Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Protected measurements for protected superconducting qubits

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Protected measurements can read out the 0-pi qubit in two bases with errors that fall exponentially in a circuit parameter.

desk verdict First concrete protected readout proposal for the multi-mode 0-pi qubit, with a self-contained X-basis protocol; the Z-basis exponential claim rests on an unpublished QSP reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03325 v1 pith:CYTYNXQK submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Xanda C Kolesnikow , Thomas B Smith , Andrew C Doherty This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords protectedmeasurements0-piqubitquantumnon-demolitionreadoutrotor-GKPcodesuperconductingcircuitsfault-tolerantcontrolGKPstatesechoedcontrolleddisplacement
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 tries to establish that the 0-π qubit, a protected superconducting qubit whose whole point is to be weakly coupled to its environment, can nevertheless be measured without breaking that protection. The idea is to treat the qubit as a tiny quantum error-correcting code and choose measurement operators that decode the most likely errors, rather than projecting onto the two lowest-energy states. The Z-basis readout stores the logical information in a GKP state in an auxiliary mode and transfers it to an ordinary transmon; the X-basis readout turns off the internal Josephson junctions and measures Cooper-pair parity. Both measurements are quantum non-demolition, so they can be repeated to tolerate noise on the unprotected ancilla, and their errors fall exponentially with a circuit or control parameter. Combined with the phase gates from earlier work, they complete a universal, fault-tolerant control set for the 0-π qubit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the rotor-GKP stabilizer structure of the 0-π circuit, with stabilizers generated by $\hat S_Z=e^{i(\hat\theta+\hat\phi)}$ and $\hat S_X=e^{-2i\pi\hat n_\theta}$. The paper uses this code to define a subsystem decomposition and 'binning' measurement operators; this is what lets a measurement correct intrawell transitions instead of being fooled by them. The Z readout additionally relies on echoed controlled displacement (ECD) gates and a bosonic quantum signal processing protocol to convert the ζ-mode GKP state into one ancilla qubit measurement.

What would settle it

Perform the Z-measurement protocol with fixed turn-off times and plot the error versus $\sqrt{E_{J\max}/E_{C\zeta}}$: exponential decay with the WKB exponent $4(2-\sqrt2)\sqrt{2E_{J\max}/E_{C\zeta}}$ would confirm the protected single-shot readout, while algebraic $\sqrt{E_{C\zeta}/2E_{J\max}}$ scaling would indicate the information-extraction step is not achieving the required readout.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 0-π qubit's code structure—a concatenated rotor-oscillator GKP code—tells you how to measure it. Under the paper's subsystem decomposition, the logical qubit lives in a two-dimensional subsystem of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, and the operators $\bar Z_m=\mathrm{sgn}[\cos\hat\theta]$ and $\bar X_m=\mathrm{sgn}[\cos(\pi\hat n_\theta+\pi\hat n_\phi)]$ act as logical Pauli operators and as the identity on the stabilizer subsystem. A Z measurement uses a flux pulse to entangle the ζ-mode with the qubit so that the ζ-mode is prepared in a GKP state carrying the Z information; echoed controlled displacements and bosonic quantum signal processing transfer tha

Load-bearing premise

The claim that Z measurements are exponentially protected assumes that an in-preparation bosonic quantum signal processing protocol can read out $\operatorname{sgn}[\cos\hat\zeta]$ from the ζ-mode GKP state in a single shot; with the alternative readout the paper analyzes, the same error is only polynomially suppressed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Together with the protected phase gates proposed in the paper's companion work, these two measurements give a complete set of operations for universal fault-tolerant control of the 0-π qubit.
  • Because the measurements are QND, an operator can reset and repeat them $N$ times and tolerate up to $(N-1)/2$ failures on unprotected ancillary hardware.
  • Z measurements can be used to fault-tolerantly prepare logical $|\bar0\rangle$ and $|\bar1\rangle$ states; X measurements prepare $|\bar+\rangle$ and $|\bar-\rangle$ states, giving the Pauli eigenstate preparation needed alongside gate teleportation.
  • The Z-measurement error scales as $\exp[-(2-\sqrt2)\sqrt{2E_{J\max}/E_{C\zeta}}]$ in the ideal single-shot readout, so raising the Josephson pulse strength pays off exponentially.
  • The same code-inspired recipe—identify the stabilizer code, choose a decoding measurement operator, then build ancillary circuitry—should apply to other protected superconducting qubits with GKP-like encodings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cited in-preparation quantum signal processing protocol fails to measure $\operatorname{sgn}[\cos\hat\zeta]$ in a single shot, the paper's own analysis shows the Z readout falls back to a polynomial $\sqrt{E_{C\zeta}/2E_{J\max}}$ error; the exponential claim is therefore conditional on that external ingredient.
  • The subsystem-decomposition viewpoint suggests an experimental shortcut: measurements of higher excited eigenstates of the 0-π qubit should still be nearly perfect, so protected readout may tolerate thermal population of the φ-mode without the leakage penalties that a two-level-subspace readout would suffer.
  • A natural next experiment is to compare single-shot QSP readout against post-processed $\langle \bar Z_\zeta\rangle$ readout on the same ζ-mode GKP state; agreement with the WKB exponential would directly validate the protected-measurement mechanism.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes protected measurement protocols for the 0-π superconducting qubit in both the Z and X bases. The Z protocol uses a flux-tunable Josephson element to entangle the θ-mode logical information of the 0-π qubit with GKP states in its ζ mode, then transfers this information to an ancillary transmon via ECD gates and a QSP readout. The X protocol adiabatically turns off the internal Josephson energy, mapping logical |±> states to even/odd Cooper-pair parity in the θ mode, which is read out by a charge-sensitive ancilla. The authors introduce a subsystem-decoder perspective for protected qubits, present numerical simulations and analytic WKB/adiabatic estimates showing errors suppressed exponentially in sqrt(EJmax/ECζ) for the Z basis and in ECφ τ_X^↓ for the X basis, and argue that the QND nature permits repeated measurements to suppress ancilla errors, completing a fault-tolerant universal set together with the gates of Ref [21].

Significance. If fully established, the central claim is an important step: it would provide the first concrete measurement scheme that does not break the protection of the 0-π qubit, completing the control toolkit together with the gates of Ref [21]. The subsystem-decoding formulation is conceptually valuable and likely to transfer to other protected qubits. The numerical work is substantial: the main error curves are supported by analytic estimates in Appendices C and G, the data/code are promised openly, and systematics such as higher excited states, impedance dependence, and non-zero EJmin are included. The key caveat is that the exponential Z-basis error is currently a state-preparation error under an ideal sign readout, not a demonstrated end-to-end readout error.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix C / Fig. 3(a)] The main-text claim that the Z measurement is protected, with errors exponentially suppressed in sqrt(EJmax/ECζ), is not established end-to-end. The analytic estimate Eq. (C15c) and the numerics in Fig. 3(a) compute the error of an ideal projective measurement of sgn[cos ζ] on the prepared GKP state; they therefore bound the GKP state-preparation error, not the error of the physically implemented readout. The only cited route for a single-shot measurement of sgn[cos ζ] is the bosonic QSP protocol of Ref. [39], explicitly marked 'in preparation'. The paper itself states in Appendix C that the alternative single-shot ECD strategies of Ref. [54] yield errors that scale only polynomially in sqrt(EJmax/ECζ). Hence, unless Ref. [39] is available and shown to approximate sgn[cos ζ] with exponentially small error, the Z measurement is not protected in the claimed sense. This is load-bearing; ple
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1) and surrounding text] Even granting that a QSP protocol exists, the manuscript does not provide the error budget for the full readout. The Fourier expansion in Eq. (C1) is infinite; a finite-depth QSP implementation replaces sgn[cos ζ] by a polynomial in e^{iζ}, and the paper does not give the required polynomial degree or gate complexity needed to preserve the exponential scaling, nor the effect of finite ECD gate errors and ancilla measurement errors on the final logical error. This matters because the stated QND repetition is intended to tolerate ancilla faults but not necessarily readout-mapping errors that are correlated with the logical state. Please add a self-contained estimate, or make the citation to Ref. [39] detailed enough that this error budget can be verified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Z measurement / Fig. 3(a)] The label 'measurement error' in Fig. 3(a) should specify that this is the error for the prepared GKP state under an ideal sgn[cos ζ] readout, since the full protocol error also includes the ECD/QSP mapping error.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The symbol \bar Z_m is used both for the qubit measurement operator in Appendix B and for sgn[cos ζ] on the GKP mode in Appendix C. Different symbols (e.g., \bar Z_\zeta^{\rm GKP}) would avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C3)] The definition of \epsilon_{\bar Z_\zeta} is not fully transparent. Please state explicitly how \langle \bar Z_\zeta \rangle_0 and \langle \bar Z_\zeta \rangle_1 are defined and how Eq. (C3c) follows from (C3b).
  4. [Appendix G, Eq. (G7)] E_J'(t*) is not defined. Please specify that it is the time derivative of E_J(t) evaluated at a time when E_J ≪ E_Cθ, and show the steps leading from Eq. (G1) to Eq. (G7). Also, the sentence 'the first term is the parity changing term' should clarify why it is exponentially suppressed in Z_φ/R_Q.
  5. [Fig. 3(b)] The black dashed line in Fig. 3(b) is an exponential fit, not an analytic derivation. The caption already says this, but the main text should avoid implying that the exponential-in-time scaling is derived in Appendix G; Appendix G provides an adiabatic condition and the mechanism, while the quantitative decay constant is numerical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: error scalings are computed from first-principles WKB and adiabatic arguments, not fitted to the claimed result. The main caveat is an external unpublished-readout dependency, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Z-measurement error is obtained from a WKB estimate of the probability that the prepared ζ-mode GKP cosine-well ground state occupies the wrong parity bin (Appendix C, Eq. C15), with the normalization matched to the harmonic-oscillator state; this is an independent first-principles calculation, not a fit to the target exponential. The numerical simulations in Fig. 3(a) and Appendix F reproduce the scaling without tuning the parameters to force the result. The X-measurement error comes from two-mode split-operator dynamics under Eq. (E10); the exponential decay in τ_X is shown as an exponential fit in Fig. 3(b), and Appendix G gives an adiabatic estimate in which parity-changing transitions are exponentially suppressed in the φ-mode impedance. Again, the numerics are not adjusted to force the claimed behavior. The paper does rely on the authors' prior work Ref. [21] for the protected operating parameters and for an effective model, but this self-citation is not load-bearing for the error scalings; it supplies the regime and simulation inputs, not the predicted suppression. The one genuine caveat is external rather than circular: the exponential Z-measurement claim assumes a single-shot readout of sgn[cos ζ] via the bosonic Quantum Signal Processing protocol of Ref. [39], which is marked 'in preparation' and unavailable for scrutiny. Appendix C explicitly states that the alternative ECD-based readout strategies of Ref. [54] scale only polynomially in √(E_Jmax/E_Cζ), so the end-to-end exponential Z claim is contingent on Ref. [39]. This is a completeness/verifiability risk, not a circular reduction: the analytic error estimate is computed for the ideal observable, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, nor is any uniqueness or ansatz imported from a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocols introduce no new physical entities. The measurement operators sgn[cos theta] and sgn[cos(pi n_theta + pi n_phi)] are decoding choices, not new forces or particles. The main external inputs are the protected-regime parameters from Ref [21] and the unpublished QSP readout of Ref [39].

free parameters (1)
  • Protected-regime simulation parameters (E_Ctheta/E_Cphi, E_J/E_Cphi, E_L/E_Ctheta, Z_zeta/R_Q) = 1e-2, 2.5, 4.1e-3, 5
    Chosen from the protected regime characterized in the authors' prior work Ref [21]; not fitted to the error results, but the quantitative error floors in Figs. 3 and 10 depend on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The rotor-GKP code structure with stabilizers e^{2i theta} and e^{-2i pi n} describes the cos(2 theta) and 0-pi Hamiltonians
    Used to justify the measurement-operator construction in the 'Ideal protected qubit' and '0-pi qubit' sections.
  • domain assumption In the protected regime E_J >> E_C, interwell (logical) transitions are exponentially suppressed while intrawell transitions dominate
    Central to the binning decoder argument and the classical-theta approximation for the Z measurement; cites Ref [21].
  • ad hoc to paper The bosonic QSP protocol of Ref [39] (in preparation) can implement a single-shot measurement of sgn[cos zeta] with fidelity preserving the exponential error suppression
    Assumed in Appendix C for the exponential Z-measurement error; without it the readout error scales polynomially (as shown for the alternative <Z_zeta> measurement).
  • domain assumption Adiabatic turn-off of E_J suppresses parity-changing transitions; Born-Oppenheimer approximation applies in the E_J << E_Cphi limit
    Used in Appendix G to derive the exponential X-measurement error; the paper notes this approximation is not usually valid for the protected 0-pi qubit, but applies in the unprotected final stage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Protected measurements for protected superconducting qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CYTYNXQK

@misc{pith2026260803325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Protected measurements for protected superconducting qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CYTYNXQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03325}
}
abstract

Protected superconducting qubits such as the $0$-$\pi$ qubit promise to substantially suppress error rates, facilitating fault-tolerant quantum computing with fewer qubits. Measuring these qubits is challenging due to their protected nature, and thus far no concrete proposal exists for how to measure them without breaking their protection. Here we show how to perform protected measurements of the $0$-$\pi$ qubit in two orthogonal bases. The protection of these measurements is facilitated by their quantum non-demolition nature, allowing faults on ancillary measurement qubits to be tolerated. As experimental progress pushes protected qubits further into the low error-rate regime, our techniques will be crucial for fault-tolerant universal control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Complete circuit diagram for measuring the 0- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: To estimate the error associated with measuring Z¯m we note that ⟨sgn[cos ˆζ]⟩ corresponds to subtracting the probability of the state being closer to the odd multiples of π from the probability of it being closer to the even multiples of π. Therefore, the error rate f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    Exponentially robust non-Clifford gate in a driven-dissipative circuit

    L. O’Brien, G. Refael, and F. Nathan, Exponentially robust non-Clifford gate in a driven-dissipative circuit (2025), arXiv:2507.19713 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [21]

    Ciaccia, R

    C. Ciaccia, R. Haller, A. C. C. Drachmann, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, C. Schrade, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Charge-4e supercurrent in a two-dimensional InAs-Al superconductor-semiconductor heterostructure, Commun. Phys.7, 41 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [54]

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

    2019

  4. [1]

    4 define a graph whose edges correspond to circuit elements

    Methodology The nodes labeled in Fig. 4 define a graph whose edges correspond to circuit elements. The matrix that relates each edge of the circuit to a pair of nodes is A=   −1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0−1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0−1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0−1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0−1 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1 0 1 0 0 0 0...

    work page

  5. [2]

    Hamiltonian Setting the flux in the loop between the 0-πqubit and the SQUID shunt to beφ qs ext = (φq ext +φ J ext +φ s ext)/2, we obtain the following Hamiltonian for the circuit in Fig. 4: ˆH= ˆHθφ + ˆHζ + ˆHX + ˆHZ +g X ˆnθ ˆnX +g Z ˆnζ ˆnZ,(A21) where we decompose the full Hamiltonian into the following terms: ˆHθφ = 4ECθ ˆn2 θ + 4ECφ ˆn2 φ +E L ˆφ−1 ...

    work page

  6. [3]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum computation: error models and thresholds, Proc. R. Soc. A 454, 365 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [4]

    in the protected regime [21]. See Fig. 5 for a pictorial representation of this explanation. •Unwanted charge drives (ε(t)ˆn θ,ε(t)ˆnφ,ε(t)ˆnX ). For the same reasoning as above, even though transitions in theθandφmodes may be driven, their effect on the logical subsystem will be exponentially suppressed in p EJ /ECθ . Theε(t)ˆn X term gives unwanted driv...

    work page

  8. [5]

    Relaxing this assumption introduces spurious charge-charge couplings between the different modes of the circuit, as well as unwanted charge drives

    Capacitive disorder In the above we assumed that all coupling capacitors are symmetric, e.g., all four capacitors coupling theζmode to theZ-measurement transmon have capacitanceC cZ . Relaxing this assumption introduces spurious charge-charge couplings between the different modes of the circuit, as well as unwanted charge drives. At a high level, the logi...

    work page

Show all 66 references
  1. [6]

    The 0-π qubit parameters areE Cθ /ECφ = 0.01,E J /ECφ = 5 andE L/ECθ = 4.1×10 −3

    in the protected regime [21]. The 0-π qubit parameters areE Cθ /ECφ = 0.01,E J /ECφ = 5 andE L/ECθ = 4.1×10 −3. 13 1 2 3 4 5 ECϕτX 10−1 10−4 10−7 10−10 meas. error ⟨ ˆPθ⟩ = +1, ⟨ ˆPϕ⟩ = +1 ⟨ ˆPθ⟩ = +1, ⟨ ˆPϕ⟩ = −1 ⟨ ˆPθ⟩ = −1, ⟨ ˆPϕ⟩ = +1 ⟨ ˆPθ⟩ = −1, ⟨ ˆPϕ⟩ = −1 0 πθ ⟨ ˆPθ⟩ =...

  2. [7]

    Here we show that our measurement scheme indeed yields low measurement errors when measuring higher excited eigenstates of the 0-πqubit

    Measuring higher excited states In the above discussion we explained how states outside of the lowest-energy manifold should still be considered logical states. Here we show that our measurement scheme indeed yields low measurement errors when measuring higher excited eigensta...

  3. [8]

    M0 |Ψ⟩ ⟨Ψ|M† 0 ⟨Ψ|M † 0 M0 |Ψ⟩ # |¯0⟩0−π = |α| 2(1−η) |α| 2(1−η) +|β| 2η′ ,(D4) F1 = 0−π⟨¯1|Tr ζ

    State preparation in the logicalZbasis Once a GKP state has been prepared in theζmode by turning on the interaction term−E Jint(t) cos(ˆθ+ ˆζ), its logical information is transferred to the ancillary qubit. If this information is entirely transferred to the ancillary qubit and...

  4. [9]

    A | ¯+⟩(| ¯−⟩) state will be prepared if the measured charge had even (odd) parity

    State preparation in the logicalXbasis After turning off the internal Josephson junctions of the 0-πqubit and measuring the charge of theθmode, a logical| ¯±⟩state of the qubit can be prepared by turning the Josephson junction back on via the inverse ramp. A | ¯+⟩(| ¯−⟩) state...

  5. [10]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russ. Math. Surv.52, 1191 (1997)

    1997

  6. [11]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’97 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1997) p. 176

    1997

  7. [12]

    Kitaev, Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0609441 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    A. Kitaev, Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0609441 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    2006 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Gyenis, A

    A. Gyenis, A. Di Paolo, J. Koch, A. Blais, A. A. Houck, and D. I. Schuster, Moving beyond the Transmon: Noise-Protected Superconducting Quantum Circuits, PRX Quantum2, 030101 (2021)

    2021

  9. [14]

    Kalashnikov, W

    K. Kalashnikov, W. T. Hsieh, W. Zhang, W.-S. Lu, P. Kamenov, A. Di Paolo, A. Blais, M. E. Gershenson, and M. Bell, Bifluxon: Fluxon-Parity-Protected Superconducting Qubit, PRX Quantum1, 010307 (2020)

    2020

  10. [15]

    W. C. Smith, A. Kou, X. Xiao, U. Vool, and M. H. Devoret, Superconducting circuit protected by two-Cooper-pair tunneling, npj Quantum Inf.6, 8 (2020)

    2020

  11. [16]

    T. W. Larsen, M. E. Gershenson, L. Casparis, A. Kringhøj, N. J. Pearson, R. P. G. McNeil, F. Kuemmeth, P. Krogstrup, K. D. Petersson, and C. M. Marcus, Parity-Protected Superconductor-Semiconductor Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 056801 (2020)

    2020

  12. [17]

    Rymarz, S

    M. Rymarz, S. Bosco, A. Ciani, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Hardware-Encoding Grid States in a Nonreciprocal Superconducting Circuit, Phys. Rev. X11, 011032 (2021)

    2021

  13. [18]

    Gyenis, P

    A. Gyenis, P. S. Mundada, A. Di Paolo, T. M. Hazard, X. You, D. I. Schuster, J. Koch, A. Blais, and A. A. Houck, Experimental Realization of a Protected Superconducting Circuit Derived from the 0-πQubit, PRX Quantum2, 010339 (2021). 24

    2021

  14. [19]

    W. C. Smith, M. Villiers, A. Marquet, J. Palomo, M. R. Delbecq, T. Kontos, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, B. Dou¸ cot, and Z. Leghtas, Magnifying Quantum Phase Fluctuations with Cooper-Pair Pairing, Phys. Rev. X12, 021002 (2022)

    2022

  15. [20]

    Leroux and A

    C. Leroux and A. Blais, Cat-qubit-inspired gate on cos(2θ) qubits (2023), arXiv:2304.02155 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Guo, H.-B

    G.-L. Guo, H.-B. Leng, and X. Liu, Parity-spin superconducting qubit based on topological insulators, New J. Phys.26, 063005 (2024)

    2024

  17. [23]

    Kumar, X

    S. Kumar, X. You, X. Croot, T. Zhao, D. Chen, S. Sussman, A. Premkumar, J. Bryon, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Protomon: A Multimode Qubit in the Fluxonium Molecule (2024), arXiv:2411.16648 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Leblanc, C

    A. Leblanc, C. Tangchingchai, Z. Sadre Momtaz, E. Kiyooka, J.-M. Hartmann, F. Gustavo, J.-L. Thomassin, B. Brun, V. Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, ´E. Dumur, S. De Franceschi, and F. Lefloch, Gate- and flux-tunable sin(2φ) Josephson element with planar-Ge junctions, Nat. Co...

    2025

  19. [25]

    W. C. Smith, A. Borgognoni, M. Villiers, E. Roverc’h, J. Palomo, M. R. Delbecq, T. Kontos, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, B. Dou¸ cot, and Z. Leghtas, Spectral signature of high-order photon processes enhanced by Cooper-pair pairing, Nat. Commun.16, 8359 (2025)

    2025

  20. [26]

    S. Lieu, E. L. Rosenfeld, K. Noh, and C. T. Hann, Viewing protected superconducting qubits through the lens of the cat qubit, Phys. Rev. A112, 022414 (2025)

    2025

  21. [27]

    M. Hays, J. Kim, and W. D. Oliver, Non-degenerate noise-resilient superconducting qubit (2025), arXiv:2502.15459 [quant- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [28]

    L. B. Nguyen, H. Kim, D. T. Le, T. Ersevim, S. P. Chitta, T. Chistolini, C. J¨ unger, W. C. Smith, T. M. Stace, J. Koch, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, The superconducting grid-states qubit (2025), arXiv:2509.14656 [quant-ph]

    2025

  23. [29]

    X. C. Kolesnikow, T. B. Smith, F. Thomsen, A. Alase, and A. C. Doherty, Protected Phase Gate for the 0-πQubit using its Internal Modes, PRX Quantum7, 010306 (2026)

    2026

  24. [30]

    Shagalov, D

    K. Shagalov, D. Feldstein-Bofill, L. Uhre Jakobsen, Z. Sun, C. Wied, A. T. J. Paulsen, J. Bock Severin, M. A. Marciniak, C. A. Potts, A. Kringhøj, J. Hastrup, K. Flensberg, S. Krøjer, and M. Kjaergaard, Higher Josephson Harmonics in a Tunable Double-Junction Transmon Qubit, Ph...

    2026

  25. [31]

    Guo, Full Gate-Voltage Control of a Parity-Protected Superconducting Qubit with an Altermagnetic Josephson Junction (2026), arXiv:2607.04097 [quant-ph]

    G.-L. Guo, Full Gate-Voltage Control of a Parity-Protected Superconducting Qubit with an Altermagnetic Josephson Junction (2026), arXiv:2607.04097 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Messelot, A

    S. Messelot, A. Leblanc, J.-S. Tettekpoe, F. Lefloch, Q. Ficheux, J. Renard, and ´E. Dumur, Coherence Limits in Interference-Based cos(2φ) Qubits (2026), arXiv:2601.10209 [quant-ph]

    2026

  27. [33]

    Roverc’h, A

    E. Roverc’h, A. Borgognoni, M. Villiers, K. Gerashchenko, W. C. Smith, C. Wilson, B. Dou¸ cot, A. Petrescu, P. Campagne- Ibarcq, and Z. Leghtas, Experimental realization of a cos(2φ) transmon qubit (2026), arXiv:2603.13114 [quant-ph]

    2026

  28. [34]

    P. A. Sanchez, T. F. Q. Larson, A. P. McFadden, C. Schrade, J. Combes, and A. Gyenis, Revisiting the multi-mode rhombus circuit as a biased-noise qubit (2026), arXiv:2605.06430 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Brooks, A

    P. Brooks, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Protected gates for superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A87, 052306 (2013)

    2013

  30. [36]

    J. Kim, I. Rosen, J. An, M. Hays, A. Di Paolo, L. Ding, K. Azar, J. Gertler, T. Hazard, M. Gingras, B. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, K. Sliwa, M. Schwartz, J. Yoder, T. Orlando, J. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. Oliver, Measurement of soft zero-pi qubit with parallel-plate capacitors,...

    2024

  31. [37]

    Hassani, Superconducting qubits capable of dynamic switching between protected and high-speed control regimes, Ph.D

    F. Hassani, Superconducting qubits capable of dynamic switching between protected and high-speed control regimes, Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Science and Technology Austria (2024)

    2024

  32. [38]

    In the protected qubit setting, the code parameter is controlled by a circuit or control parameter, e.g., p EJ /EC

    Our notion of fault-tolerance aligns with the definition of fault-tolerance used for bosonic codes [33], whereby the error rate for a fault-tolerant gadget can be exponentially suppressed in a code parameter, e.g., the squeezing of a GKP state. In the protected qubit setting, ...

  33. [40]

    M. T. P. Nguyen and M. H. Shaw, Fault-Tolerant Non-Clifford GKP Gates using Polynomial Phase Gates and On-Demand Noise Biasing (2025), arXiv:2511.20355 [quant-ph]

    2025

  34. [41]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  35. [42]

    A. Kitaev, Protected Qubits using Josephson Junctions (2006), Talk presented at the KITP Conference on Topological Phases and Quantum Computation, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 15–19 May 2006

    2006

  36. [43]

    A. D. Paolo, A. L. Grimsmo, P. Groszkowski, J. Koch, and A. Blais, Control and coherence time enhancement of the 0-π qubit, New J. Phys.21, 043002 (2019)

    2019

  37. [44]

    Fl¨ uhmann, V

    C. Fl¨ uhmann, V. Negnevitsky, M. Marinelli, and J. Home, Sequential Modular Position and Momentum Measurements of a Trapped Ion Mechanical Oscillator, Phys. Rev. X8, 021001 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    Touzard, A

    S. Touzard, A. Kou, N. Frattini, V. Sivak, S. Puri, A. Grimm, L. Frunzio, S. Shankar, and M. Devoret, Gated Conditional Displacement Readout of Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 080502 (2019)

    2019

  39. [46]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, A

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, S. Touzard, E. Zalys-Geller, N. E. Frattini, V. V. Sivak, P. Reinhold, S. Puri, S. Shankar, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of a qubit en- coded in grid states of an oscillator, Nature584...

    2020

  40. [47]

    Chalermpusitarak and T

    T. Chalermpusitarak and T. R. Tan, Measuring Bosonic Observables via Bosonic Quantum Signal Processing, in prepara- tion. 25

  41. [48]

    Beauseigneur, L

    B. Beauseigneur, L. Lattier, A. Vanselow, Z. Leghtas, and P. Campagne-Ibarcq, Towards Dissipative Stabilization of Four- Legged Cat Qubits in Superconducting Circuits: Part II, in APS Global Physics Summit Abstracts, Vol. 2026 (Denver, CO, USA, 2026) p. MAR.W14.3

    2026

  42. [49]

    D. T. Le, A. Grimsmo, C. M¨ uller, and T. M. Stace, Doubly nonlinear superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. A100, 062321 (2019)

    2019

  43. [50]

    Vuillot, A

    C. Vuillot, A. Ciani, and B. M. Terhal, Homological Quantum Rotor Codes: Logical Qubits from Torsion, Commun. Math. Phys.405, 53 (2024)

    2024

  44. [51]

    Protected measurements for protected supercon- ducting qubits

    X. C. Kolesnikow, T. B. Smith, and A. C. Doherty, Data and code for “Protected measurements for protected supercon- ducting qubits” (2026)

    2026

  45. [52]

    Rajabzadeh, Z

    T. Rajabzadeh, Z. Wang, N. Lee, T. Makihara, Y. Guo, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Analysis of arbitrary superconducting quantum circuits accompanied by a Python package: SQcircuit, Quantum7, 1118 (2023)

    2023

  46. [53]

    Vool and M

    U. Vool and M. Devoret, Introduction to quantum electromagnetic circuits, Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl.45, 897 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    E. J. Weissler, T. B. Smith, A. C. Doherty, and J. Combes, Structure-preserving transformations for superconducting circuits, in preparation

  48. [56]

    J. M. Dempster, B. Fu, D. G. Ferguson, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, Understanding degenerate ground states of a protected quantum circuit in the presence of disorder, Phys. Rev. B90, 094518 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Groszkowski, A

    P. Groszkowski, A. D. Paolo, A. L. Grimsmo, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, and J. Koch, Coherence properties of the 0-πqubit, New J. Phys.20, 043053 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Pantaleoni, B

    G. Pantaleoni, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. Menicucci, Modular Bosonic Subsystem Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 040501 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    M. H. Shaw, A. C. Doherty, and A. L. Grimsmo, Stabilizer Subsystem Decompositions for Single- and Multimode Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes, PRX Quantum5, 010331 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, T. Navickas, A. D. Rao, M. J. Millican, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Robust and Deterministic Preparation of Bosonic Logical States in a Trapped Ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 050602 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    V. G. Matsos, C. H. Valahu, M. J. Millican, T. Navickas, X. C. Kolesnikow, M. J. Biercuk, and T. R. Tan, Universal quantum gate set for Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill logical qubits, Nat. Phys.21, 1664 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Singh, B

    S. Singh, B. Royer, and S. M. Girvin, Towards Non-Abelian Quantum Signal Processing: Efficient Control of Hybrid Continuous- and Discrete-Variable Architectures (2025), arXiv:2504.19992 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    G. V. Dunne and M. ¨Unsal, WKB and resurgence in the Mathieu equation, in Resurgence, Physics and Numbers, edited by F. Fauvet, D. Manchon, S. Marmi, and D. Sauzin (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 2017) pp. 249–298

    2017

  56. [64]

    Benderskii, S

    V. Benderskii, S. Grebenshchikov, and G. Mil’nikov, Tunneling splittings in model 2D potentials. III. Generalization to N-dimensional case, Chem. Phys.198, 281 (1995)

    1995

  57. [65]

    Zwiebach, Mastering Quantum Mechanics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022) p

    B. Zwiebach, Mastering Quantum Mechanics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022) p. 1200

    2022

  58. [66]

    This approximation is not usually valid for the 0-πqubit sinceE J ≳E Cφ in the protected regime [21], but here we are interested in the unprotected case whenE J ≪E Cφ

    Note that this is equivalent to making a Born-Oppenheimer approximation. This approximation is not usually valid for the 0-πqubit sinceE J ≳E Cφ in the protected regime [21], but here we are interested in the unprotected case whenE J ≪E Cφ

Pith tools

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