arxiv: 2604.05693 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

A plug-and-play superconducting quantum controller at millikelvin temperatures enables exceeding 99.9% average gate fidelity

Kuang Liu , Zhiyuan Wang , Xiaoliang He , Siqi Li , Hao Wu , Xiangyu Ren , Zhengqi Niu , Wangpeng Gao

show 7 more authors

Chenluo Zhang Pei Huang Yu Wu Liliang Ying Wei Peng Jaw-Shen Tsai Zhirong Lin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords superconducting quantum controllermillikelvin operationgate fidelityrandomized benchmarkingchip-to-chip interconnectionJosephson junction circuitscryogenic control

0 comments

The pith

Superconducting quantum controller at millikelvin temperatures exceeds 99.9% average gate fidelity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows a superconducting controller that connects directly chip-to-chip with qubits at 10 millikelvin and carries out all-digital gate operations. Randomized benchmarking measures an average Clifford fidelity of 99.9 percent together with leakage to higher levels around one part in ten thousand. The device is estimated to use only 0.121 femtojoules per gate on average. This setup is presented as a way to avoid the heat and wiring problems that currently limit how many qubits can be controlled in superconducting quantum processors.

Core claim

The central claim is that a plug-and-play superconducting quantum controller based on Josephson junction circuits can operate at 10 mK, interconnect directly with qubits, and deliver high-fidelity all-digital control. Randomized benchmarking on the controller establishes a uniformly high average Clifford fidelity of 99.9 percent with leakage on the order of 10 to the minus 4, plus an average gate energy of 0.121 fJ, thereby addressing the control bottleneck for scaling superconducting quantum computers.

What carries the argument

The plug-and-play superconducting quantum controller that performs all-digital manipulation through direct chip-to-chip interconnection at cryogenic temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The reported fidelity and low leakage arise from the controller design itself rather than being shaped by the specific chip-to-chip connections or the randomized benchmarking protocol.

What would settle it

Independent measurement of gate sequences in a multi-qubit setup using the same controller shows accumulated errors that push average fidelity well below 99.9 percent or leakage rates clearly above 10 to the minus 4.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05693 by Chenluo Zhang, Hao Wu, Jaw-Shen Tsai, Kuang Liu, Liliang Ying, Pei Huang, Siqi Li, Wangpeng Gao, Wei Peng, Xiangyu Ren, Xiaoliang He, Yu Wu, Zhengqi Niu, Zhirong Lin, Zhiyuan Wang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Single qubit control with a superconducting quantum controller. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Gate fidelity benchmarking. a, Depolarizing curves for the reference RB sequence and the IRB sequence with XSQC/2 gates that demonstrate the relationship between ground state probability and the number of Clifford gates. Each data point is the average of 100 random sequences. b, Average and individual gate fidelities excluding the identity, ±Z, Z. and XSQC/2, are also identified, with corresponding durati… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Purity and leakage randomized benchmarking. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Thermal excited-state population estimation. After the superconducting quantum controller operates for a duration tSQC (0–50 µs) with clock frequencies detuned by 50 MHz from the subharmonic conditions: ωSQC ≈ ω01/2 + 2π ×50 MHz (blue), ω01/3+ 2π ×50 MHz (green), and ω01/5+ 2π ×50 MHz (red), the thermal excited-state population Pe is extracted using JPA-assisted single-shot dispersive readout. The gra… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The development of large-scale superconducting quantum computing requires efficient in-situ control methods that allow high-fidelity operations at millikelvin temperatures. Superconducting circuits based on Josephson junctions offer a promising solution due to their high speed, low power dissipation, and cryogenic nature. Here, we report a superconducting quantum controller that enables direct chip-to-chip interconnection with qubits at 10 mK and high-fidelity, all-digital manipulation. Randomized benchmarking reveals a uniformly high average Clifford fidelity of 99.9% with leakage to high energy levels on the order of $10^{-4}$, and an estimated average gate operation energy of 0.121 fJ, demonstrating the potential to resolve the control bottleneck in superconducting quantum computing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper reports a working millikelvin superconducting controller with direct chip-to-chip links that hits 99.9% Clifford fidelity, but the evidence tying that number specifically to the controller design is still thin.

read the letter

The core result is a plug-and-play all-digital controller fabricated in superconducting tech that operates at 10 mK, connects straight to the qubit chip, and delivers 99.9% average Clifford fidelity plus leakage around 10^{-4} according to randomized benchmarking. They also quote an average gate energy of 0.121 fJ. That combination is the practical advance: it shows you can move control electronics into the cold stage without killing coherence or adding huge heat load, which matters for scaling beyond a few hundred qubits where room-temperature wiring becomes a real problem. The implementation looks clean on the hardware side—Josephson-junction based, low dissipation, and they actually measured it on a real device rather than just simulating. That part is worth noting because most cryogenic controller papers stop at component-level tests. The soft spot is attribution. The abstract and results present the high fidelity as enabled by this controller, yet there is no direct comparison to conventional room-temperature control on the identical qubit chip, nor a clear decomposition of error sources that isolates controller-induced contributions from qubit intrinsic errors or interconnect parasitics. Without that baseline or an explicit error budget, it is hard to know whether the 99.9% number is limited by the controller or simply reflects a decent qubit. The leakage number is low, but again the protocol details would need checking to confirm it is not masked by the benchmarking sequence itself. This paper is aimed at experimentalists building larger superconducting processors who care about control-line heat and wiring density. A reader who already works on cryogenic electronics or qubit packaging will get the most out of the hardware description and the energy figure. It is worth sending to peer review because the experimental demonstration is concrete and the problem it targets is real, even if the current write-up needs tighter controls on what is being claimed versus what is measured.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a plug-and-play superconducting quantum controller operating at millikelvin temperatures that enables direct chip-to-chip interconnection with qubits and all-digital manipulation. Randomized benchmarking on the integrated system yields an average Clifford fidelity of 99.9% with leakage to higher levels of order 10^{-4} and an estimated average gate energy of 0.121 fJ, presented as a route to resolving the control bottleneck in superconducting quantum computing.

Significance. If the reported metrics can be attributed to the controller's cryogenic, low-dissipation design rather than the qubit or interconnect, the work would offer a concrete path toward reducing wiring complexity and heat load in large-scale superconducting processors. The combination of high fidelity, low leakage, and sub-femtojoule operation per gate is a notable experimental benchmark for cryogenic control electronics.

major comments (2)

[Results / Randomized benchmarking] The central claim that the controller enables >99.9% fidelity and ~10^{-4} leakage requires isolation of controller-induced errors. No baseline comparison to conventional room-temperature control on the same qubit device is presented, nor is there a decomposition of error sources from the chip-to-chip link or RB protocol details (see Results section on randomized benchmarking).
[Experimental Methods] The abstract states experimental results from randomized benchmarking but the manuscript provides no detailed methods, raw data, error bars, or exclusion criteria. This leaves the 99.9% fidelity and leakage values with limited verifiable support (see Experimental Methods and Figure captions for RB data).

minor comments (2)

[Discussion / Energy estimation] Clarify the assumptions and measurement protocol used to arrive at the 0.121 fJ average gate operation energy estimate.
[Figures] Ensure all figures reporting fidelity or leakage include explicit error bars and state the number of randomized sequences or shots used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results / Randomized benchmarking] The central claim that the controller enables >99.9% fidelity and ~10^{-4} leakage requires isolation of controller-induced errors. No baseline comparison to conventional room-temperature control on the same qubit device is presented, nor is there a decomposition of error sources from the chip-to-chip link or RB protocol details (see Results section on randomized benchmarking).

Authors: We agree that explicit isolation of controller-induced errors strengthens the central claim. A direct baseline comparison using conventional room-temperature electronics on the identical qubit device was not performed, as the experimental focus was the integrated cryogenic plug-and-play architecture at 10 mK. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Results section that decomposes error contributions from the chip-to-chip interconnect (using separate characterization data) and from the RB protocol (sequence lengths, fitting model, and leakage extraction). This provides a quantitative attribution of the observed 99.9 % fidelity and 10^{-4} leakage without requiring a new experimental campaign. revision: partial
Referee: [Experimental Methods] The abstract states experimental results from randomized benchmarking but the manuscript provides no detailed methods, raw data, error bars, or exclusion criteria. This leaves the 99.9% fidelity and leakage values with limited verifiable support (see Experimental Methods and Figure captions for RB data).

Authors: We accept that the original Experimental Methods section lacked sufficient detail. The revised manuscript expands this section to include the full RB protocol (pulse sequences, number of sequences, Clifford group generation), raw data traces (now shown in supplementary figures), statistical error bars on all reported fidelities and leakage rates, and explicit data-exclusion criteria. These additions directly support the quoted 99.9 % average Clifford fidelity and ~10^{-4} leakage values. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Direct experimental baseline comparison to room-temperature control electronics performed on the identical qubit device, which was outside the scope of the presented cryogenic-controller experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurements with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper is a direct experimental report of a fabricated controller and measured gate fidelities via standard randomized benchmarking on the integrated system. No equations derive a 'prediction' from fitted inputs, no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem or self-referential definition is invoked. The reported 99.9% fidelity and leakage figures are raw experimental outputs, not quantities that reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction. Attribution questions (controller vs. system) are experimental design issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental performance demonstration rather than a theoretical derivation, so the ledger contains only background assumptions of superconducting circuit physics.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard quantum mechanics and Josephson junction circuit theory govern qubit and controller behavior
Invoked implicitly to interpret gate operations and fidelity measurements at millikelvin temperatures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5472 in / 1098 out tokens · 54977 ms · 2026-05-10T19:08:37.319643+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Long-range tunable coupler for modular fluxonium quantum processors
quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

A tunable coupler design enables sub-100 ns two-qubit gates with errors below 10^{-4} between fluxonium qubits over 1 cm distances for modular architectures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Schwartz, Jochen Braum¨ uller, Philip Krantz, Joel I.- J

Morten Kjaergaard, Mollie E. Schwartz, Jochen Braum¨ uller, Philip Krantz, Joel I.- J. Wang, Simon Gustavsson, and William D. Oliver. Superconducting qubits: current state of play.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 11(1):369–395, 2020

2020
[2]

Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

2019
[3]

Quantum walks on a pro- grammable two-dimensional 62-qubit super- conducting processor.Science, 372(6545):948– 952, 2021

Ming Gong, Shiyu Wang, Chen Zha, Ming- Cheng Chen, He-Liang Huang, Yulin Wu, Qin- gling Zhu, Youwei Zhao, Shaowei Li, Shao- jun Guo, et al. Quantum walks on a pro- grammable two-dimensional 62-qubit super- conducting processor.Science, 372(6545):948– 952, 2021

2021
[4]

First 100-QUBIT quantum com- puter enters crowded race.Nature, 599:542, 2021

Philip Ball. First 100-QUBIT quantum com- puter enters crowded race.Nature, 599:542, 2021

2021
[5]

Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system

Jay M Gambetta, Jerry M Chow, and Matthias Steffen. Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system. npj quantum information, 3(1):2, 2017

2017
[6]

How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits.Quantum, 5:433, 2021

Craig Gidney and Martin Eker˚ a. How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits.Quantum, 5:433, 2021

2048
[7]

Mohseni et al., How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits, arXiv:2411.10406

Masoud Mohseni, Artur Scherer, K Grace Johnson, Oded Wertheim, Matthew Otten, Navid Anjum Aadit, Yuri Alexeev, Kirk M Bresniker, Kerem Y Camsari, Barbara Chap- man, et al. How to build a quantum super- computer: Scaling from hundreds to millions of qubits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10406, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

Rent’s rule and extensibility in quantum comput- ing.Microprocessors and Microsystems, 67: 1–7, 2019

David P Franke, James S Clarke, Lieven MK Vandersypen, and Menno Veldhorst. Rent’s rule and extensibility in quantum comput- ing.Microprocessors and Microsystems, 67: 1–7, 2019

2019
[9]

29.1 A 28nm bulk-CMOS 4-to-8GHz 2mW cryogenic pulse modulator for scalable quantum computing

Joseph C Bardin, Evan Jeffrey, Erik Lucero, Trent Huang, Ofer Naaman, Rami Barends, Ted White, Marissa Giustina, Daniel Sank, Pe- dram Roushan, et al. 29.1 A 28nm bulk-CMOS 4-to-8GHz 2mW cryogenic pulse modulator for scalable quantum computing. In2019 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference- (ISSCC), pages 456–458. IEEE, 2019

2019
[10]

A cryo- genic CMOS chip for generating control signals for multiple qubits.Nature Electronics, 4(1): 64–70, 2021

SJ Pauka, K Das, R Kalra, A Moini, Y Yang, M Trainer, A Bousquet, C Can- taloube, N Dick, GC Gardner, et al. A cryo- genic CMOS chip for generating control signals for multiple qubits.Nature Electronics, 4(1): 64–70, 2021

2021
[11]

Control and readout of a supercon- ducting qubit using a photonic link.Nature, 591(7851):575–579, 2021

Florent Lecocq, Franklyn Quinlan, Katarina Cicak, Jose Aumentado, SA Diddams, and JD Teufel. Control and readout of a supercon- ducting qubit using a photonic link.Nature, 591(7851):575–579, 2021

2021
[12]

Quantum–classical interface based on single flux quantum digital logic

R McDermott, MG Vavilov, BLT Plourde, FK Wilhelm, PJ Liebermann, OA Mukhanov, and TA Ohki. Quantum–classical interface based on single flux quantum digital logic. Quantum science and technology, 3(2):024004, 2018

2018
[13]

McDermott, and Maxim G

Kangbo Li, R. McDermott, and Maxim G. Vavilov. Hardware-efficient qubit control with single-flux-quantum pulse sequences.Phys. Rev. Appl., 12:014044, Jul 2019

2019
[14]

Mohammad Reza Jokar, Richard Rines, Ghasem Pasandi, Haolin Cong, Adam Holmes, Yunong Shi, Massoud Pedram, and Frederic T. Chong. DigiQ: A scalable digital controller for quantum computers using SFQ logic. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High- Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), pages 400–414, 2022

2022
[15]

L. Howe, M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, A. J. Sirois, D. Olaya, J. Biesecker, P. D. Dressel- haus, S. P. Benz, and P. F. Hopkins. Digi- tal control of a superconducting qubit using a Josephson pulse generator at 3 K.PRX Quan- tum, 3:010350, Mar 2022. 7

2022
[16]

Compact RSFQ microwave pulse generator based on an integrated RF mod- ule for controlling superconducting qubits

Yuxing He, Hongxiang Shen, Shiori Michibayashi, Xihua Zou, Xiaojun Xie, Lianshan Yan, Wei Pan, and Nobuyuki Yoshikawa. Compact RSFQ microwave pulse generator based on an integrated RF mod- ule for controlling superconducting qubits. Applied Physics Letters, 120(6):062601, 2022

2022
[17]

QECOOL: on-line quantum error correction with a superconducting decoder for surface code

Yosuke Ueno, Masaaki Kondo, Masamitsu Tanaka, Yasunari Suzuki, and Yutaka Tabuchi. QECOOL: on-line quantum error correction with a superconducting decoder for surface code. In2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 451–456, 2021

2021
[18]

Leonard, M

E. Leonard, M. A. Beck, J. Nelson, B.G. Christensen, T. Thorbeck, C. Howington, A. Opremcak, I.V. Pechenezhskiy, K. Dodge, N.P. Dupuis, M.D. Hutchings, J. Ku, F. Schlenker, J. Suttle, C. Wilen, S. Zhu, M.G. Vavilov, B.L.T. Plourde, and R. McDermott. Digital coherent control of a superconducting qubit.Phys. Rev. Appl., 11:014009, Jan 2019

2019
[19]

Quasiparticle dynam- ics in superconducting quantum-classical hy- brid circuits.Phys

Kuang Liu, Xiaoliang He, Zhengqi Niu, Hang Xue, Wenbing Jiang, Liliang Ying, Wei Peng, Masaaki Maezawa, Zhirong Lin, Xiaoming Xie, and Zhen Wang. Quasiparticle dynam- ics in superconducting quantum-classical hy- brid circuits.Phys. Rev. B, 108:064512, Aug 2023

2023
[20]

C.H. Liu, A. Ballard, D. Olaya, D.R. Schmidt, J. Biesecker, T. Lucas, J. Ullom, S. Patel, O. Rafferty, A. Opremcak, K. Dodge, V. Iaia, T. McBroom, J.L. DuBois, P.F. Hopkins, S.P. Benz, B.L.T. Plourde, and R. McDermott. Single flux quantum-based digital control of superconducting qubits in a multichip module. PRX Quantum, 4:030310, Jul 2023

2023
[21]

C. H. Liu, D. C. Harrison, S. Patel, C. D. Wilen, O. Rafferty, A. Shearrow, A. Ballard, V. Iaia, J. Ku, B. L. T. Plourde, and R. Mc- Dermott. Quasiparticle poisoning of super- conducting qubits from resonant absorption of pair-breaking photons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132: 017001, Jan 2024

2024
[22]

Surface codes: towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(3):032324, 2012

Austin G Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M Martinis, and Andrew N Cleland. Surface codes: towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(3):032324, 2012

2012
[23]

Quan- tum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638(8052):920–926, 2025

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. Quan- tum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638(8052):920–926, 2025

2025
[24]

A quantum computer controlled by supercon- ducting digital electronics at millikelvin tem- perature.Nature Electronics, pages 1–8, 2026

Caleb Jordan, Jacob Bernhardt, Joseph Ra- hamim, Alex Kirichenko, Karthik Bharadwaj, Louis Fry-Bouriaux, Aaron Somoroff, Katie Porsch, Kan-Ting Tsai, Jason Walter, et al. A quantum computer controlled by supercon- ducting digital electronics at millikelvin tem- perature.Nature Electronics, pages 1–8, 2026

2026
[25]

M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, A. J. Sirois, D. I. Olaya, J. Biesecker, S. P. Benz, and P. F. Hop- kins. Characterization of leakage errors in a transmon qubit due to resonant digital con- trol.Applied Physics Letters, 127(23):232601, 12 2025. ISSN 0003-6951

2025
[26]

Wallman, Brandon Buonacorsi, Franklin H

Guanru Feng, Joel J. Wallman, Brandon Buonacorsi, Franklin H. Cho, Daniel K. Park, Tao Xin, Dawei Lu, Jonathan Baugh, and Ray- mond Laflamme. Estimating the coherence of noise in quantum control of a solid-state qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:260501, Dec 2016

2016
[27]

Estimating the coher- ence of noise.New Journal of Physics, 17(11): 113020, nov 2015

Joel Wallman, Chris Granade, Robin Harper, and Steven T Flammia. Estimating the coher- ence of noise.New Journal of Physics, 17(11): 113020, nov 2015

2015
[28]

Wood and Jay M

Christopher J. Wood and Jay M. Gambetta. Quantification and characterization of leakage errors.Phys. Rev. A, 97:032306, Mar 2018

2018
[29]

Single- flux-quantum-based qubit control with tunable driving strength.Chinese Physics B, 32(12): 128501, 2023

Kuang Liu, Yifan Wang, Bo Ji, Wanpeng Gao, Zhirong Lin, and Zhen Wang. Single- flux-quantum-based qubit control with tunable driving strength.Chinese Physics B, 32(12): 128501, 2023

2023
[30]

Compact pulse schedules for high-fidelity single-flux quantum qubit control.Phys

Ross Shillito, Florian Hopfmueller, Bohdan Kulchytskyy, and Pooya Ronagh. Compact pulse schedules for high-fidelity single-flux quantum qubit control.Phys. Rev. Appl., 24: 014038, Jul 2025

2025
[31]

Speeding up qubit control with bipolar single- flux-quantum pulse sequences.Quantum Sci- ence and Technology, 8(3):035024, 2023

Vsevolod Vozhakov, Marina Bastrakova, Niko- lay Klenov, Arkady Satanin, and Igor Soloviev. Speeding up qubit control with bipolar single- flux-quantum pulse sequences.Quantum Sci- ence and Technology, 8(3):035024, 2023

2023
[32]

Optimization of two-qubit gates in tunable-coupler architec- tures using single-flux-quantum control.Phys- ical Review A, 112(3):032613, 2025

Boyan Torosov, Bohdan Kulchytskyy, Flo- rian Hopfmueller, John Gunderson, Xiangzhou Kong, and Pooya Ronagh. Optimization of two-qubit gates in tunable-coupler architec- tures using single-flux-quantum control.Phys- ical Review A, 112(3):032613, 2025

2025
[33]

Liebermann and Frank K

Per J. Liebermann and Frank K. Wilhelm. Op- timal qubit control using single-flux quantum pulses.Phys. Rev. Appl., 6:024022, Aug 2016. 8

2016
[34]

Global opti- mization of quantum dynamics with alphazero deep exploration.NPJ quantum information, 6(1):6, 2020

Mogens Dalgaard, Felix Motzoi, Jens Jakob Sørensen, and Jacob Sherson. Global opti- mization of quantum dynamics with alphazero deep exploration.NPJ quantum information, 6(1):6, 2020

2020
[35]

Genetic algorithm for searching bipolar single-flux- quantum pulse sequences for qubit control

MV Bastrakova, DS Kulandin, T Laptyeva, VA Vozhakov, and AV Liniov. Genetic algorithm for searching bipolar single-flux- quantum pulse sequences for qubit control. Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics, 44(1):1– 9, 2023

2023
[36]

Single-flux-quantum-activated controlled-z gate for transmon qubits.Phys- ical Review Applied, 19(4):044031, 2023

YF Wang, WP Gao, K Liu, B Ji, Z Wang, and ZR Lin. Single-flux-quantum-activated controlled-z gate for transmon qubits.Phys- ical Review Applied, 19(4):044031, 2023

2023
[37]

All-microwave manipulation of su- perconducting qubits with a fixed-frequency transmon coupler.Physical Review Letters, 130(26):260601, 2023

Shotaro Shirai, Yuta Okubo, Kohei Matsuura, Alto Osada, Yasunobu Nakamura, and Atsushi Noguchi. All-microwave manipulation of su- perconducting qubits with a fixed-frequency transmon coupler.Physical Review Letters, 130(26):260601, 2023

2023
[38]

All-microwave cz gate based on fixed-frequency driven coupler.Chi- nese Physics B, 34(4):040304, 2025

Wanpeng Gao, Xiaoliang He, Zhengqi Niu, Daqiang Bao, Kuang Liu, Junfeng Chen, Zhen Wang, and ZR Lin. All-microwave cz gate based on fixed-frequency driven coupler.Chi- nese Physics B, 34(4):040304, 2025. 9

2025