Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Efficient Qubit Calibration by Binary-Search Hamiltonian Tracking

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A real-time frequency binary search calibrates a qubit's frequency with uncertainty that shrinks exponentially per measurement, stabilizing a transmon and reducing non-Markovian noise.

desk verdict A solid real-time qubit calibration demo whose central likelihood concern mostly evaporates on inspection; the real gaps are an unverified experimental scaling curve and a pseudocode sign typo. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05386 v2 pith:KD7MJLZA submitted 2025-01-09 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Fabrizio Berritta , Jacob Benestad , Lukas Pahl , Melvin Mathews , Jan A. Krzywda , Réouven Assouly , Youngkyu Sung , David K. Kim
show 9 more authors
Bethany M. Niedzielski Kyle Serniak Mollie E. Schwartz Jonilyn L. Yoder Anasua Chatterjee Jeffrey A. Grover Jeroen Danon William D. Oliver Ferdinand Kuemmeth
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords qubitcalibrationBayesianestimationbinarysearchreal-timefeedbackFPGAcontroltransmonnon-Markoviannoisefrequencytracking
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 claims that the frequency of a resonantly driven qubit can be calibrated in real time with uncertainty that shrinks exponentially with the number of single-shot measurements, down to a floor set by decoherence. The proposed frequency binary search (FBS) runs on an FPGA: after each Ramsey probe the controller updates a Gaussian belief about the frequency shift and chooses the next probe time and drive detuning to split the belief into two roughly equal halves. The authors validate the scheme on a flux-tunable transmon operated away from its sweet spot, where flux noise is strongest, and report a roughly 49% improvement in Ramsey coherence, slightly improved single-qubit gate fidelities, and reduced non-Markovian noise as detected by gate set tomography. If correct, the protocol would let large quantum processors track and stabilize drifting qubit parameters with only a handful of measurements per update, easing the calibration bottleneck for error-corrected operation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frequency binary search (FBS) algorithm, a greedy Bayesian estimator that maintains a Gaussian prior over the qubit frequency shift $\varepsilon$ and, at every probe, selects the Ramsey evolution time $\tau$ and the drive detuning $\Delta f$ so that the likelihood function cuts the prior into two roughly equal branches, the analogue of a binary-search partition of the parameter axis. The optimal probe parameters come from the closed-form rule $\Delta f_{n+1} = \tfrac{1+2l}{4\tau_{n+1}} + \mu_n$ (with $l=0$) and $\tau_{n+1} = \tfrac{\sqrt{16\pi^2\sigma_n^2 + 1/T^2} - 1/T}{8\pi^2\sigma_n^2}$, and the posterior is reapproximated as a Gaussian by updating $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ through the method-of-moments equations (7a)-(7b). The exponential scaling follows because, while $\tau \ll T$, each measurement reduces the variance by a constant factor $\xi = \tfrac{1-\beta^2 e^{-1}}{1-\alpha^2}$, so $\sigma_n^2 \sim \xi^n$; the decoherence time $T$ acts as a cutoff that flattens the scaling once $\tau$ becomes comparable to $T$. The FPGA controller carries out these updates in the microseconds between probes, which is what allows the drive frequency to be fed forward into subsequent qubit operations.

What would settle it

Simulate the estimator with the exact conditional flip probability, in which the sign in front of $\beta e^{-\tau/T}\cos[2\pi(\Delta f-\varepsilon)\tau]$ is positive when the qubit started in $|0\rangle$ and negative when it started in $|1\rangle$, and compare the posterior variance against Eq. (7b) as a function of the number of probes; if the exponential decrease flattens or the estimator becomes biased, the claimed scaling rests on the unconditioned likelihood.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that an adaptive Bayesian estimator, implemented with a two-parameter Gaussian belief and a locally optimal binary-search probe selection, achieves exponential scaling of qubit-frequency calibration precision with the number of measurements, and that this scaling survives on real hardware with noisy readout, finite coherence, and no reinitialization between probes. The likelihood used is $P(m|\varepsilon,\Delta f,\tau) = \tfrac12 + \tfrac{m}{2}\{\alpha + \beta e^{-\tau/T}\cos[2\pi(\Delta f-\varepsilon)\tau]\}$ with SPAM coefficients $\alpha=-0.02$, $\beta=0.6$ and dephasing time $T=10\,\mu\mathrm{s}$; each step sets $\Delta f$ to align the likelihood's inflection point with the prior mean and $\tau$ to minimize the expected posterior variance, then updates mean and variance by the method of moments. Experimentally, interleaving eight FBS probes with Ramsey measurements lifts $T_2^*$ from $(3.73\pm0.11)\,\mu\mathrm{s}$ to $(5.57\pm0.09)\,\mu\mathrm{s}$ on a flux-tunable transmon at quarter-flux bias, randomized benchmarking shows native-gate infidelity falling from $(7.6\pm0.3)\times10^{-4}$ to $(6.9\pm0.2)\times10^{-4}$, and gate set tomography shows reduced Markovian-model violation, which the authors interpret as partial mitigation of non-Markovian flux noise.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration's exponential-scaling claim rests on a Bayesian update that ignores the qubit's pre-measurement state when computing the probability of a flip, even though the experiment deliberately avoids reinitialization between probe cycles and the true flip probability depends on which state the qubit was in before the pulse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Calibration precision for a resonantly driven qubit becomes exponential in the number of single-shot measurements, so reaching a target frequency error budget requires only logarithmically many probes, up to the decoherence-limited floor.
  • The same FPGA feedback loop stabilizes a flux-tunable transmon away from its sweet spot, extending $T_2^*$ by about 49% and reducing native single-qubit gate infidelity, so qubits can be operated where flux sensitivity is high.
  • Because gate set tomography registers fewer Markovian-model violations when feedback is active, the protocol partially suppresses the non-Markovian noise that is particularly damaging for quantum error correction.
  • Since the scheme needs only single-qubit Ramsey probes and a classical controller with real-time decision-making, it transfers directly to other qubit platforms and to any low-frequency noise source that shifts the qubit frequency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the likelihood were re-derived to condition on the qubit's state before each probe, the variance update would likely differ from Eq. (7b); a simulation with the exact conditional flip probability is needed to confirm whether the exponential scaling survives.
  • The same binary-search splitting idea could be applied to a multivariate Gaussian belief to track several quasistatic parameters at once, such as frequency and amplitude drift, which would be a natural next step for the real-time controller.
  • A controlled frequency-jump experiment, injecting a known flux step and counting the probes needed to reacquire the true frequency within the reported credible interval, would test whether the $N=6$ to $N=15$ probe counts survive the heavier outlier tails the Gaussian approximation is known to produce.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces and experimentally implements a real-time adaptive Bayesian protocol, called frequency binary search, for tracking a slowly fluctuating qubit frequency offset \epsilon in a flux-tunable transmon. A Gaussian prior is updated after each single-shot Ramsey measurement with adaptively chosen evolution time \tau and drive detuning \Delta f, using method-of-moments updates [Eqs. (5)-(7)]; the protocol is executed on an FPGA-based controller. The authors report exponential scaling of the posterior variance with the number of measurements up to a decoherence cutoff, and validate the scheme by stabilizing the qubit at quarter flux: T2* improves from (3.73 +/- 0.11) \mu s to (5.57 +/- 0.09) \mu s (~49%), randomized benchmarking infidelity decreases from (7.6 +/- 0.3) x 10^-4 to (6.9 +/- 0.2) x 10^-4, and gate set tomography shows a reduction in Markovian model violation. The Supplemental Material provides simulations of the scaling, robustness tests against SPAM misspecification, and a 6-hour power-spectral-density analysis.

Significance. This is a solid experimental demonstration of a useful calibration technique. The real-time FPGA implementation, the 6-hour stabilization data, and the use of GST as an independent probe of non-Markovian noise are commendable; the parameters alpha, beta, and T are obtained from separate preliminary experiments and are not fitted to the target outcomes. If the exponential-scaling claim is properly qualified, the protocol could reduce calibration overhead in multi-qubit systems. However, the central claim is supported mainly by an approximate Gaussian/method-of-moments analysis and simulations; the experimental data do not directly measure the scaling exponent, and the paper's own supplement shows that the posterior sigma underestimates the standard deviation of estimation errors. These caveats should be addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.B, Eq. (2) and Eq. (7)] The likelihood in Eq. (2) is written for the absolute Ramsey outcome m for a fixed initial state, but the protocol uses m_i = 2|s_i - s_{i-1}| - 1 without reinitializing the qubit. A direct calculation gives P(flip|s_{i-1}=0) = [1 + C + alpha]/2 and P(flip|s_{i-1}=1) = [1 + C - alpha]/2 with C = beta e^{-tau/T} cos[2pi(Delta f - epsilon)tau]. Thus the coherent beta term has the same sign in both cases, so the concern about a sign flip of the beta term does not survive the Ramsey calculation; the residual issue is that the SPAM offset alpha changes sign with the known previous state. The update in Eq. (7) uses (1 + m_i alpha) unconditionally. Since |alpha| = 0.02 the induced bias is likely small, but the model is formally misspecified. Please either replace alpha by alpha(1 - 2 s_{i-1}) in the likelihood and update, or provide simulations or data demonstrating that the bias is negligible at the claimed precision.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 7] The pseudocode sets Delta f <- 1/(4 tau) - mu, whereas Eq. (5) and the described experimental implementation require Delta f = 1/(4 tau) + mu. As written, the algorithm would center the likelihood at -mu and would not implement the feedback described in the paper. Please correct the sign in the pseudocode.
  3. [Sec. II.B and Supplemental Material, 'Validity of the Gaussian Approximation'] The exponential-scaling claim is formulated for the posterior standard deviation sigma (Eq. (7b) and Eq. (S.8)). The Supplemental Material (Fig. S8(c)) states that sigma is a poor estimator of the standard deviation of the actual estimation errors, while it tracks the median absolute deviation. The abstract's 'precision' should be defined in this qualified sense, and the frequency of large-outlier estimates should be quantified. The experimental sections do not directly verify the scaling exponent as a function of N, so the claim should be presented as a property of the approximate Gaussian model with simulation support, rather than as an experimentally measured scaling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.B after Eq. (2)] Please distinguish the absolute outcome m in Eq. (2) from the flip indicator m_i used after Eq. (2); the current notation can confuse readers because m_i = +1 denotes a flip rather than the excited state.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 10] The square root in the sigma update should be accompanied by a comment that its argument is positive for the parameter range used, or the update should be clipped if the argument can become negative.
  3. [III.A] The statement that the controller updates f_q based on <epsilon> and then 'the total expected detuning becomes Delta f_j - <epsilon> = 1 MHz' is terse; please spell out the sign convention so that it matches Eq. (5).
  4. [Fig. 4(b)] The dense model-violation matrices are difficult to read; consider enlarging them or summarizing the violation metric in a single plot for the main text.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract says 'resonantly driven qubit' although the protocol is based on Ramsey pulses; please clarify the terminology to avoid implying continuous driving.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: parameters come from independent calibrations, validations are external benchmarks; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (2) is a stated likelihood with coefficients alpha=-0.02, beta=0.6 and T=10 us obtained from independent preliminary characterizations (Hahn echo for T; SPAM calibration for alpha, beta), not fitted to the target frequency estimates or to the coherence/RB/GST outcomes used as benchmarks. The Bayesian update Eqs. (7a)-(7b) are method-of-moments consequences of that likelihood with a Gaussian prior; the exponential variance reduction sigma_n^2 ~ e^{n ln xi} follows algebraically in the Supplemental Eqs. (S.6)-(S.9), so the 'exponential scaling' claim is a mathematical property of the update rule, not a fitted prediction. The experimental validations (T2* improvement in Fig. 2, RB fidelity in Fig. 3, GST model violation in Fig. 4, and the 6-hour PSD analysis) compare feedback on/off and are not used to redefine the likelihood or to re-fit alpha, beta, or T. The Gaussian approximation is explicitly stress-tested in the Supplemental (KL divergence and outlier analysis, Figs. S7-S8), which is the opposite of circularity. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [9], [12], [43], and the device-related Refs. [22], [32]) are contextual or descriptive and none carries the central claim; Ref. [43] is cited only to note and reject a bimodal-Gaussian alternative. The reader's differential-likelihood misspecification concern is a model-correctness issue, not circularity; the skeptic's note that only the SPAM offset alpha changes sign with prior state weakens it, and Algorithm 1's line-7 sign discrepancy (Delta f = 1/(4 tau) - mu vs Eq. (5) Delta f = 1/(4 tau) + mu) is an internal typo/correctness issue, not a circular reduction. Overall, no equation, prediction, or experimental result reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm's noise and SPAM parameters are independently measured, but the differential-measurement likelihood is an unverified modeling assumption that the central scaling claim depends on.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (SPAM bias coefficient) = -0.02
    Coefficient in the likelihood Eq. (2); fitted from preliminary state preparation and measurement error calibrations.
  • beta (SPAM visibility coefficient) = 0.6
    Coefficient in the likelihood Eq. (2); fitted from preliminary readout visibility measurements.
  • T (coherence cutoff time) = 10 µs
    Set slightly below the measured Hahn echo time T2E ~ 12 µs to be conservative; appears in the exponential decay of the likelihood.
  • initial prior sigma0 = 30 kHz (Ramsey/GST), 200 kHz (RB)
    Chosen by hand based on previously measured qubit frequency fluctuations.
  • number of measurements N per estimation = 8 (Ramsey), 15 (RB), 6 (GST)
    Chosen per experiment to balance feedback bandwidth and final uncertainty.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Quasistatic noise approximation: the frequency shift ε is constant over a few probing cycles.
    Assumed in deriving the phase ϕ = 2π(Δf - ε)τ in Section II.B.
  • domain assumption The prior and posterior distributions are approximated as Gaussian.
    Used to parametrize the distribution with two numbers; validated in the Supplemental Material via KL divergence, but not exact.
  • ad hoc to paper The likelihood in Eq. (2) correctly models the measurement outcome m_i = 2|s_i - s_{i-1}| - 1 without conditioning on s_{i-1}.
    This is the load-bearing model choice; the actual flip probability depends on the previous measurement outcome, which is not conditioned on.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Qubit Calibration by Binary-Search Hamiltonian Tracking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KD7MJLZA

@misc{pith2026250105386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Qubit Calibration by Binary-Search Hamiltonian Tracking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KD7MJLZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05386}
}
read the original abstract

We present and experimentally implement a real-time protocol for calibrating the frequency of a resonantly driven qubit, achieving exponential scaling in calibration precision with the number of measurements, up to the limit imposed by decoherence. The real-time processing capabilities of a classical controller dynamically generate adaptive probing sequences for qubit-frequency estimation. Each probing evolution time and drive frequency are calculated to divide the prior probability distribution into two branches, following a locally optimal strategy that mimics a conventional binary search. The scheme does not require repeated measurements at the same setting, as it accounts for state preparation and measurement errors. Its use of a parametrized probability distribution favors numerical accuracy and computational speed. We show the efficacy of the algorithm by stabilizing a flux-tunable transmon qubit, leading to improved coherence and gate fidelity. As benchmarked by gate-set tomography, the field-programmable gate array (FPGA) powered control electronics partially mitigates non-Markovian noise, which is detrimental to quantum error correction. The mitigation is achieved by dynamically updating and feeding forward the qubit frequency. Our protocol highlights the importance of feedback in improving the calibration and stability of qubits subject to drift and can be readily applied to other qubit platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05386 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_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_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ichikawa, H

    T. Ichikawa, H. Hakoshima, K. Inui, K. Ito, R. Matsuda, K. Mitarai, K. Miyamoto, W. Mizukami, K. Mizuta, T. Mori, Y. Nakano, A. Nakayama, K. N. Okada, T. Sug- imoto, S. Takahira, N. Takemori, S. Tsukano, H. Ueda, R. Watanabe, Y. Yoshida, and K. Fujii, Current numbers of qubits and their uses, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 345 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    For instance, if in the previous measurement the qubit was in the ground state si−1 = 0 and now it is in the excited state ( si = 1) then mi = +1

    mi = 2 |si −si−1| − 1. For instance, if in the previous measurement the qubit was in the ground state si−1 = 0 and now it is in the excited state ( si = 1) then mi = +1. The duration of the probe cycle is short compared to the measured T1 ≈ 80 µs at quarter flux: the average Ramsey evolu- tion time is ≈ 4.36 µs, the time used to read out the qubit is 1 .44...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Then it performs one Ramsey cycle with evolution time τj, after which it again estimates ε

    After each es- timation sequence of ε, the controller updates the qubit- frequency parameter fq (in software) to compensate for the estimated shift ⟨ε⟩, so that the total expected de- tuning becomes ∆fj − ⟨ε⟩ = 1 MHz. Then it performs one Ramsey cycle with evolution time τj, after which it again estimates ε. The intentional detuning of 1 MHz applied via t...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Campbell, A series of fast-paced advances in quantum error correction, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 160 (2024)

    E. Campbell, A series of fast-paced advances in quantum error correction, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 160 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Acharya, L

    R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. An- dersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. As- faw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, et al. , Quan- tum error correction below the surface code threshold 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13687 (2024)

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.13687 2024

  6. [6]

    H. Ball, W. D. Oliver, and M. J. Biercuk, The role of master clock stability in quantum information process- ing, npj Quantum Information 2, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim, M. Otten, N. A. Aadit, K. M. Bresniker, K. Y. Cam- sari, B. Chapman, S. Chatterjee, G. A. Dagnew, A. Es- posito, F. Fahim, M. Fiorentino, A. Khalid, X. Kong, B. Kulchytskyy, R. Li, P. A. Lott, I. L. Markov, R. F. McDermott, G. Pedretti, A. Gajjar, A. Silva, J. Sorebo, P. Spentzouris, Z. Steiner, B. Toros...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.10406 2024

  8. [8]

    Gebhart, R

    V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, E. M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezz` e, and C. Bonato, Learning quantum systems, Nature Re- views Physics 5, 141 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Reuer, J

    K. Reuer, J. Landgraf, T. F¨ osel, J. O’Sullivan, L. Beltr´ an, A. Akin, G. J. Norris, A. Remm, M. Kerschbaum, J.- C. Besse, et al. , Realizing a deep reinforcement learning agent for real-time quantum feedback, Nature Commu- nications 14, 7138 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    M. J. Arshad, C. Bekker, B. Haylock, K. Skrzypczak, D. White, B. Griffiths, J. Gore, G. W. Morley, P. Salter, J. Smith, I. Zohar, A. Finkler, Y. Altmann, E. M. Gauger, and C. Bonato, Real-time adaptive estimation of decoherence timescales for a single qubit, Physical Re- view Ap...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Berritta, T

    F. Berritta, T. Rasmussen, J. A. Krzywda, J. van der Heijden, F. Fedele, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Man- fra, E. van Nieuwenburg, J. Danon, A. Chatterjee, and F. Kuemmeth, Real-time two-axis control of a spin qubit, Nature Communications 15, 1676 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Dumoulin Stuyck, A

    N. Dumoulin Stuyck, A. E. Seedhouse, S. Serrano, T. Tanttu, W. Gilbert, J. Y. Huang, F. Hudson, K. M. 10 Itoh, A. Laucht, W. H. Lim, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, and A. S. Dzurak, Silicon spin qubit noise characterization using real-time feedback protocols and wavelet analysis, App...

    2024

  5. [13]

    N. R. Vora, Y. Xu, A. Hashim, N. Fruitwala, H. N. Nguyen, H. Liao, J. Balewski, A. Rajagopala, K. Nowrouzi, Q. Ji, et al. , ML-powered FPGA-based real-time quantum state discrimination enabling mid- circuit measurements 10.48550/arXiv.2406.18807 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Berritta, J

    F. Berritta, J. A. Krzywda, J. Benestad, J. van der Hei- jden, F. Fedele, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Man- fra, E. van Nieuwenburg, J. Danon, A. Chatterjee, and F. Kuemmeth, Physics-informed tracking of qubit fluc- tuations, Physical Review Applied 22, 014033 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. Park, H. Jang, H. Sohn, J. Yun, Y. Song, B. Kang, L. E. Stehouwer, D. D. Esposti, G. Scappucci, and D. Kim, Passive and active suppression of transduced noise in silicon spin qubits, Nature Communications 16, 78 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Kimmel, G

    S. Kimmel, G. H. Low, and T. J. Yoder, Robust calibra- tion of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation, Physical Review A 92, 062315 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    R. D. McMichael and S. M. Blakley, Simplified algo- rithms for adaptive experiment design in parameter esti- mation, Physical review applied 18, 054001 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hurant, K

    T. Hurant, K. Sun, Z. Jia, J. Kim, and K. R. Brown, Few-shot, robust calibration of single qubit gates using Bayesian robust phase estimation 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18339 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    de Neeve, A

    B. de Neeve, A. V. Lebedev, V. Negnevitsky, and J. P. Home, Time-adaptive phase estimation 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08930 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Krantz, M

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

    2019

  13. [21]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    J. B. Hertzberg, E. J. Zhang, S. Rosenblatt, E. Mage- san, J. A. Smolin, J.-B. Yau, V. P. Adiga, M. Sandberg, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, et al. , Laser-annealing Josephson junctions for yielding scaled-up superconducting quan- tum processors, npj Quantum Information 7, 129 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Berke, E

    C. Berke, E. Varvelis, S. Trebst, A. Altland, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Transmon platform for quantum computing challenged by chaotic fluctuations, Nature communica- tions 13, 2495 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Veps¨ al¨ ainen, R

    A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, R. Winik, A. H. Karamlou, J. Braum¨ uller, A. D. Paolo, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Improving qubit coherence using closed-loop feedback, Nature Communication...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Ferrie, C

    C. Ferrie, C. E. Granade, and D. G. Cory, How to best sample a periodic probability distribution, or on the ac- curacy of Hamiltonian finding strategies, Quantum Infor- mation Processing 12, 611 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Such non-Markovian decoherence arises from the envi- ronment’s finite memory, which introduces correlations between consecutive measurement outcomes

    The commonly used term non-Markovian noise refers to the non-unitary evolution of a quantum system that cannot be modeled by the Markovian master equation. Such non-Markovian decoherence arises from the envi- ronment’s finite memory, which introduces correlations between consec...

  19. [27]

    Hakoshima, Y

    H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. Endo, Relationship between costs for quantum error mitigation and non- Markovian measures, Physical Review A 103, 012611 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    J. F. Kam, S. Gicev, K. Modi, A. Southwell, and M. Us- man, Detrimental non-Markovian errors for surface code memory 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23779 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Physical Review Letters 82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  22. [30]

    Sza´ nkowski, G

    P. Sza´ nkowski, G. Ramon, J. Krzywda, D. Kwiatkowski, and /suppress L. Cywi´ nski, Environmental noise spectroscopy with qubits subjected to dynamical decoupling, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 333001 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Pataki, ´A

    D. Pataki, ´A. M´ arton, J. K. Asb´ oth, and A. P´ alyi, Coher- ent errors in stabilizer codes caused by quasistatic phase damping, Physical Review A 110, 012417 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Nielsen, J

    E. Nielsen, J. K. Gamble, K. Rudinger, T. Scholten, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Gate set tomography, Quantum 5, 557 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quan- tum gates, Physical Review A 77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    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 ...

    2021

  27. [35]

    [ 54–57]

    See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. [ 54–57]

  28. [36]

    Bonato, M

    C. Bonato, M. S. Blok, H. T. Dinani, D. W. Berry, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and R. Hanson, Opti- mized quantum sensing with a single electron spin using real-time adaptive measurements, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy 11, 247 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    T. Joas, S. Schmitt, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, C. Bon- ato, A. Laing, L. P. McGuinness, and F. Jelezko, Online adaptive quantum characterization of a nuclear spin, npj Quantum Information 7, 56 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    A. M. Childs, J. Preskill, and J. Renes, Quantum infor- mation and precision measurement, Journal of modern optics 47, 155 (2000)

    2000

  31. [39]

    R. S. Said, D. W. Berry, and J. Twamley, Nanoscale mag- netometry using a single-spin system in diamond, Phys- ical Review B 83, 125410 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Cappellaro, Spin-bath narrowing with adaptive pa- rameter estimation, Physical Review A 85, 030301 (2012)

    P. Cappellaro, Spin-bath narrowing with adaptive pa- rameter estimation, Physical Review A 85, 030301 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    N. M. Nusran, M. U. Momeen, and M. V. G. Dutt, High-dynamic-range magnetometry with a single elec- tronic spin in diamond, Nature Nanotechnology 7, 109 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Waldherr, J

    G. Waldherr, J. Beck, P. Neumann, R. S. Said, M. Nitsche, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, J. Twamley, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, High-dynamic-range mag- netometry with a single nuclear spin in diamond, Nature Nanotechnology 7, 105 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    The search does, however, follow a binary search tree where the two options at each node provide the 11 most information within the approximations we use

    We clarify that this is not a true binary search in the sense of gaining exactly one bit of information per measure- ment. The search does, however, follow a binary search tree where the two options at each node provide the 11 most information within the approximations we use....

  36. [44]

    In the limit µ/σ → 0, for m = +1, the likelihood function with zero phase (a squared cosine) has a single maximum at µ = 0 within the 95% credible interval of the prior distribution, and the corresponding posterior distribu- tion can be approximated by a Gaussian. In contrast,...

  37. [45]

    Benestad, J

    J. Benestad, J. A. Krzywda, E. van Nieuwenburg, and J. Danon, Efficient adaptive Bayesian estimation of a slowly fluctuating Overhauser field gradient, SciPost Physics 17, 014 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Instead, our protocol achieves exponential scaling with the number of single-shot mea- surements N

    Note that we do not claim exponential scaling with sens- ing time, which is fundamentally bounded by the Heisen- berg limit σ2(ε) ∼ 1/τ 2. Instead, our protocol achieves exponential scaling with the number of single-shot mea- surements N

  39. [47]

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

    2017

  40. [48]

    We believe that further improvements in the single-qubit gate fidelity could be achieved by us- ing the same settings as in the Ramsey experiment

    In the RB experiment, µ0 is reset to zero before each es- timation sequence, which explains the increased σ0 and N compared to the Ramsey experiment of the previous section, where we do not reset µ0 before each estima- tion sequence. We believe that further improvements in the...

  41. [49]

    P. J. J. O’Malley, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Camp- bell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mu- tus, C. Neill, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and...

    2015

  42. [50]

    Nielsen, K

    E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, A. Russo, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Probing quantum processor per- formance with pyGSTi, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy 5, 044002 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Hashim, L

    A. Hashim, L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, R. K. Naik, T. Chistolini, J. Hines, J. Marceaux, Y. Kim, P. Gokhale, et al. , A practical introduction to bench- marking and characterization of quantum computers 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12064 (2024)

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Y. R. Sanders, J. J. Wallman, and B. C. Sanders, Bound- ing quantum gate error rate based on reported average fidelity, New Journal of Physics 18, 012002 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Nakajima, A

    T. Nakajima, A. Noiri, K. Kawasaki, J. Yoneda, P. Stano, S. Amaha, T. Otsuka, K. Takeda, M. R. Delbecq, G. Al- lison, et al. , Coherence of a driven electron spin qubit actively decoupled from quasistatic noise, Physical Re- view X 10, 011060 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Liu, Y.-Y

    B.-J. Liu, Y.-Y. Wang, T. Sheffer, and C. Wang, Observation of discrete charge states of a coher- ent two-level system in a superconducting qubit 10.48550/arXiv.2401.12183 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    F. Ye, A. Ellaboudy, and J. M. Nichol, Stabilizing an individual charge fluctuator in a Si/SiGe quantum dot 10.48550/arXiv.2407.05439 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Paquelet Wuetz, D

    B. Paquelet Wuetz, D. Degli Esposti, A.-M. J. Zwerver, S. V. Amitonov, M. Botifoll, J. Arbiol, A. Sammak, L. M. Vandersypen, M. Russ, and G. Scappucci, Reduc- ing charge noise in quantum dots by using thin silicon quantum wells, Nature communications 14, 1385 (2023)

    2023

  49. [58]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking, Physical Re- view Letters 1...

    2012

  50. [59]

    Efficient Qubit Calibration by Binary-Search Hamiltonian Tracking

    P. J. Huber, Robust statistics, Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics (J. Wiley & sons, New York, 1981). Supplemental Material for “Efficient Qubit Calibration by Binary-Search Hamiltonian Tracking” Fabrizio Berritta Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachu...

    1981

  51. [60]

    J. S. Rojas-Arias, Y. Kojima, K. Takeda, P. Stano, T. Nakajima , J. Yoneda, A. Noiri, T. Kobayashi, D. Loss, and S. Tarucha, The origins of noise in the Zeeman splitting of spin qubits in n atural-silicon devices 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13707

    doi

  52. [61]

    Paquelet Wuetz, D

    B. Paquelet Wuetz, D. Degli Esposti, A.-M. J. Zwerver, S. V. Am itonov, M. Botifoll, J. Arbiol, A. Sammak, L. M. Vandersypen, M. Russ, and G. Scappucci, Reducing charge noise in quantum dots by using thin silicon quantum wells, Nature communications 14, 1385 (2023)

    2023

  53. [62]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Efficie nt measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking, Physical Review Letters 10...

    2012

  54. [63]

    P. J. Huber, Robust statistics , Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics (J. Wiley & sons, New York, 1981)

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.