Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Time-frequency-correlated Native CCZ Gate in Superconducting Circuits

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A native three-qubit CCZ gate from correlated two-photon absorption

desk verdict Simulated gate is a π-phase on |101>, not the CCZ on |111>; fidelity is computed against the wrong ideal unitary. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06497 v3 pith:KE7PGKB4 submitted 2025-09-08 quant-ph

Chenhui Wang , Weilong Wang , Yangyang Fei , Zhiqiang Fan , Hanshi Zhao , Yuyan Mage , Zheng Shan This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords CCZgatethree-qubitsuperconductingcircuitstwo-photonabsorptiontime-frequencyentanglementgeometricphasetunablecoupler
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

The paper proposes a concrete way to run a controlled-controlled-Z (CCZ) gate directly on a superconducting circuit, without decomposing it into many one- and two-qubit gates. The central trick is to use the nonlinear two-photon transition between states |101⟩ and |020⟩, where two photons from one qubit are absorbed by two other qubits in a time-frequency entangled way, creating an effective three-body interaction. The authors show that this interaction, combined with two short correction pulses, yields a simulated CCZ fidelity above 99% in 194 ns, and that the fidelity stays above 92% under realistic parameter drift. If correct, this would cut the circuit depth needed for algorithms like Grover search and QAOA, and could be extended to a continuous family of CCPhase(θ) gates and higher-order multi-qubit gates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective three-body interaction J a1 a3 Ξ+_2 + H.c., which couples the computational state |101⟩ with the leakage state |020⟩. The mechanism that makes this coupling nonzero is time-frequency entanglement of two photons emitted by qubit 2: because the higher-frequency photon ω'2 is emitted before ω2, the destructive interference between the two second-order paths U1 and U2 is lifted. The effective two-level Hamiltonian in the {|101⟩, |020⟩} subspace then produces coherent population oscillations that return the system to |101⟩ with a geometric π phase, while the parasitic phases are separately calibrated and compensated by two CPhase pulses.

What would settle it

Directly measuring the population transfer from |101⟩ to |020⟩ and back on a tunable-coupler device with the proposed pulse sequence: if the oscillation period and the final population do not match the predicted J and π-phase accumulation (and if the fidelity does not exceed the decomposed-gate baseline), the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a native CCZ gate can be implemented in a tunable-coupler superconducting circuit by engineering a resonant exchange between the three-qubit states |101⟩ and |020⟩, mediated by a time-frequency correlated two-photon process. The load-bearing mechanism is a cascaded transition in which the second excited state of the middle qubit decays into two time-frequency entangled photons, ensuring that the process U2 is suppressed and the two-photon matrix element survives, giving a coherent coupling J. The resulting nonadiabatic geometric π-phase on |101⟩, plus an active cancellation of parasitic ZZ and ZZZ dynamical phases by two short CPhase pulses (23.4 ns and 23.5

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that in the actual physical device the two-photon absorption is time-frequency correlated in the way that suppresses one of the two interfering paths, so that the effective three-body coupling J is nonzero and coherent; if this ordering is not realized, the geometric phase stage fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the protocol works as simulated, a CCZ gate can run in about 194 ns with fidelity above 99%, directly replacing decompositions of about six CZ gates and many single-qubit rotations.
  • The gate's short duration keeps it well within typical transmon coherence times, making it a practical candidate for NISQ-era circuits.
  • The same mechanism extends to a continuous CCPhase(θ) family by tuning the detuning between |101⟩ and |020⟩, enabling parametric three-qubit phase gates.
  • The scheme generalizes to multi-qubit gates such as CCCCZ by resonant coupling of a central qubit with multiple peripheral qubits.
  • The two-stage calibration procedure (geometric phase accumulation plus active CPhase cancellation) can in principle be ported to existing tunable-coupler hardware without extra control lines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not report an actual experimental implementation; the verification is numerical (QuTiP simulation). A direct laboratory test would be the decisive next step.
  • The time-frequency-ordering assumption that suppresses U2 is critical. If in practice the two photon transitions are not sufficiently time-ordered, the effective coupling J could fail, so the protocol's success hinges on this causality assumption.
  • A natural testable extension would be to measure the fidelity and leakage near the optimal operating point on real hardware, probing whether the predicted anti-crossing and oscillation period match the simulated values.
  • The leakage to |011⟩ and |110⟩ (reported as low as 2.5% at the optimal point) suggests a clear path for improvement by increasing anharmonicity, though the paper leaves that device-level modification for future work.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hardware-efficient protocol for a native CCZ gate in a tunable-coupler superconducting circuit, using a two-photon absorption process to resonantly couple |101> and |020> and accumulate a geometric π phase, followed by two CPhase pulses to cancel residual dynamical phases. The authors report a simulated fidelity exceeding 99% in 194 ns (165 ns in the abstract), robustness against coupling and detuning drifts, and extensions to continuous CCPhase(θ) and multi-qubit gates. The work is entirely theoretical/numerical; the conclusion states no experiment was performed.

Significance. If the protocol were correctly identified as implementing the CCZ gate of Eq. (1), this would be a valuable contribution: it offers a direct three-qubit gate with a physically motivated mechanism, a concrete calibration workflow, numerical validation, and robustness analysis. The authors also provide quantitative leakage analysis and discuss scalability. However, the central claim is undermined by a mismatch between the gate actually simulated and the CCZ target used for fidelity evaluation, and by inconsistencies between the abstract and the main text. As written, the headline fidelity does not support the claimed demonstration.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (9) and §IV, Eq. (10)] The realized unitary shown in Eq. (9) applies −1 to |101>, not to |111> as required by the CCZ definition in Eq. (1). The text acknowledges this is 'different from the conventional CCZ phase ... only by one single-qubit gate,' but no such single-qubit gate (e.g., X2) is included in the pulse sequence, the simulations, or the fidelity calculation. Consequently, U_real in Fig. 5 is not U_ideal used in Eq. (10). For these two diagonal unitaries differing only in the sign on |101> vs. |111>, |Tr(U_ideal† U_real)|² = 16 and the average fidelity in Eq. (10) is (16+8)/(8·9) = 1/3, not >99%. This is a load-bearing error: the paper's central claim of a native CCZ gate is not supported by the reported fidelity.
  2. [Abstract and §VI Conclusion] The abstract states 'we demonstrate a gate fidelity exceeding 99% within 165 ns,' while the main text and conclusion report a simulated fidelity of 99% in 194 ns and explicitly state 'the experimental implementation of the CCZ gate is not realized in this study.' The abstract overstates the result: no physical demonstration was performed, and the quoted time (165 ns) differs from the 194 ns used throughout the rest of the paper. This discrepancy must be corrected.
  3. [§IV and Appendix B] The Lindblad master-equation simulation yielding the 99% fidelity does not specify the relaxation and dephasing rates (T1, T2, or equivalent) used. Since the headline fidelity depends critically on these parameters, the result is not reproducible. The paper should list all decoherence parameters and, ideally, show the fidelity as a function of T1/T2 to establish the claimed robustness.
  4. [§III.A, Eq. (4)] The nonzero effective coupling J relies on the assumption that ω₂′ arrives before ω₂, suppressing the U₂ process and avoiding destructive interference. This ordering/causality argument is borrowed from Ref. [45] and is not derived for the present tunable-coupler circuit. If this assumption fails, the two-photon matrix element would vanish and the geometric phase stage would not work as described. A derivation or numerical evidence for this ordering in the proposed architecture is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Change 'demonstrate' to 'propose and simulate' and unify the gate time (165 ns vs. 194 ns).
  2. [General] There are several typos and grammatical issues, e.g., 'enhence' in the introduction, 'Ramsey' misspelled as 'Ramsy' in Appendix A, and inconsistent use of 'CPhase' vs. 'CZ' terminology.
  3. [Fig. 5] The unitary matrix plot should be labeled clearly with the sign pattern; the real part should visibly show the −1 element. As presented, the figure could be misread as showing a standard CCZ gate.
  4. [§IV] The explanation of the fidelity dips in Fig. 6 as 'spurious modes' is vague; please provide a quantitative account or remove the speculative attribution.
  5. [Appendix A] The relation between the CPhase gate durations (23.4 ns and 23.5 ns) and the phases to be canceled should be shown explicitly; currently the text only states the durations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-photon interaction is imported from external experiments, and the simulated fidelity is a calibrated design result, not a prediction that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no circular step that warrants a nonzero score. The chain is: (i) circuit Hamiltonian Eq. (2); (ii) Schrieffer-Wolff reduction to Eq. (3); (iii) the two-photon transition matrix element J in Eq. (4), which is taken from the external experimental/theoretical works [45,48] rather than from the present authors; (iv) projection into the {|101>, |020>} subspace giving Eq. (6); (v) design of a pulse that returns |101> with a π geometric phase; (vi) characterization and cancellation of parasitic ZZ/ZZZ phases with CPhase pulses; (vii) Lindblad-master-equation fidelity from Eq. (10) at the calibrated operating point. The π-phase condition and cancellation durations are design targets, and the reported >99% fidelity is the value achieved after the calibration loop in the same model. The paper explicitly acknowledges in the Conclusion that no experiment was performed: 'due to constraints of our available hardware setup, the experimental implementation of the CCZ gate is not realized in this study, forming a key objective for our subsequent work.' That is a standard numerical gate-design result, not a fitted parameter renamed as an independent prediction. The load-bearing physics—time-frequency-correlated two-photon absorption suppressing the U2 path—is imported from [45], an external experiment, so there is no self-citation chain. The only serious issue I see is the |101> versus |111> phase mismatch: Eq. (9) puts −1 on |101>, while the stated CCZ target Eq. (1) puts −1 on |111>. The paper says this differs 'only by one single-qubit gate' but never inserts that X pulse in the sequence or simulation. That is a correctness/benchmarking flaw, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central claim rests on a set of chosen circuit parameters and on prior two-photon absorption formalism. The most fragile inputs are the asserted time-frequency correlation ordering in Section III.A and the unspecified decoherence rates used in the fidelity simulations.

free parameters (6)
  • Qubit operating frequencies omega1, omega2, omega3 = 5.018, 5.18, 4.98 GHz
    Design values chosen to satisfy the resonance condition omega1 + omega3 = omega2 + omega2' and to set the |101><->|020| transition.
  • Qubit anharmonicity eta = -0.35 GHz
    Selected value; the paper notes that larger |eta| would reduce leakage to |011> and |110>, implying the chosen value is a design trade-off.
  • Effective qubit-qubit coupling g~ = 0.015 GHz
    Chosen tunable-coupler coupling strength; the robustness scan is centered on this value.
  • Main interaction duration = 147 ns
    Selected from a 2D scan so that the |101> to |020> oscillation returns with the desired geometric pi phase.
  • Cancellation pulse durations tau12, tau23 = 23.4 ns, 23.5 ns
    Chosen so that the accumulated conditional phase cancels residual ZZ and ZZZ phases.
  • Working detuning Delta|101><->|020> = not stated explicitly
    Chosen operating point from scans; it sets the phase and minimizes leakage, marked by the optimal point in Fig. 4(d) and Fig. A2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Qubits and couplers are Duffing oscillators governed by Eq. (2).
    Standard transmon model; the entire Hamiltonian and effective coupling derivation depend on it.
  • domain assumption Schrieffer-Wolff transformation decouples couplers and yields Eq. (3).
    Requires weak coupling and convergent perturbation expansion; if invalid, the effective couplings g~12 and g~23 are not accurate.
  • domain assumption Two-photon transition amplitude J obeys Eq. (4) with k_ij much smaller than |omega_i - omega_j|.
    Borrowed from prior two-photon absorption work [45]; strong suppression of single-photon terms is essential for the mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper Time-frequency correlation ensures omega_2' arrives before omega_2, suppressing the U_2 path.
    Section III.A and Fig. 2(b); this causality assumption is asserted, not derived, and is the basis for deterministic |101><->|020| exchange.
  • domain assumption Residual ZZ and ZZZ phases are additive and can be compensated by two CPhase gates.
    Section III.B and Appendix A; assumes the cancellation pulses do not introduce significant new crosstalk or phases.
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with generic decoherence describes the hardware.
    Section IV; the 99% fidelity is computed with this model, but the relaxation and dephasing rates are not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-frequency-correlated Native CCZ Gate in Superconducting Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KE7PGKB4

@misc{pith2026250906497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-frequency-correlated Native CCZ Gate in Superconducting Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KE7PGKB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06497}
}
abstract

Practical quantum advantage hinges on executing deep quantum circuits within the coherence limits of noisy intermediate-scale quantum processors. The absence of native, high-fidelity multi-qubit gates remains a major bottleneck, as their decomposition into single- and two-qubit gates leads to prohibitive depth and error overhead. Here, we propose a hardware-efficient protocol that directly implements a native controlled-controlled-Z (CCZ) gate in a tunable-coupler superconducting circuit. Our theoretical protocol activates a resonant three-qubit interaction via a time-frequency correlated virtual process, explicitly relying on the dynamic resonant exchange within the $|101\rangle \leftrightarrow |020\rangle$ transition manifold. This approach is compatible with standard tunable-coupler architectures without requiring additional control resources. Through a systematic calibration workflow combining pulse shaping and active cancellation of residual phases, we demonstrate a gate fidelity exceeding 99\% within $165\,\mathrm{ns}$ -- significantly outperforming decomposed sequences. Comprehensive error budgeting confirms that the gate performance remains robust against realistic experimental imperfections. Furthermore, we show that this scheme can be naturally extended to a continuous $\mathrm{CCPhase}(\theta)$ gate set. This work provides a direct, high-fidelity route to three-qubit entanglement, offering promising prospects for efficient execution of quantum algorithms on near-term superconducting hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06497 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Toffoli gate implementations: Conventional de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Schematic of the CCZ gate implementation prin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Calibration procedure. (a)(c) Calibration of transverse qubit-qubit coupling strength versus flux-bias voltage (V) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Unitary matrix representation of the realized three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Robustness against experimental parameter drift: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Excited-state population of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    J. J. Fan, Z.-Y. Ou, and Z. Zhang, Entangled photons en- 11 abled ultrafast stimulated raman spectroscopy for molec- ular dynamics, Light: Science & Applications13, 163 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    (3) Notably, the effective coupling strengths ˜g 12,˜g23 are explicit functions of the detuning between the computa- tional qubits and their mediating couplers

    + ˜g23(a† 2a3 +a 2a† 3). (3) Notably, the effective coupling strengths ˜g 12,˜g23 are explicit functions of the detuning between the computa- tional qubits and their mediating couplers. This setup allows continuous, in-situ adjustment of the inter-qubit coupling strength by varying the coupler frequency. (a) (b) CPhase(θ) VZ VZ VZ U |020⟩ |011⟩ |101⟩ |110...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction, Nature595, 383 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, H. Guan, Q. Zhu, Z. Wei, T. He, S. Cao, et al., Realization of an error-correcting surface code with superconducting qubits, Physical Review Letters129, 030501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code log- ical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    Z. Ni, S. Li, X. Deng, Y. Cai, L. Zhang, W. Wang, Z. B. Yang, H. Yu, F. Yan, S. Liu, et al., Beating the break- even point with a discrete-variable-encoded logical qubit, Nature616, 56 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code thresh- old, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    D. Gao, D. Fan, C. Zha, J. Bei, G. Cai, J. Cai, S. Cao, F. Chen, J. Chen, K. Chen, et al., Establishing a new benchmark in quantum computational advantage with 105-qubit zuchongzhi 3.0 processor, Physical Review Let- ters134, 090601 (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Physical review A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  3. [10]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A—Atomic, 10 Molecular, and Optical Physics86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  4. [11]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Gidney and M

    C. Gidney and M. Eker ˚ a, How to factor 2048 bit rsa in- tegers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, Quantum 5, 433 (2021)

  6. [13]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, et al., Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    Augustino, M

    B. Augustino, M. Cain, E. Farhi, S. Gupta, S. Gutmann, D. Ranard, E. Tang, and K. Van Kirk, Strategies for running the qaoa at hundreds of qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03015 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computa- tion, Physical review A52, 3457 (1995)

    1995

  9. [16]

    Banchi, N

    L. Banchi, N. Pancotti, and S. Bose, Quantum gate learning in qubit networks: Toffoli gate without time- dependent control, npj Quantum Information2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Programmable superconducting processor with native three-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 014072 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Ufrecht, M

    C. Ufrecht, M. Periyasamy, S. Rietsch, D. D. Scherer, A. Plinge, and C. Mutschler, Cutting multi-control quan- tum gates with zx calculus, Quantum7, 1147 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack, Physical review letters79, 325 (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    Paetznick and B

    A. Paetznick and B. W. Reichardt, Universal fault- tolerant quantum computation with only transversal gates¡? format?¿ and error correction, Physical review letters111, 090505 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Itoko, M

    T. Itoko, M. Malekakhlagh, N. Kanazawa, and M. Takita, Three-qubit parity gate via simultaneous cross-resonance drives, Physical Review Applied21, 034018 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y. Kim, E. Younis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Em- powering a qudit-based quantum processor by travers- ing the dual bosonic ladder, Nature Communications15, 7117 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. V. Semenin, K. P. Galstyan, A. E. Korolkov, E. O. Kik- tenko, K. Y. Khabarova, I. A. Semerikov, A. K. Fedorov, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Scalable improvement of the gen- eralized toffoli gate realization using trapped-ion-based...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Q. Wang, D. Lyu, J. Liu, and J. Wang, Polarization and orbital angular momentum encoded quantum toffoli gate enabled by diffractive neural networks, Physical Review Letters133, 140601 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and C. Bruder, Quantum-control approach to realizing a tof- foli gate in circuit qed, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics85, 054504 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Fedorov, L

    A. Fedorov, L. Steffen, M. Baur, M. P. da Silva, and A. Wallraff, Implementation of a toffoli gate with super- conducting circuits, Nature481, 170 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    O. Katz, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, N-body interactions between trapped ion qubits via spin-dependent squeez- ing, Physical Review Letters129, 063603 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    J. Chu, X. He, Y. Zhou, J. Yuan, L. Zhang, Q. Guo, Y. Hai, Z. Han, C.-K. Hu, W. Huang, et al., Scalable algorithm simplification using quantum and logic, Nature physics19, 126 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Y. Kim, A. Morvan, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, High-fidelity three-qubit i toffoli gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits, Nature physics18, 783 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Zahedinejad, J

    E. Zahedinejad, J. Ghosh, and B. C. Sanders, High- fidelity single-shot toffoli gate via quantum control, Phys- ical review letters114, 200502 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    G¨ oppert-Mayer,¨Uber elementarakte mit zwei quan- tenspr¨ ungen, Annalen der Physik401, 273 (1931)

    M. G¨ oppert-Mayer,¨Uber elementarakte mit zwei quan- tenspr¨ ungen, Annalen der Physik401, 273 (1931)

    1931

  26. [34]

    Maruo, O

    S. Maruo, O. Nakamura, and S. Kawata, Three- dimensional microfabrication with two-photon-absorbed photopolymerization, Optics letters22, 132 (1997)

    1997

  27. [35]

    A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Quantum interfero- metric optical lithography: exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction limit, Physical Review Letters85, 2733 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    H. Wang, W. Zhang, D. Ladika, H. Yu, D. Gaileviˇ cius, H. Wang, C.-F. Pan, P. N. S. Nair, Y. Ke, T. Mori,et al., Two-photon polymerization lithography for optics and photonics: fundamentals, materials, technologies, and applications, Advanced Functional Materials33, 2214211 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    W. Denk, J. H. Strickler, and W. W. Webb, Two-photon laser scanning fluorescence microscopy, Science248, 73 (1990)

    1990

  30. [38]

    Y. Hang, J. Boryczka, and N. Wu, Visible-light and near- infrared fluorescence and surface-enhanced raman scat- tering point-of-care sensing and bio-imaging: a review, Chemical Society Reviews51, 329 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Y.-M. He, H. Wang, C. Wang, M.-C. Chen, X. Ding, J. Qin, Z.-C. Duan, S. Chen, J.-P. Li, R.-Z. Liu,et al., Co- herently driving a single quantum two-level system with dichromatic laser pulses, Nature Physics15, 941 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Arakawa and M

    Y. Arakawa and M. J. Holmes, Progress in quantum-dot single photon sources for quantum information technolo- gies: A broad spectrum overview, Applied Physics Re- views7(2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Gea-Banacloche, Two-photon absorption of nonclassi- cal light, Physical review letters62, 1603 (1989)

    J. Gea-Banacloche, Two-photon absorption of nonclassi- cal light, Physical review letters62, 1603 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    Javanainen and P

    J. Javanainen and P. L. Gould, Linear intensity depen- dence of a two-photon transition rate, Physical Review A41, 5088 (1990)

    1990

  35. [43]

    Muthukrishnan, G

    A. Muthukrishnan, G. S. Agarwal, and M. O. Scully, In- ducing disallowed two-atom transitions with temporally entangled photons, Physical review letters93, 093002 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    K. E. Dorfman, F. Schlawin, and S. Mukamel, Nonlin- ear optical signals and spectroscopy with quantum light, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 045008 (2016)

    2016

  37. [46]

    W. Ren, W. Liu, C. Song, H. Li, Q. Guo, Z. Wang, D. Zheng, G. S. Agarwal, M. O. Scully, S.-Y. Zhu, et al., Simultaneous excitation of two noninteracting atoms with time-frequency correlated photon pairs in a superconducting circuit, Physical Review Letters125, 133601 (2020)

    2020

  38. [47]

    Zhang, H

    K. Zhang, H. Li, P. Zhang, J. Yuan, J. Chen, W. Ren, Z. Wang, C. Song, D.-W. Wang, H. Wang,et al., Synthe- sizing five-body interaction in a superconducting quan- tum circuit, Physical Review Letters128, 190502 (2022)

    2022

  39. [48]

    M. A. Aamir, P. Jamet Suria, J. A. Mar ´ ın Guzm´ an, C. Castillo-Moreno, J. M. Epstein, N. Yunger Halpern, and S. Gasparinetti, Thermally driven quantum refriger- ator autonomously resets a superconducting qubit, Na- ture Physics21, 318 (2025)

    2025

  40. [49]

    Liu, B.-J

    H.-T. Liu, B.-J. Chen, J.-C. Zhang, Y.-X. Xiao, T.-M. Li, K. Huang, Z. Wang, H. Li, K. Zhao, Y. Xu, et al., Direct implementation of high-fidelity three-qubit gates for su- perconducting processor with tunable couplers, Physical Review Letters135, 050602 (2025)

    2025

  41. [50]

    R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Realization of high-fidelity cz gate based on a double-transmon coupler, Physical Review X14, 041050 (2024)

    2024

  42. [51]

    Shi, Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation, Quantum Info

    Y. Shi, Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation, Quantum Info. Comput.3, 84 (2002)

    2002

  43. [52]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer physics communica- tions183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  44. [53]

    Hutchings, J

    M. Hutchings, J. B. Hertzberg, Y. Liu, N. T. Bronn, G. A. Keefe, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and B. Plourde, Tunable superconducting qubits with flux-independent coherence, Physical Review Applied8, 044003 (2017)

    2017

  45. [54]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Physical Review Applied10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  46. [55]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrieffer–wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Annals of physics326, 2793 (2011)

    2011

  47. [56]

    Zheng, P

    Z. Zheng, P. L. Saldanha, J. R. Rios Leite, and C. Fabre, Two-photon–two-atom excitation by correlated light states, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics88, 033822 (2013)

    2013

  48. [57]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient z gates for quantum comput- ing, Physical Review A96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  49. [58]

    L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Fidelity of quantum operations, Physics Letters A367, 47 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.