Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Direct Implementation of High-Fidelity Three-Qubit Gates for Superconducting Processor with Tunable Couplers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A flip-chip superconducting processor can implement a three-qubit CCZ gate directly, reaching 97.94% state fidelity and 93.54% process fidelity.

desk verdict Solid flip-chip CCZ demonstration undercut by reporting that buries the more exhaustive 216-state QPT number (89.54% vs advertised 93.54%). read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18319 v2 pith:OGAULTCS submitted 2025-01-30 quant-ph

Hao-Tian Liu , Bing-Jie Chen , Jia-Chi Zhang , Yong-Xi Xiao , Tian-Ming Li , Kaixuan Huang , Ziting Wang , Hao Li
show 13 more authors
Kui Zhao Yueshan Xu Cheng-Lin Deng Gui-Han Liang Zheng-He Liu Si-Yun Zhou Cai-Ping Fang Xiaohui Song Zhongcheng Xiang Dongning Zheng Yun-Hao Shi Kai Xu Heng Fan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords CCZgatethree-qubitgatestunablecouplerssuperconductingqubitsflip-chipprocessorquantumprocesstomographyleakagesuppressionGroversearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a three-qubit controlled-controlled-Z (CCZ) gate—the operation that multiplies the state $|111\rangle$ by $-1$ and leaves all other computational states unchanged—can be implemented directly on a flip-chip superconducting processor by pulsing the two tunable couplers between three neighboring qubits at the same time. The authors report an average final-state fidelity of 97.94% and a process fidelity of 93.54%, with a total gate time of 256 ns compared with roughly 640 ns for the standard decomposition into eight CNOT gates and seven T gates. They show that the direct gate keeps more population inside the information-carrying states, so multilayer circuits leak less than the decomposed version on the same device. If correct, the scheme gives a shorter, lower-leakage native three-qubit operation that can be used as a building block for Grover search, Toffoli gates, and other multiqubit algorithms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the engineered three-body interaction produced by the simultaneous Z pulses on the two couplers. During the first segment, the coupler frequencies are lowered with flat-top Gaussian pulses, bringing the $|111\rangle$ state into level repulsion with three-excitation states such as $|102\rangle$ and $|201\rangle$; this creates the effective three-body (ZZZ) coupling $\zeta_{123}$ while the pulse shape is chosen to suppress leakage. The load-bearing identity is $\varphi_{123}=\varphi_{12}+\varphi_{23}+\varphi_{13}+\varphi_{\rm CCZ}$, which lets the authors isolate the CCZ phase from the pairwise CPhase accumulations. The second segment applies two calibrated CPhase gates to cancel $\varphi_{12}$ and $\varphi_{23}$, and the operating point is chosen so that $\varphi_{\rm CCZ}=\pm\pi$ while the non-nearest-neighbor phase $\varphi_{13}$ is minimized. The calibration sequence—measuring leakage, CPhase, and CCPhase as functions of the two coupler pulse amplitudes—is what turns this identity into a working gate.

What would settle it

Perform three-qubit quantum process tomography on the first segment $U$ alone, before the compensation gates. If the diagonal phases of $U$ do not satisfy $\varphi_{123}=\varphi_{12}+\varphi_{23}+\varphi_{13}$ with $\varphi_{13}\approx0.0743$ rad (i.e., if there are non-additive cross terms or a substantially larger $\varphi_{13}$), then the second segment cannot cancel the unwanted pairwise phases and the calibrated operation is not the intended CCZ gate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the simultaneous, carefully calibrated excursion of two tunable couplers creates a genuine three-body interaction among three fixed-frequency transmons, and that this interaction is sufficient for a high-fidelity CCZ gate. In the first segment, flat-top Gaussian Z pulses move both couplers so that the $|111\rangle$ state undergoes level repulsion with other three-excitation states (chiefly $|102\rangle$), generating the three-body conditional phase while the pulse shape suppresses leakage. Because the measured total phase obeys $\varphi_{123}=\varphi_{12}+\varphi_{23}+\varphi_{13}+\varphi_{\rm CCZ}$, the unwanted pairwise phases $\varphi_{12}$ and $\varphi_{23}$ are removed by two subsequent CPhase gates, and the operating point is chosen so that the residual non-nearest-neighbor phase is only $\varphi_{13}\approx0.0743$ rad and the CCZ phase is $\pm\pi$. The experiment achieves an average final-state fidelity of 97.94%, a process fidelity of 93.54%, and a truth-table visibility of 96.52%, with decoherence identified as the main remaining error source.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that pulsing both couplers at once produces a total phase equal to the sum of the two pairwise phases and the three-body phase, with the non-nearest-neighbor phase small enough (about 0.0743 rad here) to ignore, so that two compensating CPhase gates leave a pure CCZ gate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Three-qubit circuits on this architecture can be shortened to 256 ns per CCZ gate, versus roughly 640 ns for the eight-CNOT-plus-seven-T decomposition, reducing the time qubits spend decohering.
  • Stacked or repeated CCZ gates (as in Grover iterations or multi-controlled operations) accumulate less leakage error when implemented directly, because the population stays in the computational subspace instead of cycling through the couplers.
  • The CCZ gate works as a native oracle for three-qubit Grover search, boosting the target-state probability above all others after two iterations, and it converts to a Toffoli gate with 92.83% truth-table visibility when flanked by Hadamards.
  • If device coherence improves, the same pulse scheme should reach the simulated decoherence-free performance of 99.45% average state fidelity and 98.75% process fidelity, since the gap in the experiment is attributed to qubit decoherence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Testable extension: repeat the same two-coupler calibration on several triples across the 21-qubit chip; the architecture suggests the procedure is local and should transfer without redesign, but the paper only demonstrates one triple.
  • Design inference: if $\varphi_{13}$ is actively nulled (by frequency arrangement or a small static-coupling compensation), the direct CCZ should approach the decoherence-free simulation value of 98.75% process fidelity without changing the pulse scheme.
  • Algorithmic inference: because the gate is shorter and leaks less, it fits naturally into error-correction cycles that use three-qubit parity checks, where population loss out of the computational subspace is a dominant error channel; the paper does not test this application.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and experimentally demonstrates a direct controlled-controlled-Z (CCZ) gate on a flip-chip superconducting processor with tunable couplers. The gate is implemented by simultaneously applying Z pulses to two couplers for 150 ns to generate a three-qubit conditional phase, followed by two CPhase gates that compensate the accumulated two-qubit conditional phases. The authors report an average final state fidelity of 97.94% and a process fidelity of 93.54% from QPT with 64 probe states, a truth-table visibility of 96.52%, lower leakage than a decomposed CNOT-based CCZ implementation, and a demonstration of the three-qubit Grover search algorithm using the CCZ gate as an oracle. The paper includes a time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation with Lindblad decoherence that reproduces the experimental χ-matrix with a maximum difference of 0.022.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is significant for the superconducting quantum computing community: it provides a direct three-qubit gate on a scalable flip-chip architecture with tunable couplers, a shorter gate duration than a standard decomposition, and a lower-leakage comparison. The paper's strengths include the machine-checked numerical simulation that closely matches the experimental process matrix, the use of independently characterized device parameters in the simulation, and the explicit perturbation-theory treatment of the effective two-body and three-body couplings. These elements make the demonstrated approach credible and reproducible. The main weaknesses are in the reporting and interpretation of the fidelity numbers, where the more exhaustive QPT results are omitted from the headline claims, and in the unsupported comparative statement about decomposed gates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Sec. VI and Abstract/Conclusion] Supplemental Sec. VI reports a QPT using an overcomplete set of 216 probe states, yielding a process fidelity of 89.54% and an average state fidelity of 96.20%. The abstract and conclusion quote only the 64-state results (93.54% and 97.94%). Since the 216-state set is tomographically more exhaustive and therefore the more conservative estimate of the gate, the headline numbers overstate the actual performance. The authors should report both sets of numbers in the abstract and conclusion, discuss the 4% discrepancy in process fidelity, and either justify the choice of 64 states as the headline or adopt the more conservative 216-state values.
  2. [Fig. 3(b) and Fig. S8] The average final state fidelity of 97.94% repeated in the main text and abstract is not reproducible from the published truth-table data in Fig. S8: the average on-diagonal population of that matrix is approximately 96.6%. The authors should clarify the definition of this state fidelity, specify whether it includes phase information obtained from full state tomography of the computational basis states, and provide the underlying data in the same format as the truth table.
  3. [Main text, §3 and Supplemental Sec. VIII] The abstract's claim that this high fidelity 'cannot be achieved through a simple combination of single- and two-qubit gate sequences' is not substantiated by the reported comparison. For the decomposed CCZ gate, the authors provide only a truth-table visibility of 94.57% and an average state fidelity of 97.15% (Supplemental Sec. VIII); no process fidelity is reported. Given the interleaved randomized benchmarking fidelities of 99.46% for the q1q2 CZ gate and 99.59% for the q2q3 CZ gate, a simple multiplicative error estimate for eight CZ gates yields a process fidelity on the order of (0.995)^8 ≈ 96%, which is not obviously lower than the quoted 93.54% for the direct gate. The authors should measure or estimate the process fidelity of the decomposed gate and temper the comparative claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Table S2] Supplemental Table S2 lists T1 = 28.15 µs for Q2 and T1 = 43.34 µs for Q3, whereas Table S1 gives T1 = 43.34 µs for Q2 and T1 = 59.13 µs for Q3; these inconsistencies should be resolved because the Lindblad simulation in Supplemental Sec. VII relies on these values.
  2. [Supplemental Eq. (S11) and Sec. II] The text should explicitly state that the residual phase φ13 ≈ 0.0743 rad is not compensated, so the implemented unitary is an approximate CCZ whose residual error is included in the reported fidelities; this will help readers interpret the fidelity numbers and the meaning of 'CCZ' in the headline claims.
  3. [Fig. 2(c) caption] The caption of Fig. 2(c) says the average final state fidelity is 97.06%, while the main text reports the same value for the 64-state QPT; the relationship between this number and the 97.94% in Fig. 3(b) should be clarified in the text.
  4. [Supplemental Sec. II] There is a typo 'repsectively' in the sentence following Eq. (S9) that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the direct CCZ gate is calibrated from measured conditional phases and independently benchmarked by QPT and truth tables; the central phase-additivity relation follows from the diagonal effective Hamiltonian rather than being fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The key phase-additivity relation φ123 = φ12 + φ23 + φ13 + φCCZ (Supplemental Eq. S9) follows directly from U = exp(-i∫V_ZZ^qq dt) with V_ZZ^qq composed of diagonal number-operator terms; it is not an ansatz fitted to the target gate. The coupler pulse amplitudes are calibrated using independently measured conditional phases and leakage, and the reported QPT and truth-table fidelities are measured outputs rather than inputs. The Nelder-Mead tuning of virtual-Z phases with the QPT χ-matrix as objective is in-sample calibration, but the reported fidelity is still a measured value over a fixed physical map and is not equal by construction to the target; at most it raises an overfitting caveat outside circularity. The only self-referential element is the citation of the group's own prior pulse-distortion calibration work (Ref. [50]) for a standard technical step, which is not load-bearing for the three-qubit interaction claim. The supplemental 216-state QPT (process fidelity 89.54%, average state fidelity 96.20%) is materially lower than the 64-state headline numbers, and the main text omits it; this is a reporting/completeness concern, not circularity. No equation or parameter reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to the result it is used to support.

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

The central claim rests on a calibration procedure that fits the two coupler pulse amplitudes and three virtual Z phases to satisfy the CCZ phase condition, plus a set of modeling assumptions about the effective Hamiltonian, the three-excitation manifold, and the three-level Lindblad simulation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Coupler Z-pulse amplitudes Vc1, Vc2 = not listed numerically; chosen at the operating point with |φ13| ≈ 0.0743 rad
    A two-parameter search over pulse amplitudes is used to satisfy φCCZ+φ13=±π while minimizing leakage and |φ13| (Fig. 2(b)).
  • Virtual Z phase corrections on q1, q2, q3 = not listed
    Three single-qubit phase offsets are numerically optimized with the Nelder-Mead algorithm using the QPT χ-matrix fidelity as the objective function.
  • Pulse duration τ of the CCPhase segment = 150 ns
    Chosen by hand as a compromise between adiabaticity and decoherence; the gate length and leakage depend on it.
  • CPhase compensation durations τ12, τ23 = 62 ns and 44 ns
    Chosen to cancel the measured two-qubit phases φ12 and φ23; part of the design of the second segment.
  • Gaussian filter width σ = 50 ns
    Pulse-shaping parameter chosen for the flat-top Gaussian envelopes (Supplemental Eq. S31).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The effective dynamics of the three qubits during the first segment are governed by the diagonal ZZ/ZZZ Hamiltonian V_ZZ; the effective XY couplings are neglected because the qubits are strongly detuned.
    Supplemental Section II (before Eq. S9); the central phase-accumulation model depends on this.
  • standard math The Schrieffer-Wolff transformation correctly decouples the two couplers, and perturbation theory up to 4th order (or exact diagonalization) gives the ZZ and ZZZ couplings.
    Supplemental Sections II and III; used to predict the tuning landscape for the CCPhase.
  • domain assumption In the three-excitation manifold, |102> is brought into resonance with |111> and the other three-excitation states couple only weakly; the resulting effective 7x7 Hamiltonian (Eq. S30) captures the population dynamics and the conditional phase.
    Supplemental Section IV; this is the physical mechanism claimed for the CCPhase generation.
  • domain assumption The transmons can be truncated to three levels in numerical simulation, and Lindblad dissipation with measured T1 and T2 reproduces the experimental gate error.
    Supplemental Sections V and VII; used to attribute the fidelity gap to decoherence.
  • domain assumption Compensating φ12 and φ23 with two sequential CPhase gates does not affect the accumulated three-qubit phase, i.e., the phases add linearly as in Eq. S11.
    Supplemental Eqs. S10-S11; if the compensation pulses perturb the |111> phase, the CCZ condition fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Implementation of High-Fidelity Three-Qubit Gates for Superconducting Processor with Tunable Couplers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGAULTCS

@misc{pith2026250118319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Implementation of High-Fidelity Three-Qubit Gates for Superconducting Processor with Tunable Couplers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGAULTCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18319}
}
abstract

Three-qubit gates can be constructed using combinations of single-qubit and two-qubit gates, making their independent realization unnecessary. However, direct implementation of three-qubit gates reduces the depth of quantum circuits, streamlines quantum programming, and facilitates efficient circuit optimization, thereby enhancing overall performance in quantum computation. In this work, we propose and experimentally demonstrate a high-fidelity scheme for implementing a three-qubit controlled-controlled-Z (CCZ) gate in a flip-chip superconducting quantum processor with tunable couplers. This direct CCZ gate is implemented by simultaneously leveraging two tunable couplers interspersed between three qubits to enable three-qubit interactions, achieving an average final state fidelity of $97.94\%$ and a process fidelity of $93.54\%$. This high fidelity cannot be achieved through a simple combination of single- and two-qubit gate sequences from processors with similar performance levels. Our experiments also verify that multilayer direct implementation of the CCZ gate exhibits lower leakage compared to decomposed gate approaches. As a showcase, we utilize the CCZ gate as an oracle to implement the Grover search algorithm on three qubits, demonstrating high performance with the target probability amplitude significantly enhanced after two iterations. These results highlight the advantage of our approach, and facilitate the implementation of complex quantum circuits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18319 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The flip-chip quantum processor with 21 superconducting qubits arranged in a 1D chain with multiple legs. Every two qubits are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental measurements and calibrations for CCZ gate. (a) Basic calibration of qubits and couplers. (b) Calibration of the Z pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental results for the CCZ and Toffoli gates. (a) The truth table of the CCZ gate. Theoretical probabilities are represented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Demonstration of three-qubit Grover search algorithm. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P . DiVincenzo, N. Mar- golus, P . Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, El- ementary gates for quantum computation, Physical Review A 52, 3457 (1995)

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK, 2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    A. Y . Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error cor- rection, Russian Mathematical Surveys 52, 1191 (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Itoko, M

    T. Itoko, M. Malekakhlagh, N. Kanazawa, and M. Takita, Three-qubit parity gate via simultaneous cross-resonance drives, Physical Review Applied 21, 034018 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    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, J. P . B. Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P . S. Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y . Kim, A. Hashim, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, B. Bhandari, D. Das, R. K. Naik, J. M. Kreikebaum, A. N. Jordan, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Programmable Heisen- berg interactions between Floquet qubits, Nature Physics 20, 240 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack, Physical Review Letters 79, 325 (1997)

    1997

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P . Patankar, and R. Vijay, Programmable Superconducting Processor with Na- tive Three-Qubit Gates, Physical Review Applied 14, 014072 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Realization of Three-Qubit Quan- tum Error Correction with Superconducting Circuits, Nature 482, 382 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Paetznick and B

    A. Paetznick and B. W. Reichardt, Universal Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Only Transversal Gates and Error Correction, Physical Review Letters 111, 090505 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    T. J. Y oder, R. Takagi, and I. L. Chuang, Universal Fault- Tolerant Gates on Concatenated Stabilizer Codes, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031039 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    S. E. Rasmussen, K. Groenland, R. Gerritsma, K. Schoutens, and N. T. Zinner, Single-step implementation of high-fidelity n-bit toffoli gates, Physical Review A 101, 022308 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    A. J. Baker, G. B. P . Huber, N. J. Glaser, F. Roy, I. Tsitsilin, S. Filipp, and M. J. Hartmann, Single shot i-Toffoli gate in dis- persively coupled superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Let- ters 120, 054002 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Bækkegaard, L

    T. Bækkegaard, L. B. Kristensen, N. J. S. Loft, C. K. Andersen, D. Petrosyan, and N. T. Zinner, Realization of efficient quan- tum gates with a superconducting qubit-qutrit circuit, Scientific Reports 9, 13389 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Y . Kim, A. Morvan, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, C. Jünger, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, High- fidelity three-qubit iToffoli gate for fixed-frequency supercon- ducting qubits, Nature Physics 18, 783 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    C. W. Warren, J. Fernández-Pendás, S. Ahmed, T. Abad, A. Bengtsson, J. Biznárová, K. Debnath, X. Gu, C. Križan, A. Osman, A. F. Roudsari, P . Delsing, G. Johansson, A. F. Kockum, G. Tancredi, and J. Bylander, Extensive characteri- zation and implementation of a family of three...

    2023

  10. [18]

    L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y . Kim, E. Y ounis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Empowering a qudit- based quantum processor by traversing the dual bosonic ladder, Nature Communications 15, 7117 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    N. J. Glaser, F. Roy, and S. Filipp, Controlled-Controlled-Phase Gates for Superconducting Qubits Mediated by a Shared Tun- able Coupler, Physical Review Applied 19, 044001 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Song, S.-B

    C. Song, S.-B. Zheng, P . Zhang, K. Xu, L. Zhang, Q. Guo, W. Liu, D. Xu, H. Deng, K. Huang, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, and H. Wang, Continuous-variable geometric phase and its manip- ulation for quantum computation in a superconducting circuit, Nature Communications 8, 1061 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    B.-L. Fang, Z. Y ang, and L. Y e, Scheme for implementing an n- qubit controlled not gate with superconducting quantum inter- ference devices in cavity qed, International Journal of Quantum Information 08, 1337 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    T. Monz, K. Kim, W. Hänsel, M. Riebe, A. Villar, P . Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Realization of the quan- tum Toffoli gate with trapped ions, Physical Review Letters 102, 040501 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    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 Letters 133, 140601 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    C.-Y . Chen, M. Feng, and K.-L. Gao, Toffoli gate originating from a single resonant interaction with cavity QED, Physical Review A 73, 064304 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Shi, Y .-F

    H.-M. Shi, Y .-F. Y u, and Z.-M. Zhang, Three-qubit quantum- gate operation with an SQUID in a cavity, Chinese Physics B 21, 064205 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Joshi and M

    A. Joshi and M. Xiao, Three-qubit quantum-gate operation in a cavity QED system, Physical Review A 74, 052318 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    J. K. Moqadam, R. Portugal, N. F. Svaiter, and G. d. O. Corrêa, Analyzing the Toffoli gate in disordered circuit QED, Physical Review A 87, 042324 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    H. Wei, Y . Di, and Y . Wang, Synthesis of some three-qubit gates and their implementation in a three spins system coupled with Ising interaction, Science China Physics, Mechanics and As- tronomy 53, 664 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Banchi, N

    L. Banchi, N. Pancotti, and S. Bose, Quantum gate learning in qubit networks: Toffoli gate without time-dependent control, npj Quantum Information 2, 16019 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    M. J. Gullans and J. R. Petta, Protocol for a resonantly driven three-qubit Toffoli gate with silicon spin qubits, Physical Re- view B 100, 085419 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    S. P . Pedersen, K. S. Christensen, and N. T. Zinner, Native three-body interaction in superconducting circuits, Physical Re- view Research 1, 033123 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Daraeizadeh, S

    S. Daraeizadeh, S. P . Premaratne, N. Khammassi, X. Song, M. Perkowski, and A. Y . Matsuura, Machine-learning-based three-qubit gate design for the Toffoli gate and parity check in transmon systems, Physical Review A 102, 012601 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    S.-N. Sun, B. Marinelli, J. M. Koh, Y . Kim, L. B. Nguyen, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, I. Siddiqi, and A. J. Minnich, Quantum computation of frequency-domain molec- ular response properties using a three-qubit iToffoli gate, npj Quantum Information 10, 55 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    N. Y u, R. Duan, and M. Ying, Five two-qubit gates are neces- sary for implementing the Toffoli gate, Physical Review A 88, 7 010304 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Maslov, Advantages of using relative-phase Toffoli gates with an application to multiple control Toffoli optimization, Physical Review A 93, 022311 (2016)

    D. Maslov, Advantages of using relative-phase Toffoli gates with an application to multiple control Toffoli optimization, Physical Review A 93, 022311 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    X. Gu, J. Fernández-Pendás, P . Vikstål, T. Abad, C. Warren, A. Bengtsson, G. Tancredi, V . Shumeiko, J. Bylander, G. Jo- hansson, and A. F. Kockum, Fast Multiqubit Gates through Si- multaneous Two-Qubit Gates, PRX Quantum 2, 040348 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Menke, W

    T. Menke, W. P . Banner, T. R. Bergamaschi, A. Di Paolo, A. V epsäläinen, S. J. Weber, R. Winik, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, D. Rosenberg, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Y oder, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, C. F. Hirjibehedin, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Ol...

    2022

  30. [38]

    M. T. P . Nguyen, M. Rimbach-Russ, L. M. K. V andersypen, and S. Bosco, Single-step high-fidelity three-qubit gates by anisotropic chiral interactions, arXiv:2503.12182

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    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, B. Burkett, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Court- ney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gid- ney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, ...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Ba- con, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buck- ley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, ...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Black- well, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourass...

    2024

  34. [42]

    M. C. Collodo, J. Herrmann, N. Lacroix, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, J.-C. Besse, T. Walter, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, Implementation of Conditional Phase Gates Based on Tunable ZZ Interactions, Physical Review Letters 125, 240502 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Y . Xu, J. Chu, J. Y uan, J. Qiu, Y . Zhou, L. Zhang, X. Tan, Y . Y u, 8 S. Liu, J. Li, F. Y an, and D. Y u, High-Fidelity, High-Scalability Two-Qubit Gate Scheme for Superconducting Qubits, Physical Review Letters 125, 240503 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    H. Xu, W. Liu, Z. Li, J. Han, J. Zhang, K. Linghu, Y . Li, M. Chen, Z. Y ang, J. Wang, T. Ma, G. Xue, Y . Jin, and H. Y u, Realization of Adiabatic and Diabatic CZ Gates in Su- perconducting Qubits Coupled with a Tunable Coupler, Chinese Physics B 30, 044212 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Y . Y e, S. Cao, Y . Wu, X. Chen, Q. Zhu, S. Li, F. Chen, M. Gong, C. Zha, H.-L. Huang, Y . Zhao, S. Wang, S. Guo, H. Qian, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y . Xu, C. Guo, L. Sun, N. Li, H. Deng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Realization of High-Fidelity Controlled-Phase Gates in Extensible Superc...

    2021

  38. [46]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y . Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Y oder, T. P . Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High-Fidelity, Frequency-Flexib...

    2023

  39. [47]

    Barends, C

    R. Barends, C. M. Quintana, A. G. Petukhov, Y . Chen, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, R. Collins, O. Naaman, S. Boixo, F. Arute, K. Arya, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, P . ...

    2019

  40. [48]

    Y . Sung, L. Ding, J. Braumüller, A. V epsäläinen, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. McNally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Y oder, T. P . Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Realization of High-Fidelity CZ and ZZ-Free ...

    2021

  41. [49]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grig- orev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V . Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, High fidelity two-qubit gates on fluxoniums using a tunable coupler, npj Quantum In- formation 8, 130 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Li, J.-C

    T.-M. Li, J.-C. Zhang, B.-J. Chen, K. Huang, H.-T. Liu, Y .-X. Xiao, C.-L. Deng, G.-H. Liang, C.-T. Chen, Y . Liu, H. Li, Z.-T. Bao, K. Zhao, Y . Xu, L. Li, Y . He, Z.-H. Liu, Y .-H. Y u, S.-Y . Zhou, Y .-J. Liu, X. Song, D. Zheng, Z. Xiang, Y .-H. Shi, K. Xu, and H. Fan, High...

    2025

  43. [51]

    P . M. Q. Cruz and B. Murta, Shallow unitary decompositions of quantum Fredkin and Toffoli gates for connectivity-aware equivalent circuit averaging, APL Quantum 1, 016105 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    X. Li, T. Cai, H. Y an, Z. Wang, X. Pan, Y . Ma, W. Cai, J. Han, Z. Hua, X. Han, Y . Wu, H. Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Song, L. Duan, and L. Sun, Tunable Coupler for Realizing a Controlled-Phase Gate with Dynamically Decoupled Regime in a Superconduct- ing Circuit, Physical Review Ap...

    2020

  45. [53]

    [14, 54-57], for additional information on the experimental setup, the principle of the gate, and detailed discussions of the numer- ical simulations

    See Supplemental Material at [URL], which includes Refs. [14, 54-57], for additional information on the experimental setup, the principle of the gate, and detailed discussions of the numer- ical simulations

  46. [54]

    P . Zhao, D. Lan, P . Xu, G. Xue, M. Blank, X. Tan, H. Y u, and Y . Y u, Suppression of static ZZ interaction in an all- transmon quantum processor, Physical Review Applied 16, 024037 (2021)

    2021

  47. [56]

    T. Abad, J. Fernández-Pendás, A. Frisk Kockum, and G. Jo- hansson, Universal fidelity reduction of quantum operations from weak dissipation, Physical Review Letters 129, 150504 (2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    T. Abad, A. F. Kockum, and G. Johansson, Impact of decoher- ence on the fidelity of quantum gates leaving the computational subspace, Quantum 9, 1684 (2025)

    2025

  49. [58]

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

    2017

  50. [59]

    Figgatt, D

    C. Figgatt, D. Maslov, K. A. Landsman, N. M. Linke, S. Deb- nath, and C. Monroe, Complete 3-Qubit Grover search on a programmable quantum computer, Nature Communications 8, 1918 (2017)

    2017

  51. [60]

    Direct Implementation of High- Fidelity Three-Qubit Gates for Superconducting Processor with Tunable Couplers

    H.-T. Liu et al. , Data for "Direct Implementation of High- Fidelity Three-Qubit Gates for Superconducting Processor with Tunable Couplers", 10.5281/zenodo.15792648 (2025). Supplemental Material for “Direct Implementation of High-Fidelity Three-Qubit Gates for Superconducting ...

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    + g23(b† 2 − b2)(b3 − b†

  53. [62]

    To decouple the couplers from the system, we apply the Schrieffer-Wolff trans- formation and consider the high-order perturbation contributions

    + g13(b† 1 − b1)(b3 − b† 3), (S4) Vqc = g1c1 (b† 1 − b1)(bc1 − b† c1 ) + g2c1 (b† 2 − b2)(bc1 − b† c1 ) + g2c2 (b† 2 − b2)(bc2 − b† c2 ) + g3c2 (b† 3 − b3)(bc2 − b† c2 ), (S5) where bi is the annihilation operator, ωi is the qubit (or coupler) frequency, αi is the anharmonicit...

  54. [63]

    + ˜g23(b† 2b3 + b2b†

  55. [64]

    In the next section, we will demonstrate detailed derivation of using perturbation theory to calculate these diagonal interaction terms

    + ˜g13(b† 1b3 + b1b† 3), (S7) V ZZ qq = ζ12b† 1b1b† 2b2 + ζ23b† 2b2b† 3b3 + ζ13b† 1b1b† 3b3 + ζ123b† 1b1b† 2b2b† 3b3, (S8) where ˜gij denotes the effective XY (hopping) coupling, ζij signifies the parasitic two-body ZZ coupling, and ζ123 represents the three-body ZZZ coupling. ...

  56. [65]

    P . Zhao, D. Lan, P . Xu, G. Xue, M. Blank, X. Tan, H. Y u, and Y . Y u, Suppression of static ZZ interaction in an all-transmon quantum processor, Physical Review Applied 16, 024037 (2021)

    2021

  57. [66]

    A. J. Baker, G. B. P . Huber, N. J. Glaser, F. Roy, I. Tsitsilin, S. Filipp, and M. J. Hartmann, Single shot i-Toffoli gate in dispersively coupled superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Letters 120, 054002 (2022)

    2022

  58. [67]

    S. P . Fors, J. Fernández-Pendás, and A. F. Kockum, Comprehensive explanation of ZZ coupling in superconducting qubits, arXiv:2408.15402 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  59. [68]

    T. Abad, J. Fernández-Pendás, A. Frisk Kockum, and G. Johansson, Universal fidelity reduction of quantum operations from weak dissi- pation, Physical Review Letters 129, 150504 (2022)

    2022

  60. [69]

    T. Abad, A. F. Kockum, and G. Johansson, Impact of decoherence on the fidelity of quantum gates leaving the computational subspace, Quantum 9, 1684 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.