Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

RF-Budgeted Frame Compilation for Frequency-Multiplexed Superconducting-Qubit Control Using Qubit-Control Identity Records and a Circuit-Informed RFSoC Model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that shared-RF multitone control of superconducting qubits can be made a compile-time admission problem, and that under its nominal RF budget a 12-qubit Bernstein–Vazirani microwave layer closes in three validated…

desk verdict The workflow is a genuine contribution and deserves refereeing, but the headline layer-closure numbers are frame-local validation, not full-layer trajectories. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10013 v1 pith:I4S7BXEI submitted 2026-08-08 quant-ph

Mingqi Ge , Anne-Marie Valente-Feliciano This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords superconductingqubitsfrequency-multiplexedcontrolRF-budgetedcompilationqubit-controlidentityrecordsRFSoCsource-chainmodelingleakage-awareschedulingcrosstalk-awaremicrowave
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

Superconducting-qubit control that shares one microwave source across many qubits cannot be planned by assigning carrier frequencies alone; the shared RF budget can corrupt multi-qubit rotations through headroom, quantization, jitter, spurs, compression, crosstalk, and leakage. This paper introduces a compiler workflow that treats the question as an admission problem: for a requested layer of single-qubit gates, it partitions qubits into RF frames only if the full aggregate waveform survives a source-chain model and local qutrit-dynamics validation, and it repartitions when validation fails. The load-bearing quantitative claim is that under the paper's nominal RF budget a 12-qubit Bernstein–Vazirani Hadamard layer, implemented as physical $-Y_{90}$ rotations, closes in three validated four-tone frames at 240 ns, while QAOA mixer layers need between three and six frames depending on rotation angle. The contribution is a reproducible method for deciding how many tones can share one frame and for attributing which constraint, when violated, forces a split. All results are model-based, decoherence-free simulation diagnostics rather than measured hardware fidelities.

What carries the argument

The central object is the qubit-control identity (QID) record, a compiler-side entry per qubit holding computational and first-leakage transition frequencies, pulse parameters, and drive-scale calibration, with the RF-chain profile and effective crosstalk matrix supplied as separate inputs. Around it runs an admission loop: pairwise conflict rules build a graph, an exact graph-coloring search proposes a minimum-frame partition, each candidate frame's aggregate waveform is propagated through a behavioral RF system-on-chip (RFSoC) source-chain model, decoded into transition-frame projections, and validated by local qutrit-patch dynamics with a Hamiltonian that includes crosstalk couplings and leakage transitions. The mechanism that carries the argument is the loop itself, where a failed validation adds a no-good constraint and triggers recoloring, so the workflow's output is a validated frame partition rather than a heuristic spacing rule.

What would settle it

Run the paper's three-frame, four-tone Bernstein–Vazirani partition on a real shared-line RFSoC transmitter driving 12 frequency-distinct transmons and measure each qubit's $|2\rangle$ population and rotation angle after the frame; if any qubit's transient leakage exceeds $10^{-3}$ or the layer needs more than three frames to meet the Table II thresholds, the isolated-patch validation is too optimistic. A cheaper variant is a fully coupled multi-qutrit simulation of one candidate frame with direct coupling and energy relaxation added.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that frequency-multiplexed microwave control is a compile-time admission problem rather than a carrier-assignment problem. A candidate multitone frame is admissible only when the aggregate waveform passes every configured RF-budget check and every local qutrit closure test: intended-drive mismatch below $5\times10^{-3}$, false addressing and leakage-drive projection below $10^{-3}$, rotation-angle and axis-phase error below $1^\circ$, and leakage-aware fidelity loss, computational-subspace survival loss, and maximum transient leakage below $10^{-3}$. When a candidate frame fails, the failure is returned as a no-good constraint and the layer is recolored, so the output is a validated partition and an attributed failure mechanism rather than an unrestricted simultaneous-control claim. Under the nominal RF-chain priors, the paper reports that a 12-qubit $-Y_{90}$ layer from a Bernstein–Vazirani circuit closes in three four-tone frames at 240 ns, and that a 12-qubit $X_{90}$ layer closes in five frames at 120 ns and three at 240 ns for uniform, jittered, and heavy-tail frequency maps but requires nine and five frames for a clustered map. These numbers are conditional on the configured model budgets and are explicitly not hardware measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The most fragile premise is that validating each qubit as an isolated three-level patch, with no direct qubit-to-qubit coupling and no energy relaxation, captures what a real shared control line does to all qubits simultaneously.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Longer pulses admit more tones per frame but do not necessarily minimize validated layer time: at 240 ns the 12-qubit $X_{90}$ layer needs three frames, while at 120 ns it needs five frames but reaches the highest time-normalized aggregation of 20 qubits/GHz/$\mu$s.
  • Frequency-map clustering is costly: for the 12-qubit $X_{90}$ layer the clustered map requires 9 frames at 120 ns and 5 at 240 ns, versus 5 and 3 for uniform, jittered, and heavy-tail maps, so validated frame count should be a co-objective in frequency planning.
  • Duration-dependent directed leakage guards, calibrated to 150, 60, 45, and 30 MHz for pulse durations of 80, 120, 160, and 240 ns, are scheduling preconditions but do not replace aggregate-frame validation because multitone leakage can stack coherently.
  • Algorithm-derived layers can be covered by compact partitions: the 12-qubit Bernstein–Vazirani $-Y_{90}$ layer closes in three four-tone frames at 240 ns, and QAOA mixer layers close in 3, 5, 6, and 5 frames for physical rotation angles of 90°, 120°, 150°, and 180°.
  • A candidate frame must pass aggregate RF headroom and source-chain checks before qutrit evaluation; per-tone phase scheduling could recover headroom, but any phase-optimized frame must be revalidated through the same model because phase changes coherent false-addressing and leakage contributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the isolated-patch validation is optimistic, the three-frame Bernstein–Vazirani partition is the number most likely to degrade on hardware, because it packs four tones per frame with aggregate peaks near half full scale; measuring spectator-qubit $|2\rangle$ population during that exact frame would be the sharpest test.
  • Editorial extension: the same admission loop could be inverted into a frequency-allocation co-design tool, using validated frame count as a cost function when choosing transmon frequency maps; the paper demonstrates the sensitivity but does not propose the optimization.
  • Editorial extension: adding energy relaxation and dephasing to the qutrit patches would probably reduce the admissible frame count at longer pulse durations, so the reported capacities should be read as decoherence-free upper bounds on what a dissipative device would tolerate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a compilation workflow for frequency-multiplexed superconducting-qubit control. For a requested layer of single-qubit rotations, the workflow builds a QID database (transition frequencies, pulse parameters, drive calibration), constructs a QID-level conflict graph using pairwise RF and leakage checks, colors the graph with an exact DSATUR-style search, forms candidate multitone RF-frame descriptors, propagates each aggregate waveform through a behavioral RFSoC source-chain model (Table I), decodes the result into transition-frame drive coefficients, and validates each frame with local QuTiP qutrit-patch simulations against the Table II closure thresholds. The studies range from single-qutrit pulse closure to pairwise coexistence, RF-frame capacity on four synthetic QID maps, and Qiskit-derived BV and QAOA microwave layers. Under the nominal RF budget, the paper reports that a 12-qubit BV -Y90 layer closes in three validated four-tone frames at 240 ns, and QAOA mixer partitions vary with rotation angle and pulse duration. All results are explicitly decoherence-free, model-based simulation diagnostics.

Significance. If the workflow is accepted as a design-time diagnostic, it is a useful and fairly complete framework: it combines a circuit-informed RF-chain model, leakage-aware qutrit dynamics, explicit closure thresholds, and a scheduler with model-in-the-loop no-good constraints. The paper gives credit for reproducibility: deterministic seeds, a stated QuTiP integrator configuration, convergence checks, exact-cover audits for selected partitions, and a 100-seed robustness audit for one headline case. The distinction between screening diagnostics and final closure criteria is carefully drawn, and the authors are transparent that the RF-chain parameters are priors rather than measured hardware specifications. The main quantitative claims, however, are conditional on the frame-local validation scheme, and the abstract's wording that a BV layer 'closes in three validated four-tone frames' overstates what the reported diagnostics establish at the layer level.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. V-A, V-C, VI-C; Fig. 11(a)] The workflow's validation is frame-local, and the advertised layer-level 'closure' is not established. Section V-A defines frame-level diagnostics as maxima over addressed qubits, and the qutrit Hamiltonian in Eq. (20) is evaluated only for addressed qutrits in that frame. A qubit whose gate is scheduled in a later frame is never propagated under the aggregate waveform of an earlier frame; only the pairwise two-tone screens of Sec. IV-A bound its off-resonant drive. A four-tone frame can produce a coherent spectator drive on a later-frame qubit that exceeds the per-pair false-addressing threshold even when every pair passes, and this aggregate spectator drive is never checked because the qubit is not addressed in that frame. The exact-cover audit in Sec. VI-D does not remedy this, because it selects from the same frame-local validated library. Additionally, each gate validation starts from an ideal |0> state (Sec. V-B), not from the state accumulated after earlier frames in the partition. Consequently, the claim that a 12-qubit BV -Y90 layer 'closes in three validated four-tone frames at 240 ns' (Abstract; Fig. 11(a)) is a claim about frame-by-frame validation, not about the full microwave layer. I recommend adding a layer-level spectator check (for each qubit, simulate or bound its dynamics under the aggregate of all frames in the partition in which it is not addressed) or explicitly re-scoping the 'validated partition' language to frame-local validation.
  2. [Table I and Secs. VI-C, VI-D] The headline capacities (e.g., the three-frame 240-ns BV partition and the frame counts in Figs. 8 and 13) are computed only at the nominal values of the RF priors. Table I states that only the δu_eff sweep is exercised and that the stress brackets for ENOB, jitter, S21, compression, and clipping are 'configured but not exercised.' Because the admission decisions depend on these priors through the source-chain model, the reported numbers are a single point in prior space. Since the abstract emphasizes a concrete 240-ns, three-frame result, the paper should either exercise the configured stress brackets for the headline workloads and report how the frame counts change, or explicitly state that no sensitivity of the headline numbers to the unexercised priors is claimed. As written, a reader could reasonably take the 240-ns result as a robust capacity estimate rather than as a nominal-prior-only simulation outcome.
  3. [Sec. III-B and Eqs. (10)-(11)] The notation and the implementation description are in tension. Eq. (11) defines the aggregate waveform from the complex envelopes d_i(t) of Eq. (10), which include the DRAG-like quadrature term, but the text in Sec. III-B states that in the implemented workflow only the in-phase envelope g_i(t) is propagated through the source chain and that the quadrature is applied later at the decoded qutrit-drive stage. This means the headroom, clipping, and crest-factor checks do not see the full drive waveform, which is a modeling choice that could affect the reported capacities. Please align the equations with the implemented path (e.g., define a separate in-phase aggregate s_F^I(t) for the RF-chain propagation) and justify why the quadrature component is exempt from source-chain impairment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] References [7] and [8] list DOIs '10.1103/xw1s-dt16' and '10.1103/fmqf-w6ht', which do not appear to be valid CrossRef DOIs; please verify or replace them. The manuscript header also contains the placeholder 'Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TQE.2026.Doi Number'.
  2. [Sec. VI-D, Fig. 14] The sentence 'All 100 robustness seeds close, corresponding to a Wilson 95% confidence interval [0.963,1.000]' does not state what the seeds randomize (jitter realizations, noise seeds, or something else). Please specify the stochastic variation in the text or caption.
  3. [Fig. 7(d) and Sec. VI-B] The phrase 'Muted RF frames are excluded from the transition-frame and QuTiP counts' uses 'muted' in an unusual way; 'rejected' or 'RF-failed' would be clearer.
  4. [Sec. VI-C] The sentence 'The QuTiP stage validates local two- to four-qutrit risk patches rather than a fully coupled 16-qutrit Hamiltonian' is an important scope limitation and should also appear in the abstract or conclusion, alongside the already-stated decoherence-free caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained, and every scheduled frame is re-evaluated against independent closure criteria.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing chain is: QID records plus RF-chain profile plus crosstalk matrix define candidate frames; a pairwise scheduler builds a conflict graph; every selected frame is then propagated through the aggregate RFSoC model, decoded into transition-frame coefficients, and evaluated by local QuTiP qutrit dynamics against the Table II thresholds. The only calibrated quantities that feed back into scheduling are the directed leakage guards from Section VI-B, but the paper explicitly states that these are "scheduling screens, not final frame-validity claims" and that every selected multitone frame is subsequently evaluated using the aggregate RF model, transition-frame projections, and local QuTiP qutrit dynamics. Thus the frame counts and the 240-ns three-frame BV result are simulation outputs, not quantities forced by construction from the calibration inputs. The Table I RF-budget values are labeled as priors or configured stress values, not fitted to reproduce the listed capacities, and the Table II thresholds are declared admission criteria rather than inferred parameters. The paper repeatedly describes its results as "model-based, decoherence-free simulation diagnostics" rather than measured hardware fidelities, which is a scope limitation rather than a circularity. No self-citations are used to justify the central claims, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The frame-local validation caveat identified by a skeptical reader is a genuine modeling limitation, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs; it only narrows the external validity of the reported validated partitions. Consequently, there is no specific reduction of the claimed results to their inputs that would warrant a circularity flag.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results are conditional on a large set of configured RF-chain priors, synthetic QID frequency maps, and chosen closure thresholds. The most consequential free choices are the Table I priors, the minimum amplitude floor, the DRAG coefficient, and the Table II budgets, all of which set what validated means. The axioms encode the key domain restrictions: qutrit truncation, local patches without dissipation or inter-qubit coupling, distinct f01, trustworthiness of the behavioral RF chain, the closure-threshold convention, and the transfer of pairwise leakage guards to multitone frames. No new physical entity is introduced; the QID record is a data abstraction. The counts are therefore model-conditional engineering estimates rather than hardware-independent facts.

free parameters (10)
  • ENOB-equivalent noise prior = 11.5 bits
    Configured in Table I as a circuit-informed prior not measured on the referenced hardware; it sets the quantization noise floor for all multitone frames.
  • Minimum useful command amplitude floor delta_u_eff = 5e-4 FS nominal; swept over 1e-4, 1e-3, 2e-3
    Defined in Table I as not an independent datasheet parameter; it directly rejects small-angle commands and shapes single-qutrit admission regions.
  • Aggregate headroom backoff b_BO = 0.891 (1 dB backoff)
    Chosen RF-budget channel in Table I; it is the principal hard constraint on multitone frame admission.
  • Sample-clock jitter prior sigma_t = 250 fs rms (5/20 ps stress configured but not exercised)
    Table I jitter prior; it contributes phase and amplitude error in the RF-DAC output model.
  • DAC and NCO spur levels = -65 dBc DAC spur at +90 MHz; -80 dBc NCO spur at +35 MHz
    Full-scale-referenced additive artifacts in Table I; they affect leakage-drive and false-addressing projections.
  • Shared path transfer response S21 = (-1.5, 0, -1.5) dB at (-2.5, 0, +2.5) GHz offsets
    Configured path prior in Table I; residual errors enter closure evaluations.
  • Synthetic QID anharmonicity values = alpha_i = -250 + 8 sin(0.9i) MHz
    Chosen stress-map values in Section VI-C; they set all f12 locations and therefore leakage-guard conflicts in capacity studies.
  • DRAG-like quadrature coefficient beta = 0.5
    Selected in the single-qutrit sweep and fixed for all capacity and algorithm studies; reported capacities depend on this value.
  • Table II closure thresholds = d_mis <= 5e-3, d_FA <= 1e-3, d_LD <= 1e-3, angle errors <= 1 degree, fidelity/survival/P2max losses <= 1e-3
    Author-chosen budgets that define what counts as a closed frame; all validated frame counts are relative to these thresholds.
  • Frequency-map construction rules = uniform, jittered (0.18 delta_f sin(1.7i)), clustered (55% in 5.02-5.32 GHz), heavy-tail (18/28/45 MHz outliers)
    Deterministic synthetic stress maps in Section VI-C; the comparison across maps is the basis for the clustered-map penalty claim.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Qubits are represented as qutrits with transmon matrix element sqrt(2) and no levels above |2>.
    Used in Section V-C, Eqs. 20 and 21; all fidelity and leakage diagnostics assume higher levels are negligible.
  • domain assumption Local qutrit-patch dynamics, without inter-qubit coupling or T1/T2, determine frame closure for the whole processor.
    Stated in Section V-C: direct inter-qubit coupling and T1/T2 dissipation are not included; Section VI-C says the QuTiP stage validates local two- to four-qutrit risk patches.
  • domain assumption Qubits on the same control path have distinct resolvable f01 frequencies.
    Section II-B explicitly excludes identical f01 values from the formulation.
  • domain assumption The behavioral RFSoC operator H_src with Table I priors is an adequate stand-in for the physical RF chain.
    Table I marks ENOB, jitter, spurs, compression, group delay, and S21 as priors not measured on ZCU216 or CLK104; the workflow treats them as ground truth for admission.
  • ad hoc to paper The Table II thresholds define a meaningful operational closure criterion.
    All validated counts and risk ratios are computed relative to these chosen budgets.
  • domain assumption Pairwise-calibrated f12 guards transfer to multitone frames.
    Guard widths are calibrated in Section VI-B with two-qutrit simulations and used as scheduling screens in Experiments 3 and 4 before full-frame validation.
  • domain assumption Command amplitudes are encoded without post-assignment renormalization.
    Sections III-B and VI state this rule; renormalization would change headroom and leakage projections.
invented entities (1)
  • Qubit-control identity (QID) record
    purpose: Compiler-side data structure storing f01, f12, pulse parameters, and drive-scale calibration for each qubit to inform RF-frame scheduling.
    Introduced in Section II-B. It is a software abstraction with no physical falsifiable handle; its utility is demonstrated only within the simulation workflow described in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RF-Budgeted Frame Compilation for Frequency-Multiplexed Superconducting-Qubit Control Using Qubit-Control Identity Records and a Circuit-Informed RFSoC Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4S7BXEI

@misc{pith2026260810013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RF-Budgeted Frame Compilation for Frequency-Multiplexed Superconducting-Qubit Control Using Qubit-Control Identity Records and a Circuit-Informed RFSoC Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4S7BXEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10013}
}
read the original abstract

Frequency-multiplexed superconducting-qubit control requires more than carrier assignment: the RF budget of a shared source can perturb multi-qubit rotations through finite bandwidth, crest factor, clipping, quantization, jitter, spurs, compression, crosstalk, and leakage. We present an RF-budgeted frame-compilation and validation workflow that combines qubit-control identity (QID) records, a MATLAB/Simulink-based circuit-informed RFSoC source-chain model, QuTiP qutrit dynamics, and Qiskit-derived algorithm workloads. QID records encode qubit-specific computational and leakage transition frequencies, pulse parameters, and drive-scale calibration, while the RF-chain profile and effective crosstalk-coupling matrix are provided as separate compiler inputs. Candidate multitone RF frames are scheduled under RF-budget constraints, propagated through the RFSoC model, decoded into computational and leakage transition frames, and evaluated in QuTiP for rotation error, leakage-aware fidelity, computational-subspace survival, and transient leakage. The studies progress from single-qutrit pulse closure to pairwise coexistence, multitone RF-frame capacity, and Bernstein-Vazirani (BV) and QAOA microwave layers extracted from Qiskit circuits. The simulations show that longer pulses improve per-frame aggregation but do not necessarily minimize time-normalized layer cost; clustered frequency maps, larger rotations, and multitone leakage stacking tighten closure. Under the nominal RF budget, a Qiskit-derived 12-qubit BV -Y90 layer closes in three validated four-tone frames at 240 ns, while QAOA mixer partitions vary with rotation angle and pulse duration. All reported results are model-based, decoherence-free simulation diagnostics rather than measured hardware fidelities or wiring-reduction claims.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,” Physical Review A , vol. 86, no. 3, Art. no. 032324, 2012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 2012

  2. [2]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,

    Google Quantum AI, “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,” Nature, vol. 614, pp. 676 –681, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05434-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05434-1 2023

  3. [3]

    Quantum crosstalk analysis for simultaneous gate operations on superconducting qubits,

    P. Zhao, K. Linghu, Z. Li, P. Xu, R. Wang, G. Xue, Y . Jin, and H. Y u, “Quantum crosstalk analysis for simultaneous gate operations on superconducting qubits,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 2, Art. no. 020301, 2022, doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020301

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.020301 2022

  4. [4]

    Baseband control of superconducting qubits with shared microwave drives,

    P. Zhao, R. Wang, M.-J. Hu, T. Ma, P. Xu, Y . Jin, and H. Yu, “Baseband control of superconducting qubits with shared microwave drives,” Physical Review Applied , vol. 19, no. 5, Art. no. 054050, 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.054050

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.19.054050 2023

  5. [5]

    A multiplexed control architecture for superconducting qubits with row-column addressing,

    P. Zhao, “A multiplexed control architecture for superconducting qubits with row-column addressing,” arXiv:2403.03717, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Microwave-multiplexed qubit controller using adiabatic superconductor logic,

    N. Takeuchi, T. Yamae, T. Yamashita, T. Yamamoto, and N. Yoshikawa, “Microwave-multiplexed qubit controller using adiabatic superconductor logic,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 10, Art. no. 53, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41534-024-00849-2. 21

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00849-2 2024

  7. [7]

    Selective excitation of superconducting qubits with a shared control line through pulse shaping,

    R. Matsuda et al., “Selective excitation of superconducting qubits with a shared control line through pulse shaping,” Physical Review Research, vol. 8, Art. no. L012003, 2026, doi: 10.1103/xw1s-dt16

    work page doi:10.1103/xw1s-dt16 2026

  8. [8]

    Orthogonal frequency - division multiplexing for simultaneous gate operations on multiple qubits via a shared control line,

    H. Mitarai, Y . Tadokoro, and H. Tanaka, “Orthogonal frequency - division multiplexing for simultaneous gate operations on multiple qubits via a shared control line,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 25, Art. no. 044007, 2026, doi: 10.1103/fmqf-w6ht

    work page doi:10.1103/fmqf-w6ht 2026

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Optimizing multi -tone microwave pulses via phase selection for quantum computing applications,

    R. Ohira, R. Matsuda, H. Shiomi, K. Ogawa, and M. Negoro, “Optimizing multi -tone microwave pulses via phase selection for quantum computing applications,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 136, Art. no. 114402, 2024, doi: 10.1063/5.0222724

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    The QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit): Readout and control for qubits and detectors,

    L. Stefanazzi et al., “The QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit): Readout and control for qubits and detectors,” Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 93, no. 4, Art. no. 044709, 2022, doi: 10.1063/5.0076249

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Experimental advances with the QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit) for superconducting quantum hardware,

    C. Ding et al ., “Experimental advances with the QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit) for superconducting quantum hardware,” Physical Review Research, vol. 6, no. 1, Art. no. 013305, 2024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013305

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    QubiC: An open source FPGA-based control and measurement system for superconducting quantum information processors,

    Y . Xu, G. Huang, J. Balewski, R. Naik, A. Morvan, B. Mitchell, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, “QubiC: An open source FPGA-based control and measurement system for superconducting quantum information processors,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    QubiC 2.0: An extensible open-source qubit control system capable of mid -circuit measurement and feed-forward,

    Y . Xu, G. Huang, N. Fruitwala, A. Rajagopala, R. K. Naik, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, “QubiC 2.0: An extensible open-source qubit control system capable of mid -circuit measurement and feed-forward,” arXiv:2309.10333, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    QiCells: A modular RFSoC-based approach to interface superconducting quantum bits,

    R. Gebauer, N. Karcher, M. Güler, and O. Sander, “QiCells: A modular RFSoC-based approach to interface superconducting quantum bits,” ACM Transactions on Reconfigurable Technology and Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, Art. no. 32, 2023, doi: 10.1145/3571820

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits,

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P . Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, “Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 103, no. 11, Art. no. 110501, 2009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.110501

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Measuring and suppressing quantum state leakage in a superconducting qubit,

    Z. Chen et al., “Measuring and suppressing quantum state leakage in a superconducting qubit,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 116, no. 2, Art. no. 020501, 2016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.020501

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Reducing leakage of single -qubit gates for superconducting quantum processors using analytical control pulse envelopes,

    E. Hyyppä et al ., “Reducing leakage of single -qubit gates for superconducting quantum processors using analytical control pulse envelopes,” PRX Quantum, vol. 5, no. 3, Art. no. 030353, 2024, doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030353

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Single-qubit gates in frequency-crowded transmon systems,

    R. Schutjens, F. A. Abu Dagga, D. J. Egger, and F. K. Wilhelm, “Single-qubit gates in frequency-crowded transmon systems,” Physical Review A , vol. 88, no. 5, Art. no. 052330, 2013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.052330

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Simultaneous gates in frequency-crowded multilevel systems using fast, robust, analytic control shapes,

    L. S. Theis, F. Motzoi , and F. K. Wilhelm, “Simultaneous gates in frequency-crowded multilevel systems using fast, robust, analytic control shapes,” Physical Review A , vol. 93, no. 1, Art. no. 012324, 2016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012324

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Calibration of mixer amplitude and phase imbalance in superconducting circuits,

    S. W. Jolin, R. Borgani, M. O. Tholén, D. Forchheimer, and D. B. Haviland, “Calibration of mixer amplitude and phase imbalance in superconducting circuits,” Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 91, no. 12, Art. no. 124707, 2020, doi: 10.1063/5.0025836

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Frequency up-conversion schemes for controlling superconducting qubits,

    J. Herrmann et al., “Frequency up-conversion schemes for controlling superconducting qubits,” arXiv:2210.02513, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    In situ mixer calibration for superconducting quantum circuits,

    N. Wu et al., “In situ mixer calibration for superconducting quantum circuits,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 125, no. 20, Art. no. 204003, 2024, doi: 10.1063/5.0234579

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Time-domain characterization and correction of on- chip distortion of control pulses in a quantum processor,

    M. A. Rol et al., “Time-domain characterization and correction of on- chip distortion of control pulses in a quantum processor,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 116, no. 5, Art. no. 054001, 2020, doi: 10.1063/1.5133894

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Impact of classical control electronics on qubit fidelity,

    J. P . G. van Dijk, E. Kawakami, R. N. Schouten, M. V eldhorst, L. M. K. Vandersypen, M. Babaie, E. Charbon, and F. Sebastiano, “Impact of classical control electronics on qubit fidelity,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 12, no. 4, Art. no. 044054, 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevAppl...

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    A co-simulation of superconducting qubit and control electronics for quantum computing,

    Z. Jin, S. Li, X. Wang, F. Liang, and C.-Z. Peng, “A co-simulation of superconducting qubit and control electronics for quantum computing,” Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 94, no. 10, Art. no. 104707, 2023, doi: 10.1063/5.0163725

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, “QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 184, no. 4, pp. 1234 –1240, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.11.019

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Pulse-level noisy quantum circuits with QuTiP,

    B. Li, S. Ahmed, S. Saraogi, N. Lambert, F. Nori, A. Pitchford, and N. Shammah, “Pulse-level noisy quantum circuits with QuTiP,” Quantum, vol. 6, Art. no. 630, 2022, doi: 10.22331/q-2022-01-24-630

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    QuTiP 5: The quantum toolbox in Python,

    N. Lambert et al., “QuTiP 5: The quantum toolbox in Python,” Physics Reports, vol. 1153, pp. 1–62, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2025.10.001

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    Qiskit Pulse: Programming quantum computers through the cloud with pulses,

    T. Alexander, N. Kanazawa, D. J. Egger, L. Capelluto, C. J. Wood, A. Javadi-Abhari, and D. C. McKay, “Qiskit Pulse: Programming quantum computers through the cloud with pulses,” Quantum Science and Technology , vol. 5, no. 4, Art. no. 044006, 2020, doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/aba404

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” arXiv:2405.08810, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,

    P . Murali, D. C. McKay, M. Martonosi, and A. Javadi -Abhari, “Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,” in Proc. 25th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) , 2020, ...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Tackling coherent noise in quantum computing via cross -layer compiler optimization,

    X. Ren, J. Wan, Z. Liang, and A. Barbalace, “Tackling coherent noise in quantum computing via cross -layer compiler optimization,” arXiv:2410.09664, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Quantum complexity theory,

    E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, “Quantum complexity theory,” SIAM Journal on Computing , vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1411 –1473, 1997, doi: 10.1137/S0097539796300921

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    New methods to color the vertices of a graph,

    D. Brélaz, “New methods to color the vertices of a graph,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 251 –256, 1979, doi: 10.1145/359094.359101

    1979

  28. [36]

    Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC ZCU216 Evaluation Kit,

    AMD, “Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC ZCU216 Evaluation Kit,” official product page. [Online]. Available: https://www.amd.com/en/products/adaptive-socs-and- fpgas/evaluation-boards/zcu216.html. Accessed: Jul. 8, 2026

    2026

  29. [37]

    Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC RF Data Converter v2.6 Gen 1/2/3/DFE LogiCORE IP Product Guide,

    AMD, “Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC RF Data Converter v2.6 Gen 1/2/3/DFE LogiCORE IP Product Guide,” PG269, AMD Documentation. [Online]. Available: https://docs.amd.com/r/en- US/pg269-rf-data-converter. Accessed: Jul. 8, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    CLK104 RF Clock Add-on Card User Guide,

    AMD, “CLK104 RF Clock Add-on Card User Guide,” UG1437, AMD Documentation. [Online]. Available: https://docs.amd.com/r/en- US/ug1437-clk104. Accessed: Jul. 8, 2026

    2026

  31. [39]

    ZCU216 Evaluation Board User Guide,

    AMD, “ZCU216 Evaluation Board User Guide,” UG1390, AMD Documentation, Dec. 2023. Accessed: Jul. 2026

    2023

  32. [40]

    Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC Data Sheet: DC and AC Switching Characteristics,

    AMD, “Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC Data Sheet: DC and AC Switching Characteristics,” DS926, Rev. 1.14, AMD Documentation, Dec. 2024. Accessed: Jul. 2026

    2024

  33. [41]

    RFSoC Gen3 -based software-defined radio characterization for the readout system of low -temperature bolometers,

    M. E. García Redondo et al., “RFSoC Gen3 -based software-defined radio characterization for the readout system of low -temperature bolometers,” Journal of Low Temperature Physics, vol. 215, pp. 161 – 169, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10909-024-03079-0

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.