Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Efficient Implementation of Arbitrary Two-Qubit Gates via Unified Control

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports experimental evidence that a single exchange-plus-drive pulse can natively generate the local equivalence class of any two-qubit unitary, with average XEB fidelity 99.37 ± 0.07% over ten gates and a B gate that…

desk verdict A solid experimental demonstration of single-pulse AshN control on a transmon device, but the abstract overstates universality and time-optimality beyond what the data and the authors' own supplementary admit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03612 v1 pith:HD6VD7D7 submitted 2025-02-05 quant-ph

Zhen Chen , Weiyang Liu , Yanjun Ma , Weijie Sun , Ruixia Wang , He Wang , Huikai Xu , Guangming Xue
show 11 more authors
Haisheng Yan Zhen Yang Jiayu Ding Yang Gao Feiyu Li Yujia Zhang Zikang Zhang Yirong Jin Haifeng Yu Jianxin Chen Fei Yan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords arbitrarytwo-qubitgatesAshNgateschemeexchangeinteractionWeylchamberBsuperconductingqubitscross-entropybenchmarkingDickestates
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

Two-qubit gates are the slow, error-prone part of quantum circuits, and traditional gate sets such as CNOT or iSWAP cover only isolated points (or measure-zero curves) of the space of two-qubit operations. This paper reports that one fixed interaction — exchange coupling between two resonant qubits plus individual microwave drives — can natively generate a gate locally equivalent to any two-qubit unitary in a single pulse. The theoretical core is the AshN scheme: the Hamiltonian $H = \Delta(ZI+IZ)/2 + g(XX+YY)/2 + \Omega_1 XI/2 + \Omega_2 IX/2$ has control parameters that the scheme maps to any point of the Weyl chamber. On a transmon-coupler-transmon processor the authors measure an average cross-entropy-benchmarking fidelity of $99.37 \pm 0.07\%$ for ten gates spanning the chamber, and a native B gate that composes any two-qubit operation from two applications with an average error of $1.34\%$. If this holds, circuits that currently need three entangling layers per two-qubit unitary would need only one native AshN gate plus single-qubit rotations, and multipartite entangled states such as a 10-qubit W state (fidelity $0.913 \pm 0.012$) and a 4-qubit two-excitation Dicke state (fidelity $0.926 \pm 0.001$) become cheaper to prepare.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AshN gate: a protocol that converts the local-equivalence coordinates $(a,b,c)$ of a two-qubit unitary into the four control parameters $(\tau,\Omega_1,\Omega_2,\Delta)$ of a single Hamiltonian pulse. The KAK (Cartan) decomposition $U = (K_1\otimes K_2)U_w(a,b,c)(K_3\otimes K_4)$ supplies the geometric target, since every local equivalence class of SU(4) is a point in the Weyl chamber; the claim is that one AshN pulse reaches that point. The four operators $XX+YY$, $ZI+IZ$, $XI$, and $IX$ generate the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(4)$, which underlies the scheme's full expressivity. For calibration economy, the paper also uses the B gate — the SU(4) gate at $(\pi/4,\pi/8,0)$ — which can synthesize any two-qubit operation with only two applications; since virtual-Z gates do not propagate through general two-qubit gates, arbitrary single-qubit corrections are compiled into four phase-modulated $\pi/2$ pulses (the PMW-4 scheme).

What would settle it

Apply the AshN algorithm's analytically computed parameters for a target Weyl-chamber point that was not among the ten calibrated gates, skip the Bayesian closed-loop optimization, and record the cross-entropy-benchmarking fidelity: if the unoptimized fidelities are substantially below 99%, then 'maximum expressivity' is achieved by per-gate calibration rather than by the native single-pulse scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the AshN gate scheme achieves maximum expressivity: with the two qubits at resonance and the control Hamiltonian $H = \Delta(ZI+IZ)/2 + g(XX+YY)/2 + \Omega_1 XI/2 + \Omega_2 IX/2$, a single rectangular pulse of duration $\tau$ produces a unitary whose local equivalence class is exactly the target point $(a,b,c)$ of the Weyl chamber, and the scheme furnishes the values $(\tau,\Omega_1,\Omega_2,\Delta)$ from $(a,b,c)$ for a given $g$. The paper verifies this experimentally on a 72-qubit tantalum-on-sapphire transmon-coupler-transmon processor: ten gates selected across the Weyl chamber — including CNOT, SWAP, iSWAP, $\sqrt{\mathrm{iSWAP}}$, $\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}$, controlled-V, QFT, ECP${}^{\dagger}$, SWAP$^{1/4}$ and B — show average XEB gate error $0.63\%$ (fidelity $99.37 \pm 0.07\%$), and the native B gate at $(\pi/4,\pi/8,0)$ synthesizes a 152-point grid of SU(4) unitaries with two applications plus single-qubit gates at average error $1.34\%$. It also demonstrates that the reduction in entangling-gate count pays off in state preparation: a 10-qubit W state with nine two-qubit gates and a 4-qubit double-excitation Dicke state with eight SU(4) operations, with fidelities $0.913 \pm 0.012$ and $0.926 \pm 0.001$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the device, during the pulse, is exactly the exchange-plus-drive Hamiltonian of Eq. (1): no spurious ZZ coupling, no microwave crosstalk, drives that map linearly to Rabi rates, matched drive phases, and no leakage out of the computational subspace.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any two-qubit circuit block can be compiled to one AshN gate plus merged single-qubit rotations instead of up to three CZ or iSWAP layers, reducing entangling-gate count and circuit depth.
  • Gate time equals that of a single iSWAP-class pulse (20–70 ns in this device), so even an AshN-generated CZ shares the fast iSWAP time rather than requiring the slower $|11\rangle\!-\!|20\rangle$ transition.
  • B-gate synthesis gives more uniform errors across the Weyl chamber (relative standard deviation 10% versus 29% for native AshN gates), which makes circuit error analysis and mitigation more predictable.
  • State preparation benefits directly: the 10-qubit W state uses 9 two-qubit gates versus a CNOT lower bound that already exceeds $N-1$ gates, and the 4-qubit double-excitation Dicke state uses 8 SU(4) operations versus 14 CNOT gates.
  • Because the scheme uses only the exchange interaction and individual qubit drives, it avoids leakage through the $|2\rangle$ level and simplifies frequency allocation in multi-qubit processors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Should the expressivity claim transfer, recompilers could treat one AshN pulse as the universal two-qubit primitive, and hardware designers could optimize devices around a single interaction type rather than multiple transitions.
  • The B-gate results suggest a calibration strategy: calibrate one gate family well and let software synthesize the rest of the Weyl chamber, which is the practical route to 'arbitrary' SU(4) given infinite target gates.
  • A software trick suggested in the supplementary — mirroring near-identity gates to the SWAP corner of the Weyl chamber — could make AshN practical for Trotterized Hamiltonian simulation, where the native scheme would otherwise require unbounded drive amplitudes.
  • The fidelity evidence rests on per-gate closed-loop optimization that absorbs model error, so the decisive test is whether the analytically computed AshN parameters alone reach the claimed fidelities without per-gate calibration.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental implementation of the AshN gate scheme on a superconducting transmon-coupler-transmon processor. The scheme uses a single pulse combining exchange coupling g(XX+YY)/2 with qubit drives \Omega1 XI/2 + \Omega2 IX/2 and detuning \Delta, described by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), to generate two-qubit unitaries locally equivalent to targets in the Weyl chamber. The authors report an average XEB fidelity of 99.37\pm0.07% for ten representative gates, a demonstration of the B gate and its use to synthesize 152 Weyl-chamber unitaries with average error 1.34%, and preparation of a 10-qubit W state and a 4-qubit double-excitation Dicke state with fidelities 0.913 and 0.926. The paper claims 'maximum expressivity' and 'gate-time optimality' for the scheme.

Significance. Assuming the experimental data are correct, this is a valuable demonstration that a single exchange-plus-drive pulse can realize a wide range of two-qubit gates with state-of-the-art fidelity. The B-gate synthesis results provide a uniform-error alternative to per-gate calibration. The paper includes a systematic calibration procedure (QPT followed by XEB with Bayesian optimization), detailed device characterization, and explicit noise modeling in the supplementary, which are strengths. However, the central 'arbitrary' and 'maximum expressivity' claims are overstated relative to the admitted near-identity limitation, and the experiment's reliance on closed-loop optimization means the AshN parameter-prediction algorithm is not directly validated. These issues are fixable in revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction; Supplementary Section Q] The abstract and introduction claim the scheme is 'capable of natively generating arbitrary two-qubit gates' with 'maximum expressivity' and 'gate-time optimality,' but Supplementary Section Q explicitly states that the AshN scheme is not effective for operations near the identity region, where achieving the optimal duration would require experimentally infeasible unbounded amplitudes. The proposed SWAP-insertion remedy requires two entangling pulses, so the single-pulse implementation does not cover the entire Weyl chamber. Please qualify the headline claims in the abstract and introduction to state that the single-pulse scheme covers all local equivalence classes except a small region near identity, and that near-identity gates can be handled by a SWAP-insertion sequence at the cost of an additional entangling pulse. This is load-bearing for the universality and time-optimality statements.
  2. [Implementing the AshN gate with superconducting qubits, Table I] The experimental control parameters in Table I deviate substantially from the theoretical AshN predictions (e.g., \sqrt{SWAP} uses \Omega1/2\pi = 13.66 MHz vs. theoretical 4.62 MHz; CNOT uses \Delta/2\pi = 1.21 MHz vs. theoretical 0). The calibration procedure in Supplementary Fig. S12 adjusts the control parameters via QPT and XEB closed-loop optimization, so the reported fidelities demonstrate that an optimizer can find working parameters for the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), but they do not validate the AshN algorithm's direct parameter prediction. To support the claim that the AshN scheme provides a unified control recipe, please either provide a quantitative model for the deviations (e.g., AC Stark shifts, higher-level leakage, crosstalk) or explicitly state that the AshN parameters serve only as an initial estimate and that the demonstrated gates rely on closed-loop optimization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Uniform synthesis of arbitrary SU(4) operations using B gates, Fig. 4] Please clarify in the text whether the reported 1.34% average error per SU(4) is the error of the complete two-B-gate construction (including all single-qubit corrections) or only the entangling part. An explicit error budget would help readers understand the uniformity claim.
  2. [Implementing the AshN gate with superconducting qubits, Table I] Table I is hard to parse because experimental and theoretical values are interleaved with a single vertical bar; please use separate columns for each parameter and explicitly label the units in every column header.
  3. [Multipartite entangled state generation] The comparison with previous W-state demonstrations should include specific references and the relevant conditions (e.g., qubit number, fidelity, method) to substantiate the claim of surpassing previous results.
  4. [Implementing the AshN gate with superconducting qubits, Eq. (1)] The symbol \Delta is used both for the drive detuning and implicitly in the Weyl chamber coordinate notation; consider using \delta for the detuning to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the self-cited AshN algorithm is independently restated, though the abstract overstates the admitted near-identity exception.

full rationale

The paper's central constructive claim—that the AshN algorithm maps any Weyl-chamber coordinate to control parameters for the Hamiltonian in Eq. 1—is imported from Ref. [16], which shares an author (Jianxin Chen) with this work. This is a load-bearing self-citation, but it is not a circular reduction: the supplement restates the algorithm (Alg. 1-5) as a parameter-free map from (x,y,z) to (τ,Ω1,Ω2,δ) under the stated Hamiltonian (Eq. S6), and that map does not assume the target result. The experimental fidelity claims are benchmarked externally via XEB and QPT; the closed-loop optimization in Fig. S12 refits the control parameters to maximize the same XEB fidelity that is reported, so Table I is not a clean test of the AshN parameter predictions, but the paper does not present the optimized values as theoretical predictions. Supplementary Section Q explicitly admits that operations near the identity may require unbounded amplitudes and that time optimality holds 'with the exception of a small region near the identity operator,' which undercuts the abstract's unqualified 'arbitrary two-qubit gates' and 'maximum expressivity' wording; this is a significant overstatement and a limitation, but it is not a circular step because no quantity is defined in terms of the claim it is supposed to support. Overall, no claimed prediction reduces to its inputs by construction, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the scheme combines a known exchange interaction with known single-qubit drives. The load-bearing inputs are (1) the device model of Eq. 1, which the experiment only approximately matches, and (2) the cited AshN synthesis algorithm from the same group. The reported fidelities are achieved with per-gate fitted control parameters, so the free parameters are the optimized waveforms and the unstated h choices, not a derived prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • Per-gate control parameters (g, Ω1, Ω2, Δ, τ) = See Table I, e.g., CNOT: g/2π=6.25 MHz, Ω1/2π=32.65 MHz, Ω2/2π=1.45 MHz, Δ/2π=1.21 MHz, τ=40 ns
    The AshN algorithm predicts these values from the Weyl coordinates, but the experiment refines all five parameters via QPT plus Bayesian XEB optimization (Fig. S12). The optimized values deviate strongly from theory for several gates (e.g., √SWAP Ω1/2π=13.66 MHz vs 4.62 MHz predicted), so the reported 99.37 percent average fidelity depends on fitted, not predicted, parameters.
  • AshN algorithm parameter h = Not stated in the paper
    Alg. 1 takes h in [-g, g] as an input; the paper does not report the h values used for each gate, so an additional unstated choice enters the control synthesis and is not auditable from the text.
  • Single-qubit correction gates Ki = Twelve Euler-angle parameters per gate, extracted by QPT
    The corrective SU(2) gates are extracted from QPT and further fine-tuned in a second optimization stage (Fig. S12). The reported two-qubit fidelities include these fitted corrections, which are device-specific.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Device dynamics during the pulse equal Eq. 1: H = Δ(ZI+IZ)/2 + g(XX+YY)/2 + Ω1 XI/2 + Ω2 IX/2 under the rotating-wave approximation, with no leakage to |2> and no spurious ZZ or crosstalk terms.
    Invoked in the section 'Implementing the AshN gate with superconducting qubits' and supplementary Eqs. S4-S6. Table I deviations between experimental and theoretical parameters show real dynamics depart from this model; the departures are absorbed by closed-loop optimization, so the model is approximate.
  • domain assumption The AshN algorithm (Ref. [16], same research group) maps any Weyl-chamber coordinate (a,b,c) to control parameters (τ, Ω1, Ω2, Δ) achieving single-pulse generation, largely time-optimal.
    The paper uses the algorithm from the ASPLOS'24 paper without re-deriving it; the supplementary reproduces the algorithms as Alg. 1-5 and cites Ref. [2] (= [16]) for correctness. The experiment is a test of this black-box algorithm.
  • standard math The operators XX+YY, ZI+IZ, XI, IX generate the Lie algebra su(4).
    Stated in the introduction and supplementary Section Q as the controllability basis for reaching all of SU(4). This is a standard Lie-algebra fact and is not in dispute.
  • standard math KAK/Cartan decomposition: any SU(4) unitary factors into single-qubit unitaries and exp[i(aXX+bYY+cZZ)].
    Used in Eq. 2 and supplementary Eq. S1 to define the Weyl chamber coordinates that the gates target. Standard mathematical background.
  • domain assumption XEB sequence fidelity, fitted to an exponential decay, yields gate error independent of state preparation and measurement errors.
    Supplementary Section M. Standard assumption in the field; the paper subtracts single-qubit gate error from the cycle error to report two-qubit error per gate.
  • domain assumption The transmon/coupler device is described by the capacitively coupled circuit model of supplementary Section D, with tunable coupling g and no two-level-system collisions at the chosen interaction frequency.
    Underpins the claim that the interaction is a pure exchange term and that the scheme simplifies frequency allocation. Section L states an interaction frequency was chosen to avoid TLS, but this is device-specific and unverifiable from the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Implementation of Arbitrary Two-Qubit Gates via Unified Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HD6VD7D7

@misc{pith2026250203612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Implementation of Arbitrary Two-Qubit Gates via Unified Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HD6VD7D7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03612}
}
abstract

The native gate set is fundamental to the performance of quantum devices, as it governs the accuracy of basic quantum operations and dictates the complexity of implementing quantum algorithms. Traditional approaches to extending gate sets often require accessing multiple transitions within an extended Hilbert space, leading to increased control complexity while offering only a limited set of gates. Here, we experimentally demonstrate a unified and highly versatile gate scheme capable of natively generating arbitrary two-qubit gates using only exchange interaction and qubit driving on a superconducting quantum processor, achieving maximum expressivity. Using a state-of-the-art transmon-coupler-transmon architecture, we achieve high fidelities averaging $99.37 \pm 0.07\%$ across a wide range of commonly used two-qubit unitaries. This outstanding performance, combined with reduced complexity, enables precise multipartite entangled state preparation, as demonstrated. To further enhance its applicability, we also show the high-fidelity realization of the unique B gate, which efficiently synthesizes the entire family of two-qubit gates. Our results highlight that fully exploiting the capabilities of a single interaction can yield a comprehensive and highly accurate gate set. With maximum expressivity, gate-time optimality, demonstrated high fidelity, and easy adaptability to other quantum platforms, our unified control scheme paves the way for optimal performance in quantum devices, offering exciting prospects for advancing quantum hardware and algorithm development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03612 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vidal, K

    G. Vidal, K. Hammerer, and J. I. Cirac, Interaction cost of nonlocal gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 237902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    F. T. Chong, D. Franklin, and M. Martonosi, Program- ming languages and compiler design for realistic quantum hardware, Nature 549, 180 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    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 zz- free iswap gates with a tunable coupler, Phys. Rev. X11, 021058 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    S. A. Caldwell, N. Didier, C. A. Ryan, E. A. Sete, A. Hud- son, P. Karalekas, R. Manenti, M. P. da Silva, R. Sinclair, E. Acala, N. Alidoust, J. Angeles, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Curtis, S. Deshpande, T. E. Bouayadi, D. Girshovich, S. Hong, K. Kuang, M. Lenihan, T. Manning,...

    2018

  5. [5]

    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. C. Bardin, S. Boixo, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, R. Collins, E. Farhi, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, M. Harrigan, T. Huang, S. V. Isakov, E. Jef- frey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Keched...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Huang, T

    C. Huang, T. Wang, F. Wu, D. Ding, Q. Ye, L. Kong, F. Zhang, X. Ni, Z. Song, Y. Shi, H.-H. Zhao, C. Deng, and J. Chen, Quantum instruction set design for perfor- mance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 070601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    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, Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processor, Nature 460, 240 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015)

    2015

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y. Kim, A. Hashim, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, B. Bhandari, D. Das, R. K. Naik, J. M. Kreike- baum, A. N. Jordan, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Programmable heisenberg interactions between floquet qubits, Nature Physics 20, 240 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, B. R. Johnson, M. P. d. Silva, and C. A. Ryan, Implementation of xy entangling gates with a single calibrated pulse, Nature Electronics 3, 744 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Quantum, New fractional gates reduce circuit depth for utility-scale workloads (2024), accessed: Nov

    I. Quantum, New fractional gates reduce circuit depth for utility-scale workloads (2024), accessed: Nov. 18, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    DeCross, R

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, et al. , The computational power of random quantum circuits in arbitrary geometries, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02501 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Sastry, Nonlinear systems: analysis, stability, and con- trol, Vol

    S. Sastry, Nonlinear systems: analysis, stability, and con- trol, Vol. 10 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Y.-x. Liu, L. F. Wei, J. S. Tsai, and F. Nori, Controllable coupling between flux qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 067003 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, Nmr techniques for quantum control and computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1037 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    J. Chen, D. Ding, W. Gong, C. Huang, and Q. Ye, One gate scheme to rule them all: Introducing a complex yet reduced instruction set for quantum computing, in Pro- ceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Min- imum construction of two-qubit quantum operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 020502 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    K. X. Wei, I. Lauer, E. Pritchett, W. Shanks, D. C. McKay, and A. Javadi-Abhari, Native two-qubit gates in fixed-coupling, fixed-frequency transmons beyond cross- resonance interaction, PRX Quantum 5, 020338 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Vidal and C

    G. Vidal and C. M. Dawson, Universal quantum circuit for two-qubit transformations with three controlled-not gates, Phys. Rev. A 69, 010301 (2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    C. Wang, X. Li, H. Xu, Z. Li, J. Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Mi, X. Liang, T. Su, C. Yang, G. Wang, W. Wang, Y. Li, M. Chen, C. Li, K. Linghu, J. Han, Y. Zhang, Y. Feng, Y. Song, T. Ma, J. Zhang, R. Wang, P. Zhao, W. Liu, 9 G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Towards practical quantum computers:...

    2022

  13. [21]

    E. A. Sete, W. J. Zeng, and C. T. Rigetti, A functional architecture for scalable quantum computing, in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC) (2016) pp. 1–6

    2016

  14. [22]

    J. Chu, X. He, Y. Zhou, J. Yuan, L. Zhang, Q. Guo, Y. Hai, Z. Han, C.-K. Hu, W. Huang, H. Jia, D. Jiao, S. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Ni, L. Nie, X. Pan, J. Qiu, W. Wei, W. Nuerbolati, Z. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Zou, Y. Chen, X. Deng, X. Deng, L. Hu, J. Li, S. Liu, Y. Lu, J. Niu, D. ...

    2023

  15. [23]

    R. R. Tucci, An introduction to cartan’s kak decom- position for qc programmers, arXiv preprint quant- ph/0507171 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold, Nature 601, 343 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    J. M. Chow, A. D. C´ orcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Simple all-microwave entangling gate for fixed-frequency super- conducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080502 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient z gates for quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    J. Chen, D. Ding, C. Huang, and Q. Ye, Compiling arbi- trary single-qubit gates via the phase shifts of microwave pulses, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022031 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Z. Han, C. Lyu, Y. Zhou, J. Yuan, J. Chu, W. Nuerbolati, H. Jia, L. Nie, W. Wei, Z. Yang, L. Zhang, Z. Zhang, C.- K. Hu, L. Hu, J. Li, D. Tan, A. Bayat, S. Liu, F. Yan, and D. Yu, Multilevel variational spectroscopy using a programmable quantum simulator, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 01...

    2024

  23. [31]

    G. E. Crooks, Gates, states, and circuits (2020), available at https://threeplusone.com/pubs/on-gates-v0-5/

    2020

  24. [32]

    E. C. Peterson, G. E. Crooks, and R. S. Smith, Fixed- Depth Two-Qubit Circuits and the Monodromy Poly- tope, Quantum 4, 247 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Luo, Y.-Q

    X.-Y. Luo, Y.-Q. Zou, L.-N. Wu, Q. Liu, M.-F. Han, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Deterministic entanglement gen- eration from driving through quantum phase transitions, Science 355, 620 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Prevedel, G

    R. Prevedel, G. Cronenberg, M. S. Tame, M. Paternostro, P. Walther, M. S. Kim, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental realization of dicke states of up to six qubits for multi- party quantum networking, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 020503 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Kiesel, C

    N. Kiesel, C. Schmid, G. T´ oth, E. Solano, and H. We- infurter, Experimental observation of four-photon entan- gled dicke state with high fidelity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 063604 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    H¨ affner, W

    H. H¨ affner, W. H¨ ansel, C. F. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek- al kar, M. Chwalla, T. K¨ orber, U. D. Rapol, M. Riebe, P. O. Schmidt, C. Becher, O. G¨ uhne, W. D¨ ur, and R. Blatt, Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions, Nature 438, 643 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Z. Wang, H. Li, W. Feng, X. Song, C. Song, W. Liu, Q. Guo, X. Zhang, H. Dong, D. Zheng, H. Wang, and D.-W. Wang, Controllable switching between superradi- ant and subradiant states in a 10-qubit superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 013601 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    C.-K. Hu, C. Wei, C. Liu, L. Che, Y. Zhou, G. Xie, H. Qin, G. Hu, H. Yuan, R. Zhou, S. Liu, D. Tan, T. Xin, and D. Yu, Experimental sample-efficient quantum state tomography via parallel measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 160801 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    B¨ artschi and S

    A. B¨ artschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic preparation of dicke states, in Fundamentals of Computation The- ory (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019) pp. 126–139

    2019

  32. [40]

    L. Chen, L. Lu, L. Xia, Y. Lu, S. Zhu, and X.-s. Ma, On- chip generation and collectively coherent control of the superposition of the whole family of dicke states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 223601 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Acharya, L

    R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, et al. , Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13687 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. Cao, B. Wu, F. Chen, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Ye, C. Zha, H. Qian, C. Ying, S. Guo, Q. Zhu, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhao, S. Li, S. Wang, J. Yu, D. Fan, D. Wu, H. Su, H. Deng, H. Rong, Y. Li, K. Zhang, T.-H. Chung, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, L. Sun, C. Guo, N. Li, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, C....

    2023

  37. [45]

    Zhang, W

    X. Zhang, W. Jiang, J. Deng, K. Wang, J. Chen, P. Zhang, W. Ren, H. Dong, S. Xu, Y. Gao, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Q. Guo, H. Li, C. Song, A. V. Gorshkov, T. Iadecola, F. Liu, Z.-X. Gong, Z. Wang, D.-L. Deng, and H. Wang, Digital quantum simulation of floquet symmetry-protected topologi...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Z. Yang, D. Ding, Q. Ye, C. Huang, J. Chen, and Y. Xie, Reconfigurable quantum instruction set computers: To- wards ultimate performance with realization feasibility, Manuscript under review (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    R. Zhou, F. Zhang, L. Kong, and J. Chen, Halma, a routing-based technique for defects mitigation in quan- tum error correction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.21000 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Morvan, B

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandr` a, A. Bengts- son, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Drozdov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movassagh, A. As- faw, L. T. A. N. Brand˜ ao, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, 10 R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann,...

    2024

  41. [49]

    P. V. Klimov, A. Bengtsson, C. Quintana, A. Bourassa, S. Hong, A. Dunsworth, K. J. Satzinger, W. P. Liv- ingston, V. Sivak, M. Y. Niu, T. I. Andersen, Y. Zhang, D. Chik, Z. Chen, C. Neill, C. Erickson, A. Grajales Dau, A. Megrant, P. Roushan, A. N. Korotkov, J. Kelly, V. Smely...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Eickbusch, M

    A. Eickbusch, M. McEwen, V. Sivak, A. Bourassa, J. Atalaya, J. Claes, D. Kafri, C. Gidney, C. W. Warren, J. Gross, A. Opremcak, N. Z. K. C. Miao, G. Roberts, K. J. Satzinger, A. Bengtsson, M. Neeley, W. P. Liv- ingston, A. Greene, Rajeev, Acharya, L. A. Beni, G. Aigeldinger, R...

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence flux- onium qubit, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, R. Gao, X. Gao, C. Huang, X. Jiang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma, X. Ni, J. Qin, Z. Song, H. Sun, C. Tang, T. Wang, F. Wu, T. Xia, W. Yu, F. Zhang, G. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, J. Chen, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Fluxonium: An alter- native qu...

    2022

  45. [53]

    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. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High- fidelity, frequency-flexible...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediated iswap oscil- lations between distant spins, Nature Physics (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2024

  48. [56]

    L. R. B. Picard, A. J. Park, G. E. Patenotte, S. Gebret- sadkan, D. Wellnitz, A. M. Rey, and K.-K. Ni, Entangle- 11 ment and iswap gate between molecular qubits, Nature (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    zero-point fluctuations

    T. Monz, K. Kim, W. H¨ ansel, M. Riebe, A. S. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Realization of the quantum toffoli gate with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 040501 (2009). Supplementary Materials for: Efficient Implementation of Arbitrary Two-Qub...

    2009 arXiv

  50. [58]

    (S32) Fig

    ˜U(Z† 1⊗Z† 2). (S32) Fig. S7a shows the strategy of local phase shift compensation for the AshN gate. The 15 AshN Z(φ1) Z(φ2) Z(φ3) Z(φ4) SU(2) a b Q0 Q1 Z(-ω1τ) Z(-ω2τ) Z(ω1τ) Z(ω2τ) U(α,β,γ) = eiαcos(γ) eiβsin(γ) -e-iβsin(γ) e-iαcos(γ) xπ/2(-α+β)xπ/2(β−γ+π)xπ/2(β−γ+π)xπ/2(α+...

  51. [59]

    R. R. Tucci, An introduction to cartan’s kak decomposition for qc programmers, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0507171 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. Chen, D. Ding, W. Gong, C. Huang, and Q. Ye, One gate scheme to rule them all: In- troducing a complex yet reduced instruction set for quantum computing, in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Minimum construction of two-qubit quantum operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 020502 (2004)

    2004

  54. [62]

    E. A. Sete, A. Q. Chen, R. Manenti, S. Kulshreshtha, and S. Poletto, Floating tunable coupler for scalable quantum computing architectures, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 064063 (2021). 33

    2021

  55. [63]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    C. Wang, X. Li, H. Xu, Z. Li, J. Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Mi, X. Liang, T. Su, C. Yang, G. Wang, W. Wang, Y. Li, M. Chen, C. Li, K. Linghu, J. Han, Y. Zhang, Y. Feng, Y. Song, T. Ma, J. Zhang, R. Wang, P. Zhao, W. Liu, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Towards practical quan- tum computers:...

    2022

  58. [66]

    X. Li, H. Xu, J. Wang, L.-Z. Tang, D.-W. Zhang, C. Yang, T. Su, C. Wang, Z. Mi, W. Sun, X. Liang, M. Chen, C. Li, Y. Zhang, K. Linghu, J. Han, W. Liu, Y. Feng, P. Liu, G. Xue, J. Zhang, Y. Jin, S.-L. Zhu, H. Yu, S. P. Zhao, and Q.-K. Xue, Mapping the topology- localization pha...

    2024

  59. [67]

    Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, 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, Realization of high-fidelity cz and zz-fre...

    2021

  60. [68]

    C. Song, K. Xu, W. Liu, C.-p. Yang, S.-B. Zheng, H. Deng, Q. Xie, K. Huang, Q. Guo, L. Zhang, P. Zhang, D. Xu, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, S. Han, and J.-W. Pan, 10-qubit entanglement and parallel logic operations with a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev....

    2017

  61. [69]

    Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2315 (1994)

    R. Jozsa, Fidelity for mixed quantum states, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2315 (1994)

    1994

  62. [70]

    L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, Nmr techniques for quantum control and computa- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1037 (2005)

    2005

  63. [71]

    Sastry, Nonlinear systems: analysis, stability, and control , Vol

    S. Sastry, Nonlinear systems: analysis, stability, and control , Vol. 10 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  64. [72]

    Hammerer, G

    K. Hammerer, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Characterization of nonlocal gates, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062321 (2002). 34 Algorithm 1: AshN Data: (x,y,z )∈W ;g∈ R+;h∈ [−g,g ]; r∈ [0, (1−|h|)π 2 ] Result: (τ, Ω1, Ω2,δ ) τND← 2x; τEA+← 2(x +y +z)/(2 +h); τEA−← 2(x +y−z)/(2−h); τ′ ND←π− 2x;...

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.