. I. Polo- zov, E. V. Zikiy, A. A. Samoilov, I. A. Rodionov, et al., Physical Review Applied 19, 034011 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    N. S. Smirnov, E. A. Krivko, A. A. Solovyova, A. I. Ivanov, and I. A. Rodionov, Scientific Reports 14, 7326 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    D. O. Moskalev, E. V. Zikiy, A. A. Pishchimova, D. A. Ezenkova, N. S. Smirnov, A. I. Ivanov, N. D. Korshakov, and I. A. Rodionov, Scientific Reports 13, 4174 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, D. A. Ezenkova, E. A. Krivko, E. V. Zikiy, D. O. Moskalev, A. I. Ivanov, N. D. Korshakov, and I. A. Rodionov, Scientific Reports 13, 6772 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zikiy, A

    E. Zikiy, A. Ivanov, N. Smirnov, D. Moskalev, V. Polo- zov, A. Matanin, E. Malevannaya, V. Echeistov, T. Kon- stantinova, and I. Rodionov, Scientific Reports 13, 15536 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Moskaleva, N

    D. Moskaleva, N. Smirnov, D. Moskalev, A. Ivanov, A. Matanin, D. Baklykov, M. Teleganov, V. Polozov, V. Echeistov, E. Malevannaya, et al., Applied Physics 12 Letters 125 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.