Scalable Fluxonium-Transmon Architecture for Error Corrected Quantum Processors

Bijita Sarma; Christian M. F. Schneider; Florian Wallner; Johannes Schirk; Klaus Liegener; Longxiang Huang; Lukas Heunisch; Michael J. Hartmann; Stefan Filipp; Stephan Tasler

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Scalable Fluxonium-Transmon Architecture for Error Corrected Quantum Processors

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a hybrid lattice of alternating fluxonium and transmon qubits, connected by tunable transmon couplers, can run fast, spectator-tolerant CZ gates without moving qubit frequencies, making fluxonium-based surface codes p

desk verdict A credible hybrid architecture proposal with a nice two-tone gate trick, but the headline fidelity rests on an undertested truncation; deserves a serious referee with convergence data. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09267 v1 pith:233OJMCH submitted 2025-08-12 quant-ph

Lukas Heunisch , Longxiang Huang , Stephan Tasler , Johannes Schirk , Florian Wallner , Verena Feulner , Bijita Sarma , Klaus Liegener

show 3 more authors

Christian M. F. Schneider Stefan Filipp Michael J. Hartmann

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords superconductingqubitsfluxoniumtransmontunablecouplerparametricCZgateZZcrosstalksurfacecodequantumerrorcorrection

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 tries to establish that fluxonium-based quantum processors can be scaled beyond the capacitive-loading and frequency-crowding problems that currently confine fluxonium experiments to a few qubits. It proposes a square-lattice unit cell with a fluxonium data qubit, a fixed-frequency transmon, and a tunable transmon coupler, alternating qubit types so their different energy scales reduce crowding. The central numerical result is a parametrically driven CZ gate, activated by a two-tone ac flux pulse on the coupler, whose closed-system infidelity sits orders of magnitude below the estimated T1-limited decoherence error for gate durations around 30–40 ns, even with spectator qubits coupled in. If correct, this gives a concrete route to a fluxonium-transmon surface-code processor that combines fluxonium's long coherence and large anharmonicity with established transmon readout.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unit cell: a fluxonium ($\sim 300$ MHz, $\sim 3.7$ GHz anharmonicity) capacitively coupled through an asymmetric tunable transmon coupler to a fixed-frequency transmon at $\sim 4.4$ GHz, chosen so the transmon transition aligns with the fluxonium's second-excited-state transition. The gate mechanism is a parametric two-tone flux drive on the coupler's SQUID loop: the main tone drives Rabi oscillations between the computational state $|101\rangle$ and the non-computational state $|200\rangle$ via the $|110\rangle$ mediator, while a weak second tone cancels the leading leakage contribution. Analytically, the argument uses a Floquet kick-operator and effective-Ham

What would settle it

Fabricate the proposed unit cell with the paper's Table I parameters, run the optimized two-tone CZ gate at 40 ns, and compare the measured process infidelity to the closed-system prediction and to the $T_1$-weighted decoherence estimate; the claim fails if the measured infidelity is not orders of magnitude below the coherence-limit estimate or is dominated by a decoherence channel the model omits. Alternatively, a full master-equation simulation including $1/f$ flux noise on the coupler during the drive and pure dephasing on the fluxonium would settle whether the margin survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hybrid arrangement solves three scaling bottlenecks simultaneously: capacitive loading is circumvented by using a small fluxonium-side coupling capacitance that is compensated by the large $\langle 1|\hat{n}|2\rangle$ matrix element; the tunable coupler can be biased at its lower sweet spot, which coincides with full suppression of $ZZ$ crosstalk in the idle regime; and the alternating qubit types reduce frequency crowding. The gate is a resonant parametric oscillation between $|101\rangle$ and $|200\rangle$, driven by modulating the coupler SQUID loop at roughly half the transition frequency, with a weak second tone that cancels the dominant leakage amplitude t

Load-bearing premise

The headline fidelity comparison rests on a heuristic open-system model—four fixed $T_1$-derived decay rates weighted by state populations, with no pure dephasing, no flux noise during the two-tone drive, and no drive-induced relaxation—plus a five-level-per-node truncation whose convergence is asserted rather than demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A square-lattice fluxonium/transmon processor could run CZ gates without flux-tuning the qubit frequencies, avoiding resonance crossings that typically cause spectator errors.
Data qubits can be fluxoniums, with long coherence and strong anharmonicity protecting against leakage, while fixed-frequency transmon ancillas use established readout techniques.
Idle $ZZ$ crosstalk can be fully suppressed at the coupler sweet spot, and residual sub-kHz crosstalk in three-qubit setups can be tuned away with small flux adjustments.
The two-tone drive suppresses leakage by up to four orders of magnitude, potentially shifting the coherence-versus-leakage tradeoff and allowing shorter gates that reduce decoherence error.
The gate and crosstalk suppression show robustness to fabrication errors in the coupler junctions and the fluxonium junction, per the appendix simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension: the same alternating-frequency design may also reduce spectator dephasing during simultaneous single-qubit gates, though the paper only analyzes two-qubit CZ crosstalk.
The two-tone leakage-cancellation idea is generic to parametrically driven gates on tunable couplers and could transfer to other gate types or qubit pairs with a dominant intermediate leakage state.
If the decoherence model is upgraded to include pure dephasing and flux noise during the drive, the optimal gate time may shift; measuring the 40 ns gate's error against the T1-weighted prediction is a direct experimental check.
The paper's allocation of fluxoniums as data qubits and transmons as ancillas is motivated by leakage protection, but the architecture could be inverted for circuits where fast fluxonium readout becomes competitive.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a credible architecture paper, not a breakthrough. It combines a genuinely useful idea—alternating fluxonium/transmon lattice with asymmetric coupling capacitances to dodge capacitive loading—with a numerically studied two-tone parametric CZ gate. The spectator analysis is a real step beyond the usual two-qubit sims.

What's new: the alternating lattice argument for reducing frequency crowding is plausible, the asymmetric capacitance trick exploits the fluxonium's large <1|n|2> matrix element to keep coupling small but effective, and the two-tone leakage correction is a nice trick. The analytical model in Sec. III A is cross-checked against full numerics and the limitations are honestly reported (14% gate-time deviation). That's good practice.

The soft spots are in proportion. The biggest one is the 5-level truncation per node. The paper's own Appendix A says a single fluxonium needs 50 levels for convergence of low states and matrix elements. The gate is deliberately resonant with |200>, and leakage channels like |110> depend on the level structure above the computational subspace. The claim 'orders of magnitude below the coherence limit' is not secured until convergence in the coupled system is shown. This is a load-bearing uncertainty, not a fatal flaw—but it caps the headline number. The reader's stress-test is right on this.

Other soft spots: the abstract's 'engineered zero ZZ-crosstalk' is contradicted by the 3-qubit sims, which find a sub-kHz residual ZZ (they honestly disclose this in Sec. IV and Appendix F, but the abstract overclaims). The fixed-frequency transmon selling point is undercut by their own mitigation strategy that requires flux-tunable transmons (Sec. IV, grey star). The coherence-limit estimate is a T1-weighted heuristic with no pure dephasing or drive noise, so the absolute fidelities are optimistic. And no code or data are shipped, so the numerics are not independently reproducible.

That said, none of these are fatal. The central numerical demonstration is internally coherent. A serious referee should see this, with the convergence question as the main ask. I'd send it to peer review, but I'd want the truncation convergence data and a de-emphasized abstract before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a square-lattice quantum processor architecture alternating fluxonium data qubits and transmon ancillas, connected by tunable transmon couplers. The authors claim three scaling properties: (i) capacitive loading of fluxoniums is circumvented via asymmetric coupling and the large fluxonium |1>-|2> matrix element; (ii) ZZ crosstalk is zero at the coupler lower sweet spot; (iii) frequency crowding is reduced by alternating qubit species. The main numerical contribution is a parametrically driven CZ gate based on the |101>-|200> resonance, with a two-tone flux pulse on the coupler. Closed-system simulations of the lumped-element Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with five levels per node show infidelities orders of magnitude below an estimated T1-limited decoherence floor for gate times about 30-100 ns, with an optimum near 40 ns. Spectator simulations for F-T-F and T-F-T chains indicate that single-tone gates remain comparably faithful, with additional correction pulses or tunable transmons mitigating phase errors. Appendices provide circuit derivation, parameters, an analytic three-level model, and fabrication-robustness checks.

Significance. The architecture is a concrete, experimentally motivated proposal that could improve fluxonium surface-code implementations by eliminating flux-tunable data qubits, reducing crosstalk, and offering fast gates. The strengths are the direct simulation of the full circuit Hamiltonian, transparent parameter tables, an analytic framework for the gate, spectator-qubit analysis, and fabrication-error studies. If the reported infidelities survive a more careful Hilbert-space-convergence and decoherence analysis, the two-tone CZ scheme and the alternating lattice would be a meaningful design step. However, the headline fidelity claims are not yet fully supported because the truncation convergence is asserted rather than demonstrated and the coherence-limit estimate omits dephasing and drive-induced effects. The paper is a solid design study but requires revision before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section II.A / Appendix A] The statement in Section II.A that each node is truncated to five energy levels 'where the convergence of this truncation has been tested' is load-bearing, but no convergence data are provided. Appendix A states that the single fluxonium required 50 levels before its lowest levels and transition matrix elements converged. The CZ gate deliberately uses |200> and the dominant leakage state is |110>; with a transmon anharmonicity of only 194 MHz (Sec. II.B), higher coupler/transmon levels can hybridize with the gate subspace and change leakage by orders of magnitude. Please provide convergence checks for the coupled three-node system, e.g., 10-15 levels per node for representative points in Fig. 2b and Fig. 4, or show that the relevant matrix elements and leakage populations are converged at five levels. Without this, the 'orders of magnitude below the coherence limit' claim is not fully se
[Section III.B / Appendix B] The decoherence floor used in Fig. 2b is estimated from only four T1-derived rates (Gamma_100->000=4 kHz, Gamma_200->100=22 kHz, Gamma_001->000=25 kHz, Gamma_010->000=40 kHz), weighted by average populations. No pure dephasing, no flux noise on the coupler during the strong two-tone ac drive, and no drive-induced relaxation are included. Because the fluxonium operates at 300 MHz and the gate modulates the coupler flux, flux-noise-induced dephasing is not negligible a priori; the lower sweet spot reduces first-order sensitivity but does not remove it. The 'coherence limit' should either include these contributions or be clearly labeled as a T1-only bound. Please state the assumed T2 values and test the sensitivity of the optimal gate time and crossover point to realistic dephasing rates.
[Section III.B, Eq. (8)] The infidelity is defined through U_sim, 'the process unitary obtained from the simulated time evolution.' Since the simulation Hilbert space has 125 states while the gate fidelity is for two qubits, U_sim must be a 4x4 matrix projected onto the computational subspace. If leakage is present at the end of the pulse, this projected matrix is not unitary, and Eq. (8) as written is not the standard average gate fidelity and may under- or over-count leakage errors. Please specify how U_sim is constructed from the full unitary, how leakage is included in the error metric, and whether the reported numbers are normalized by the leakage population. This is central to the two-tone claims, which rely on leakage suppression by four orders of magnitude.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract / Section IV] The abstract states 'engineered zero ZZ-crosstalk in the idle regime,' but Section IV reports a sub-kHz residual ZZ interaction in the 3-qubit simulations that can be mitigated only by tuning the couplers away from their sweet spot. Please qualify the abstract and conclusions to 'suppressed to sub-kHz' or state explicitly that exact zero holds only for the isolated two-qubit unit cell.
[Section III.B / Figure 2b] The text says 'most of the achieved infidelities are orders of magnitude below the errors due to decoherence,' but the abstract makes a stronger universal claim for 'gate durations ≳30 ns.' Please align the wording and indicate which data points in Fig. 2b satisfy the stronger claim.
[Figure 4] The gray and black stars are described qualitatively. Please report the numerical infidelities and the optimized pulse parameters used for these points, including the dc-flux offsets for the tunable-transmon case, so the reader can reproduce them.
[Section II.B] The phrase 'anharmonicity of 3.7 GHz' should be defined quantitatively, e.g., as E12-E01 of the fluxonium, and the relationship between the fluxonium second-excited state and the 4.4 GHz transmon frequency should be stated explicitly. This will help the reader assess the resonance condition used in the gate.
[Miscellaneous] Minor typographical and presentation issues: 'closed-loop gate infidelities' should be 'closed-system gate infidelities'; 'optial' should be 'optimal'; references [50] and [51] appear to be duplicated; and the equations in Appendix C, especially Eqs. (C7)-(C12), are unwieldy and would benefit from definitions of all symbols and a cleaner derivation.
[Appendix A / Reproducibility] The paper would be strengthened by a data-availability or code-release statement, including the convergence-test scripts and the numerical optimization routines used for the single-tone and two-tone pulses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: architecture properties are chosen parameter regimes and gate fidelities are direct numerical simulations from the Hamiltonian, not re-statements of inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained in the relevant sense. The scaling properties (zero ZZ-crosstalk, delocalization below 1%, capacitive-loading avoidance) are presented as parameter choices: Section II.B says 'the parameters are selected such that this lower sweet spot coincides with the point of complete ZZ-crosstalk suppression,' and Eq. (2) merely defines the crosstalk measure. These are design constraints, not first-principles predictions, so there is no circular reduction. The CZ-gate fidelity in Section III.B is obtained by solving the time-dependent Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) for numerically optimized drive parameters, with the two-tone pulse used as a control optimization rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The coherence-limit comparison (Fig. 2b) uses an independent heuristic decay-rate model from Appendix B, so the reported order-of-magnitude gap is a comparison between two separate calculations, even if that open-system model is simplified. I flag two caveats that affect confidence but not circularity: (i) Section II.A asserts that the five-level-per-node truncation 'has been tested' without showing convergence data, while Appendix A states that 50 levels were needed for a single fluxonium; this is a verification gap for the quantitative gate-fidelity results, but it does not make those results equivalent to their inputs. (ii) Refs. [43] and [46] are self-citations, but they are used only for state labeling and sub-harmonic-driving noise protection; the central numerical gate and spectator calculations are performed in this paper, not imported from those references. No step of the derivation reduces to a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or a definitional restatement of the claimed outcome.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a fully hand-picked circuit parameter set (Tables I-III), a chosen flux bias, numerically optimized drive parameters, and a heuristic set of T1 rates. No new physical entities are introduced. The analytic derivation in Appendix C is genuinely independent of the numerics but is acknowledged to degrade for fast gates. The reader effectively pays for: the existence of a good parameter regime (by construction), the quality of the gate (by optimization), and the coherence-limit comparison (by heuristic).

free parameters (5)

Circuit energy and capacitance values (Tables I-III: E_J, E_C, E_L, all capacitances) = Fluxonium ~300 MHz transition, ~3.7 GHz anharmonicity; transmon 4.4 GHz, ~194 MHz anharmonicity; coupler between; see Ta
Chosen by hand to realize target frequencies and to make zero ZZ, low delocalization, and gate resonance coincide. The claim of 'parameter regimes that circumvent capacitive loading' is a statement that a regime chosen this way exists.
Coupler dc flux bias phi_ext,c = pi/2 (lower sweet spot) = pi/2
Flux bias set so the lower sweet spot coincides with the zero-ZZ point. This is an engineered choice, later shown robust to fabrication errors via flux readjustment (Appendix D).
Single-tone drive parameters (omega_d, phi_AC, ramp time t_r) = Not quoted in text; numerically optimized per gate time
Optimized to minimize leakage and infidelity for each gate duration. The resulting fidelity is an optimization outcome, not a prediction (Section III B).
Two-tone correction pulse (omega_c, phi_AC,c) = Not quoted; second tone described as much smaller
Amplitude and frequency of the secondary tone optimized to suppress the leading leakage channel; the four-orders-of-magnitude leakage suppression is conditional on this optimization (Figure 2d).
Asymmetric coupling capacitances (fluxonium-coupler vs transmon-coupler) = Tables I-III (e.g., 38 fF and 6-15.5 fF in Table I)
Chosen so the fluxonium coupling stays small enough to avoid capacitive loading while the large <1|n|2> matrix element compensates in the gate, under the delocalization <1% constraint of Eq. 3.

assumptions (7)

standard math Lumped-element circuit quantization of Eq. 1 (capacitance matrix, Legendre transformation, Appendix A) is a valid description of the physical circuit.
Standard circuit-QED methodology; the irrotational gauge for time-dependent flux is imported from ref 42.
domain assumption The irrotational gauge for time-dependent external flux (ref 42) remains valid for the fast two-tone flux pulses used in the gate.
The gate simulation's validity inherits the assumptions of ref 42 about gauge choice under time-dependent flux.
domain assumption Three-level truncation (|101>, |110>, |200>) captures the gate dynamics for the analytical model, and five-level per-node truncation captures the full numerics.
Analytical picture uses 3 levels; numerics use 5 levels per node with convergence asserted but not shown (Section II A).
standard math Kick-operator / Floquet-Magnus expansion of refs 47,48 is applicable to this resonantly driven system, and first/second order suffices for the analytic frequency estimate.
Used in Section III A and Appendix C; the authors acknowledge the expansion degrades for fast gates (14% gate-time deviation at 200 ns).
standard math Rotating-wave approximation and fourth-order expansion of cos(phi_c) in Appendix C are valid.
Justified by small zero-point fluctuations; standard approximation in circuit QED.
domain assumption Decoherence can be modeled by T1-derived rates weighted by average populations, with no dephasing term.
Section III B; this is the weakest assumption backing the 'below the coherence limit' headline.
domain assumption Fixed T1 rates (Appendix B) are representative for all qubits and couplers during flux modulation.
Coupler decay (Gamma_010->000 = 40 kHz) and fluxonium decay (Gamma_200->100 = 22 kHz) are assumed constant under the strong parametric drive.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Fluxonium-Transmon Architecture for Error Corrected Quantum Processors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/233OJMCH

@misc{pith2026250809267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Fluxonium-Transmon Architecture for Error Corrected Quantum Processors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/233OJMCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09267}
}

abstract

We propose a hybrid quantum computing architecture composed of alternating fluxonium and transmon qubits, that are coupled via transmon tunable couplers. We show that this system offers excellent scaling properties, characterized by engineered zero $ZZ$-crosstalk in the idle regime, a substantial reduction of level-crowding challenges through the alternating arrangement of different qubit types within the lattice, and parameter regimes that circumvent the capacitive loading problem commonly associated with fluxoniums. In numerical simulations, we show a parametrically driven CZ-gate that achieves a closed-system infidelity that is orders of magnitude below the coherence limit for gate durations $\gtrsim 30\,\rm{ns}$ using a two-tone flux pulse on the tunable coupler. Furthermore, we show that this gate scheme retains its fidelity in the presence of spectator qubits, making it a scalable solution for large lattices. Moreover, for the implementation of error correcting codes, our approach can leverage the long coherence times and large non-linearities of fluxoniums as data qubits, while fixed-frequency transmons with established readout techniques can serve as measurement ancillas.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Capacitive Loading in Two-dimensional Fluxonium Quantum Processors
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Capacitive loading in 2D fluxonium processors is controlled by two capacitance participation ratios, and pad geometry can mitigate them enough to reach ~900 MHz qubit–coupler coupling and sub-30 ns two-qubit gates.
Cross-Resonant Gates in Hybrid Fluxonium-Transmon Systems
quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A simulation study shows that cross-resonance CNOT gates between fluxoniums and a central transmon support high-fidelity parity checks and logical gates in a scalable dual-species architecture.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, et al. , Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting pro- cessor, Nature volume 574, pages 505–510 (2019)

2019
[2]

Krinner, N

S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, et al. , Realizing re- peated quantum error correction in a distance-three sur- face code, Nature volume 605, pages 669–674 (2022)

2022
[3]

Lisenfeld, A

J. Lisenfeld, A. Bilmes, A. Megrant, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, G. Weiss, J. M. Martinis, and A. Ustinov, Electric field spectroscopy of material defects in trans- mon qubits, npj Quantum Information (2022)

2022
[4]

V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science volume 326, Issue 5949, pages 113- 116 (2009)

2009
[5]

L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, et al. , High- coherence fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019)

2019
[6]

Somoroff, Q

A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, et al., Millisecond coherence in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 267001 (2023)

2023
[7]

L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, et al. , High-fidelity, frequency-flexible two-qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031035 (2023)

2023
[8]

I. N. Moskalenko, I. S. Besedin, I. A. Simakov, and A. V. Ustinov, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing two- qubit gates on fluxonium qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 194001 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 50 references

[9]

I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, et al. , High fidelity two-qubit gates on fluxoniums using a tun- able coupler, npj Quantum Inf 8, 130 (2022)

2022
[10]

E. L. Rosenfeld, C. T. Hann, D. I. Schuster, et al. , De- signing high-fidelity two-qubit gates between fluxonium qubits, arXiv:2403.07242 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[11]

Dogan, D

E. Dogan, D. Rosenstock, L. L. Guevel, et al. , Two- fluxonium cross-resonance gate, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 024011 (2023)

2023
[13]

Ficheux, L

Q. Ficheux, L. B. Nguyen, A. Somoroff, et al., Fast logic with slow qubits: Microwave-activated controlled-z gate on low-frequency fluxoniums, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021026 (2021)

2021
[14]

Y. Chen, K. N. Nesterov, V. E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vavilov, Fast flux entangling gate for fluxonium circuits, Phys. Rev. Applied 18, 034027 (2022)

2022
[15]

F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, et al. , Fluxonium: An alter- native qubit platform for high-fidelity operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 010502 (2022)

2022
[16]

K. N. Nesterov, Q. Ficheux, V. E. Manucharyan, and M. G. Vavilov, Proposal for entangling gates on fluxo- nium qubits via a two-photon transition, PRX Quantum 2, 020345 (2021)

2021
[17]

K. N. Nesterov, I. V. Pechenezhskiy, C. Wang, et al. , Microwave-activated controlled-z gate for fixed-frequency fluxonium qubits, Phys. Rev. A 98, 030301(R) (2018)

2018
[18]

P. Zhao, G. Zhao, S. Li, et al. , Scalable fluxonium qubit architecture with tunable interactions between non-computational levels, arXiv:2504.09888 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[19]

Singh, E

S. Singh, E. Y. Huang, J. Hu, et al. , Fast microwave- driven two-qubit gates between fluxonium qubits with a transmon coupler, arXiv:2504.13718 (2025)

2025
[20]

Zhang, C

H. Zhang, C. Ding, D. Weiss, et al. , Tunable inductive coupler for high-fidelity gates between fluxonium qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020326 (2024)

2024
[21]

X. Ma, G. Zhang, F. Wu, et al. , Native approach to controlled-z gates in inductively coupled fluxonium qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 060602 (2024)

2024
[22]

W.-J. Lin, H. Cho, Y. Chen, et al. , 24 days-stable cnot-gate on fluxonium qubits with over 99.9% fidelity, arXiv:2407.15783 (2024). 12

2024 arXiv
[23]

Weiss, H

D. Weiss, H. Zhang, C. Ding, et al. , Fast high-fidelity gates for galvanically-coupled fluxonium qubits using strong flux modulation, PRX Quantum 3, 040336 (2022)

2022
[24]

Ciani, B

A. Ciani, B. M. Varbanov, N. Jolly, C. K. Andersen, and B. M. Terhal, Microwave-activated gates between a fluxonium and a transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 043127 (2022)

2022
[25]

L. B. Nguyen, G. Koolstra, Y. Kim, et al. , Blueprint for a high-performance fluxonium quantum processor, PRX Quantum 3, 037001 (2022)

2022
[26]

A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012)

2012
[27]

D. P. DiVincenzo, Fault-tolerant architectures for super- conducting qubits, Phys. Scr. 014020 (2009)

2009
[28]

J. P. B. Ataides, D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, et al. , The xzzx surface code, Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 2172 (2021)

2021
[29]

Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, H.-L. Huang, et al. , Realization of an error-correcting surface code with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 030501 (2022)

2022
[30]

C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, et al. , Repeated quantum error detection in a surface code, Nature Physics volume 16, pages 875–880 (2020)

2020
[31]

Barends, J

R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, et al., Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, Nature volume 508, pages 500–503 (2014)

2014
[32]

J. F. Marques, B. M. Varbanov, M. S. Moreira, et al. , Logical-qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code, Nature Physics volume 18, pages 80–86 (2022)

2022
[33]

Bravyi, M

S. Bravyi, M. Englbrecht, R. K¨ onig, and N. Peard, Cor- recting coherent errors with surface codes, npj Quantum Information volume 4, Article number: 55 (2018)

2018
[34]

C´ orcoles, E

A. C´ orcoles, E. Magesan, S. J. Srinivasan,et al., Demon- stration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits, Nature Commu- nications volume 6, Article number: 6979 (2015)

2015
[35]

Takita, A

M. Takita, A. D. C´ orcoles, E. Magesan, et al. , Demon- stration of weight-four parity measurements in the sur- face code architecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210505 (2016)

2016
[36]

J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, Build- ing logical qubits in a superconducting quantum comput- ing system, npj Quantum Information volume 3, Article number: 2 (2017)

2017
[37]

M. Gong, X. Yuan, S. Wang, et al., Experimental explo- ration of five-qubit quantum error-correcting code with superconducting qubits, National Science Review, Vol- ume 9, Issue 1 (2022)

2022
[38]

I. A. Simakov, I. S. Besedin, and A. V. Ustinov, Sim- ulation of the five-qubit quantum error correction code on superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032409 (2022)

2022
[39]

G. Q. AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, arXiv:2408.13687 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[40]

Tasler, J

S. Tasler, J. Old, L. Heunisch, et al. , Optimizing super- conducting three-qubit gates for surface-code error cor- rection, arXiv:2506.09028 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[41]

G. Q. AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature volume 638, pages 920–926 (2025)

2025
[42]

X. You, J. A. Sauls, and J. Koch, Circuit quantization in the presence of time-dependent external flux, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174512 (2019)

2019
[43]

Heunisch, C

L. Heunisch, C. Eichler, and M. J. Hartmann, Tun- able coupler to fully decouple and maximally localize superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 064037 (2023)

2023
[44]

Aliferis and J

P. Aliferis and J. Preskill, Fault-tolerant quantum com- putation against biased noise, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052331 (2008)

2008
[45]

S. Lieu, E. L. Rosenfeld, K. Noh, and C. T. Hann, View- ing fluxonium through the lens of the cat qubit (2025), arXiv:2501.16425 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[46]

Schirk, F

J. Schirk, F. Wallner, L. Huang, et al. , Protected flux- onium control with sub-harmonic parametric driving, arXiv:2410.00495 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[47]

Goldman and J

N. Goldman and J. Dalibard, Periodically driven quan- tum systems: Effective hamiltonians and engineered gauge fields, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031027 (2014)

2014
[48]

Goldman, J

N. Goldman, J. Dalibard, M. Aidelsburger, and N. R. Cooper, Periodically driven quantum matter: The case of resonant modulations, Phys. Rev A 91, 033632 (2015)

2015
[49]

Pokharel, N

B. Pokharel, N. Anand, B. Fortman, and D. A. Lidar, Demonstration of fidelity improvement using dynamical decoupling with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 220502 (2018)

2018
[51]

Bombin and M

H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Topological quan- tum error correction with optimal encoding rate, Phys. Rev. A 73, 062303 (2006)

2006
[52]

Y. L. L. Chen, H.-X. Li et al. , Transmon qubit read- out fidelity at the threshold for quantum error correction without a quantum-limited amplifier, npj Quantum In- formation volume 9, Article number: 26 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, et al. , Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting pro- cessor, Nature volume 574, pages 505–510 (2019)

2019

[2] [2]

Krinner, N

S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, et al. , Realizing re- peated quantum error correction in a distance-three sur- face code, Nature volume 605, pages 669–674 (2022)

2022

[3] [3]

Lisenfeld, A

J. Lisenfeld, A. Bilmes, A. Megrant, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, G. Weiss, J. M. Martinis, and A. Ustinov, Electric field spectroscopy of material defects in trans- mon qubits, npj Quantum Information (2022)

2022

[4] [4]

V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science volume 326, Issue 5949, pages 113- 116 (2009)

2009

[5] [5]

L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, et al. , High- coherence fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019)

2019

[6] [6]

Somoroff, Q

A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, et al., Millisecond coherence in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 267001 (2023)

2023

[7] [7]

L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, et al. , High-fidelity, frequency-flexible two-qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031035 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

I. N. Moskalenko, I. S. Besedin, I. A. Simakov, and A. V. Ustinov, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing two- qubit gates on fluxonium qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 194001 (2021)

work page 2021