Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Ultracoherent superconducting cavity-based multiqudit platform with error-resilient control

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A weakly coupled transmon can control ultracoherent two-mode superconducting radio-frequency cavities well enough to prepare Fock states up to $|20\rangle$ with over 95 percent post-selected fidelity and to entangle the modes with…

desk verdict Strong experimental platform with a genuinely new feedforward protocol and record multimode coherence; the 99.9% entanglement fidelity is an inferred bound, not a measured gate fidelity. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03286 v4 pith:IWWKDYUP submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Taeyoon Kim , Tanay Roy , Xinyuan You , Andy C. Y. Li , Henry Lamm , Oleg Pronitchev , Mustafa Bal , Sabrina Garattoni
show 21 more authors
Francesco Crisa Daniel Bafia Doga Kurkcuoglu Roman Pilipenko Paul Heidler Nicholas Bornman David van Zanten Silvia Zorzetti Roni Harnik Akshay Murthy Andrei Lunin Sergey Belomestnykh Shaojiang Zhu Changqing Wang Andre Vallieres Ziwen Huang Jens Koch Anna Grassellino Srivatsan Chakram Alexander Romanenko Yao Lu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords superconductingradio-frequencycavitybosonicqudittransmonancillasidebandfeedforwardFockstatepreparationvirtualRamanbeamsplittererasurepost-selectiontwo-mode
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 reports a two-mode niobium superconducting radio-frequency cavity in which a weakly coupled transmon ancilla controls two long-lived modes without destroying them. Single-photon lifetimes reach $20.6 \pm 0.4$ ms and $15.6 \pm 0.2$ ms with pure dephasing beyond 40 ms, records for a multimode quantum memory. Using sideband transitions through the transmon's $|f\rangle$ level, plus a feedforward protocol that corrects ancilla errors after each ladder step and a parity filter, the authors prepare Fock states up to $|20\rangle$ with post-selected fidelities of $95.3 \pm 1.9\%$ and $94.6 \pm 1.1\%$. A virtual Raman beamsplitter then entangles the two modes with a coherence-limited fidelity of $99.810 \pm 0.003\%$ after erasure post-selection, approaching 99.9 percent when transmon heating is detected mid-circuit. The paper's point is that ultrahigh-coherence storage and high-fidelity programmable control can live in the same module, a step toward qudit-based quantum computing and modular quantum networks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ancilla-mediated sideband interaction together with measurement-based error correction. Sideband pulses at $|f,n\rangle \leftrightarrow |g,n+1\rangle$ climb the Fock ladder; after each pulse the transmon is measured in $|g\rangle$, $|e\rangle$, or $|f\rangle$, and a feedforward pulse either repeats the step or repumps before repeating, correcting the dominant ancilla errors. The parity filter implements a parity-dependent phase gate: a $\pi_{ge}/2$ pulse, a wait of $\pi/|\chi_e|$, and a reverse $\pi_{ge}/2$ pulse map wrong-parity cavity states onto $|e\rangle$ for post-selection. The virtual Raman beamsplitter uses two detuned sideband drives through the virtual $|f00\rangle$ level; its coherence-limited fidelity is governed by $F^*_{BS} \approx 1 - (\pi/4)(\kappa_{BS}/g_{BS})$ with $\kappa_{BS} = \kappa_1 + \kappa_\phi/2$, where $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_\phi$ are extracted by fitting the damped population oscillation to Eq. (1). The transmon anharmonicity $\alpha$ supplies the $|\alpha/\Delta|$ enhancement that makes the Raman route faster than direct four-wave mixing.

What would settle it

Run full quantum process tomography or interleaved randomized benchmarking on the virtual Raman beamsplitter in the dual-rail subspace $\{|10\rangle, |01\rangle\}$, without discarding erasure or heating shots, and compare the process fidelity to $F^*_{BS}$ from Eq. (2). If the tomographic fidelity falls short by more than the quoted 0.2 percent infidelity, the missing control errors are the dominant limitation and the 99.9 percent figure is an upper bound rather than a realized gate fidelity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the tension between long cavity coherence and fast control can be resolved by engineering the transmon participation down while keeping sideband coupling up. In a two-cell elliptical cavity, the two normal modes, called Alice and Bob, are each weakly dispersively coupled to one transmon, with dispersive shifts of $-71$ kHz and $-96$ kHz, yet sideband drives at the $|f,n\rangle \leftrightarrow |g,n+1\rangle$ transition implement the control that SNAP gates would be too slow to provide. The authors verify the harmonic-oscillator scaling $\gamma_n = n\gamma_1$ up to $n = 20$, and use a three-state transmon readout with about 98 percent fidelity to feed forward corrections for transmon decay and dephasing after each sideband pulse, then a parity filter to discard wrong-parity shots. For two-mode entanglement, driving both sidebands with a common detuning $\Delta$ from the virtual $|f00\rangle$ level produces a beamsplitter interaction whose rate is enhanced by $|\alpha/\Delta|$ over four-wave mixing; fitting the damped Rabi oscillation to the model of Ref. [7] yields the coherence-limited fidelities. The paper also shows the beamsplitter rate is photon-number-dependent, which makes the gate a natural nonlinear primitive for qudit control, and reports numerical synthesis of a two-qutrit CSUM gate at 99.1 percent fidelity from five VRBS operations plus single-qutrit rotations.

Load-bearing premise

The 99.9 percent headline is not a measured process fidelity: it follows from fitting damped oscillations to a formula that assumes only exponential photon loss and dephasing are present, treating state preparation, the sideband pulses, and the final mapping and readout as perfect, and the paper's own open-system simulations omit control errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-mode module can act as an order-of-magnitude longer-lived multimode quantum memory than prior three-dimensional multimode devices, with both modes usable for storage and processing.
  • Fock states up to $|20\rangle$ with over 95 percent post-selected fidelity, together with the measured $\gamma_n = n\gamma_1$ scaling, make 21-level qudit encodings practical in a single mode.
  • The virtual Raman beamsplitter realizes a dual-rail qubit gate near the coherence limit; post-selecting on erasure and on the transmon ground state improves swap fidelity by a factor of two over 100 swaps.
  • The photon-number-dependent beamsplitter is a nonlinear entangling primitive: numerical synthesis reaches 99.1 percent for the two-qutrit CSUM gate with five VRBS operations plus single-qutrit rotations.
  • Sideband-aided driven-dissipative reset empties a cavity in about 25 ms instead of the natural roughly 160 ms decay, enabling fast reinitialization between runs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the coherence-limited fidelities come from a fit that omits control errors, the realized gate fidelity is expected to be lower; direct randomized benchmarking of the VRBS gate would quantify the gap and likely guide pulse calibration.
  • The same feedforward logic should extend from Fock-basis ladder climbing to arbitrary cavity state synthesis: measuring the ancilla after each sideband operation and correcting in real time could protect superposition states too, not just number states.
  • If the two-cell module scales to longer multi-cell cavities, each additional cell could add a mode with similar coherence; a single cryogenic module could then host many addressable modes, making compact qudit simulations of lattice gauge theories and cascaded random-access memories more concrete.
  • The parity filter's post-selection discard rate grows with photon-number errors; converting it into genuine erasure conversion, repumping and reusing the state, would be a testable next step toward fault-tolerant dual-rail computation.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a two-mode superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) cavity platform in which a transmon ancilla is weakly coupled to two cavity modes while preserving long coherence. The authors measure single-photon lifetimes of 20.6±0.4 ms and 15.6±0.2 ms for the two modes and extract pure dephasing times above 40 ms, comparing against bare-cavity baselines. They introduce a sideband feedforward protocol (SFP) with a parity filter to prepare Fock states up to |20> with post-selected fidelities above 95%, and they demonstrate a virtual-Raman-assisted beamsplitter (VRBS) interaction in the single-photon subspace. From fits of damped Rabi oscillations to Eq. (1), they report coherence-limited beamsplitter fidelities up to 99.810±0.003% after erasure post-selection and infer a fidelity approaching 99.9% when mid-circuit heating checks are added. The paper includes extensive appendices on fabrication, noise modeling, simulation, and calibration.

Significance. If the coherence and control claims hold, this is a substantial experimental advance: the reported multimode single-photon lifetimes are an order of magnitude beyond previous 3D multimode memories, and the demonstration of high-fidelity Fock-state preparation up to n=20 in a weak-coupling architecture is a useful step toward qudit processors. The baseline bare-cavity characterization, the sideband feedforward error-correction scheme, and the repeated-readout checks that cavity lifetimes are unaffected are concrete strengths. The paper is also honest in its appendices about where control errors are not calibrated and where simulations omit them. The main reservation is that the headline beamsplitter fidelity is an inferred, coherence-limited quantity rather than a directly measured process fidelity, and the Fock-state fidelities are post-selected with the success probability not fully reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (1)-(2), Fig. 3(c)-(d)] The claim of a beamsplitter fidelity approaching 99.9% is not a directly measured process fidelity. It is computed from F*_BS ≈ 1 - (π/4)(κ_BS/g_BS), where κ_BS = κ_1 + κ_φ/2 and g_BS are extracted from a fit of Eq. (1) to damped oscillations in the single-photon subspace. This formula assumes that the only error channels are exponential decay and dephasing of the oscillation amplitude and that state preparation, sideband pulses, and the final mapping/readout are error-free. The manuscript itself notes in Appendix H that control errors are not calibrated and are not included in the noise model, and the simulations in Appendix J omit control errors. Because the heating rate is ~1% per swap and the experimental data deviate from the simulated curve at small detuning, the fitted κ_BS can absorb residual non-Markovian or control errors. A direct two-mode process tomography in the single-photon subspace, or at least a randomized-benchmarking-style comparison, is needed before 'approaching 99.9%' can be stated as an experimental gate fidelity rather than an idealized upper bound.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 2(c)-(d)] The reported Fock-state preparation fidelities (95.3±1.9% for Alice |20> and 94.6±1.1% for Bob |20>) are post-selected by the parity filter, but the paper does not report the corresponding post-selection success probability or the raw (un-post-selected) fidelity for the SFP+PF protocol. Since the parity filter discards shots with odd total photon number, the success probability directly determines the practical overhead of the protocol. Without this quantity, a reader cannot assess whether the 'error-resilient' preparation is efficient or whether the headline fidelity is obtained at a large acceptance cost. Please report the parity-filter success rate (Fig. A5 provides one but not in the main text) alongside each SFP+PF fidelity, or state explicitly that the reported fidelities are conditional on passing the filter.
  3. [Appendix M and Sec. IV, Fig. 3(c)] The mapping from the two-mode states |10>, |01>, and |00> to transmon levels uses the confusion matrix in Eq. (M.1), with substantial off-diagonal elements: P(measured |e> | prepared |10>) ≈ 0.049 and P(measured |f> | prepared |01>) ≈ 0.017. The main text does not state clearly whether the population oscillations shown in Fig. 3(c) are corrected using this confusion matrix before fitting to Eq. (1). If the correction is applied, its propagation into the extracted κ_BS and F*_BS uncertainties should be described; if not, the 99.810±0.003% value inherits uncontrolled readout-mapping errors. Please specify the exact processing of the measured populations and include the mapping confusion in the error budget.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract's 'approaching 99.9%' should be qualified as a coherence-limited inferred fidelity, not a measured process fidelity, to match the body text and Appendix disclosures.
  2. [Sec. II] There is a typo in 'dispserive interaction'; it should read 'dispersive interaction'.
  3. [Appendix B] In the text after Eq. (B.2), 'decay pfP_PS' should read 'decay of P_PS'.
  4. [Appendix I] The phrase 'beasmplitter rate' should be corrected to 'beamsplitter rate'.
  5. [Appendix A] The text twice says 'Hanh-echo experiment'; the standard spelling is 'Hahn-echo'.
  6. [Fig. A7 caption] The caption contains '0/uni27E9' and '1/uni27E9', which appear to be encoding artifacts from the |0> and |1> ket symbols; these should be typeset properly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: coherence times and Fock fidelities are direct measurements; the VRBS coherence-limited fidelity is an explicitly labeled upper bound computed from fitted decay rates, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on direct experimental measurements. T1 and T2 are extracted from standard exponential and Ramsey fits (Fig. 1(c), Appendix B), and the pure dephasing time is obtained by the textbook relation 1/Tφ = 1/T2 − 1/(2T1). Fock-state preparation fidelities are measured via photon-number-resolved spectroscopy with transmon-readout normalization (Fig. 2(c,d)); the SFP and parity-filter improvements are demonstrated experimentally using a measured three-state readout confusion matrix (Appendix F). The VRBS beamsplitter fidelity is not an independent prediction: Eq. (2) is explicitly derived from the damped-oscillation envelope Eq. (1), with κ1, κφ, and gBS obtained by fitting the same time-domain data. The paper labels these as 'coherence-limited fidelities' and 'upper-bound' values, so the 99.9% figure is a model-based estimate rather than a directly measured process fidelity. That is a limitation, and the paper itself notes that control errors are not calibrated and thus not included in the simulation noise model (Appendix H); however, it is not circular, because the fitted parameters are physical decay rates and the formula is an external analytic model rather than a restatement of the data. Self-citations to same-group papers (e.g., [31], [32], [43]) provide supporting techniques, but the load-bearing results are the authors' own measurements and calibrations, so no circular dependence exists.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The simulations use several fitted parameters (ancilla T1, T2, thermal population, cavity T1) to match experimental behavior, and the fidelity estimates rely on model assumptions about decoherence.

free parameters (8)
  • Simulation ancilla T1 = 168 µs
    Used in VRBS open-system simulation (Appendix J) to reproduce experimental sideband dynamics.
  • Simulation ancilla thermal population = 4%
    Set in VRBS simulation to match observed photon shot noise dephasing; differs from Table A1 value 0.25%.
  • Simulation ancilla T2 = 700 µs
    Used in VRBS simulation; differs from measured Ramsey value 47.3 µs due to white-noise approximation.
  • Simulation cavity T1 Alice = 26 ms
    Fitted in VRBS simulation to reproduce measured Rabi decay.
  • Simulation cavity T1 Bob = 20 ms
    Fitted in VRBS simulation.
  • Readout relaxation probabilities = p(e→g)=0.0055, p(f→e)=0.0110
    Fitted in SFP simulation to match confusion matrix.
  • Stark phase per swap = 0.0046 rad
    Calibrated empirically for the entangled-state swap sequence.
  • Heating probability per swap = 1.167%
    Measured from transmon population after repeated swaps.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with Markovian white noise approximates the system decoherence
    Used throughout the numerical simulations (Appendices H and J) to model dissipation and dephasing.
  • standard math The cavity modes are ideal harmonic oscillators with decay rate γ_n = nγ_1
    Invoked in Section II to interpret Fock state relaxation data, standard for a linear cavity.
  • domain assumption Sideband pulses are ideal rotations between two levels with no leakage to other levels
    The SFP simulation and fidelity estimates treat the π pulses as perfect rotations (Appendix H).
  • domain assumption Weak dispersive coupling and first-order perturbation theory capture the VRBS interaction
    The VRBS Hamiltonian derivation (Appendix I) relies on dispersive shifts and a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation.
  • domain assumption The coherence-limited fidelity formula Eq. (2) applies, i.e., all errors are exponential decay and pure dephasing
    The reported 99.9% fidelity is computed from Eq. (2) which ignores control and SPAM errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultracoherent superconducting cavity-based multiqudit platform with error-resilient control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IWWKDYUP

@misc{pith2026250603286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultracoherent superconducting cavity-based multiqudit platform with error-resilient control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IWWKDYUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03286}
}
abstract

Realizing the promise of quantum computing requires simultaneously increasing Hilbert-space size and coherence times. While qubit-based architectures have long been the dominant paradigm, large local Hilbert spaces enable qudits, which offer more compact circuits and natural representations for quantum simulation in chemistry, condensed matter, and high-energy physics. Superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) cavities are attractive building blocks for qudit-based quantum technologies because of their exceptionally low dissipation and large bosonic Hilbert spaces, but turning them into programmable modules requires extra effort because the nonlinear circuitry required for control and measurement often introduces loss and noise that erode the memory advantage. Here we demonstrate a two-mode SRF cavity module weakly coupled to an ancillary transmon circuit and engineered to suppress controller-induced dissipation and dephasing, achieving single-photon lifetimes of 20.6 ms and 15.6 ms and a dephasing time exceeding 40 ms. Using sideband interactions together with error-resilient protocols incorporating measurement-based correction and post-selection, we prepare Fock states up to $N=20$ with fidelities exceeding 95% and generate two-mode entanglement near the coherence limit, approaching 99.9%. By combining ultracoherent storage with high-fidelity control, this work moves cavity-based hardware beyond memory-only operation and establishes a practical route toward high-dimensional encodings and scalable modular quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03286 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_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b, middle). The interplay between these mechanisms leads to a maximum in gate fidelity as a function of sideband de￾tuning, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Noise-Directed Adaptive Remapping for Integer Optimization: from qubits to (encoded) qudits

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    NDAR, a heuristic that turns device noise into a resource, is generalized to integer-domain optimization; qudit-native encodings are argued to be the best fit because their all-zeros attractor is always feasible and t...

  2. Separating Geometry From Interference in Constrained Quantum Optimization

    quant-ph 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    For product-space constrained quantum optimization, the mixer's absolute amplitude transport reduces to a Hamming-shell Markov chain; a certified success bound then requires a phase-alignment condition that the paper ...

  3. Exact and Fixed-Point Grover Search with Qudits

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    A hardware-oriented framework implements standard, deterministic, and fixed-point Grover search on homogeneous and heterogeneous qudit registers via explicit oracles, diffusion operators, and phase matching.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Noise model In the following, we will discuss a noise model for the transmon readout error and the decoherence effects of both the qudit and the ancilla transmon qubit based on the experimental parameters presented in Table A1. All unitary operations performed for the state prepa- 13 ration are rotations between two levels, ˆRj,k(θ), wherej andkare level ...

    2015

  2. [2]

    1 ∆ +nχ (a) f + (m+1)χ(b) f + 1 ∆ + (n+1)χ(a) f +mχ (b) f # + 3βaβb √ n+1 √ m+1|e⟩⟨e| ⊗ |n, m+1⟩⟨n+1, m|ei(χ(a) e −χ(b) e )t ×

    Simulation results The simulated population distributions shown in Fig. A6(a) are consistent with the experimental results shown in Fig. 2(c). In particular, vanilla SB’s result shows a nearly even distribution for the off-target states, while SPF’s one exhibits a distinct peak at|N−1⟩. This can be explained as follows: although the SFP effec- tively corr...

  3. [3]

    R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, E. Holland, S. Krastanov, V. V. Albert, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity state manipulation using photon-number selective phase gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 137002 (2015)

    2015

  4. [5]

    Rosenblum, Y

    S. Rosenblum, Y. Y. Gao, P. Reinhold, C. Wang, C. J. Axline, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret,et al., A CNOT gate between multiphoton qubits encoded in two cavities, Nature communications 9, 652 (2018)

    2018

  5. [6]

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Implementing a uni- versal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nature communications8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  6. [7]

    Y. Y. Gao, B. J. Lester, K. S. Chou, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, S. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, En- tanglement of bosonic modes through an engineered ex- change interaction, Nature566, 509 (2019)

    2019

  7. [8]

    B. J. Chapman, S. J. de Graaf, S. H. Xue, Y. Zhang, J. Teoh, J. C. Curtis, T. Tsunoda, A. Eickbusch, A. P. Read, A. Koottandavida, S. O. Mundhada, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, High-on-off- ratio beam-splitter interaction for gates on bosonically encoded qubits, PRX Quantum4, 020355 (2023)

    2023

  8. [9]

    Y. Lu, A. Maiti, J. W. O. Garmon, S. Ganjam, Y. Zhang, J. Claes, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, High-fidelity parametric beamsplitting with a parity- protected converter, Nature Communications14, 5767 (2023)

    2023

Show all 96 references
  1. [10]

    Maiti, J

    A. Maiti, J. W. O. Garmon, Y. Lu, A. Miano, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, A linear quantum coupler for clean bosonic control (2025), arXiv:2501.18025 [quant-ph]

    2025

  2. [11]

    Reagor, W

    M. Reagor, W. Pfaff, C. Axline, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Sliwa, E. Holland, C. Wang, J. Blumoff, K. Chou, M. J. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Quantum memory with millisecond co- herence in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. B94, 014506 (2016)

    2016

  3. [12]

    C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, P. Reinhold, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Chou, C. Axline, M. Reagor, J. Blumoff, K. Sliwa, et al., A schr¨ odinger cat living in two boxes, Science352, 1087 (2016)

    2016

  4. [13]

    Chakram, A

    S. Chakram, A. E. Oriani, R. K. Naik, A. V. Dixit, K. He, A. Agrawal, H. Kwon, and D. I. Schuster, Seamless high-q microwave cavities for multimode circuit quantum elec- trodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 107701 (2021)

    2021

  5. [14]

    N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. Girvin, L. Jiang, et al., Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits, Nature536, 441 (2016)

    2016

  6. [15]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. Brock, A. Ding, L. Frun- zio,et al., Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even, Nature616, 50 (2023)

    2023

  7. [16]

    Z. Ni, S. Li, X. Deng, Y. Cai, L. Zhang, W. Wang, Z.-B. Yang, H. Yu, F. Yan, S. Liu,et al., Beating the break- even point with a discrete-variable-encoded logical qubit, Nature616, 56 (2023)

    2023

  8. [17]

    Milul, B

    O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi, D. Chausovsky, N. Kahn, E. C ¸ ifty¨ urek, F. Lafont, and S. Rosenblum, Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of milliseconds single-photon coherence time, PRX Quantum4, 030336 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    A. E. Oriani, F. Zhao, T. Roy, A. Anferov, K. He, A. Agrawal, R. Banerjee, S. Chakram, and D. I. Schus- ter, Niobium coaxial cavities with internal quality factors exceeding 1.5 billion for circuit quantum electrodynamics (2024), arXiv:2403.00286 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Romanenko, R

    A. Romanenko, R. Pilipenko, S. Zorzetti, D. Frolov, M. Awida, S. Belomestnykh, S. Posen, and A. Gras- sellino, Three-Dimensional Superconducting Resonators at T<20 mK with Photon Lifetimes up toτ=2 s, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 034032 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quan- tum computation, New Journal of Physics16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  12. [21]

    M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. T. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode, Phys. Rev. X6, 031006 (2016)

    2016

  13. [22]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, Quan- tum error correction of qudits beyond break-even, Nature 641, 612 (2025)

    2025

  14. [23]

    S. S. Bullock, D. P. O’Leary, and G. K. Brennen, Asymp- totically optimal quantum circuits ford-level systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 230502 (2005)

    2005

  15. [24]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Frontiers in Physics8, 589504 (2020)

    2020

  16. [25]

    P. J. Low, N. C. F. Zutt, G. A. Tathed, and C. Senko, Quantum logic operations and algorithms in a single 25- level atomic qudit (2025), arXiv:2507.15799 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. Sawaya,et al., Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chemical reviews119, 10856 (2019)

    2019

  18. [27]

    Dutta, D

    R. Dutta, D. G. A. Cabral, N. Lyu, N. P. Vu, Y. Wang, B. Allen, X. Dan, R. G. Corti˜ nas, P. Khazaei, M. Sch¨ afer, A. C. C. d. Albornoz, S. E. Smart, S. Nie, M. H. De- voret, D. A. Mazziotti, P. Narang, C. Wang, J. D. Whit- field, A. K. Wilson, H. P. Hendrickson, D. A. Lidar,...

    2024

  19. [28]

    Chizzini, F

    M. Chizzini, F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, I. Tavernelli, S. Car- retta, and P. Santini, Qudit-based quantum simulation of fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. A110, 062602 (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hardware efficient quantum simulation of non-abelian gauge theories with qudits on rydberg plat- forms, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 160501 (2022)

    2022

  21. [30]

    T. V. Zache, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Fermion-qudit quantum processors for simulating lattice 23 gauge theories with matter, Quantum7, 1140 (2023), arXiv:2303.08683 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Y. Liu, S. Singh, K. C. Smith, E. Crane, J. M. Mar- tyn, A. Eickbusch, A. Schuckert, R. D. Li, J. Sinanan- Singh, M. B. Soley, T. Tsunoda, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, and S. M. Girvin, Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Instruction set architectures, abstract ma- chine mo...

    2024

  23. [32]

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, F. Lovelace, and D. Musk, Primitive quantum gates for an SU(2) discrete subgroup: Binary tetrahedral, Phys. Rev. D106, 114501 (2022), arXiv:2208.12309 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Huang, T

    J. Huang, T. J. DiNapoli, G. Rockwood, M. Yuan, P. Narasimhan, E. Gupta, M. Bal, F. Crisa, S. Garat- toni, Y. Lu, L. Jiang, and S. Chakram, Fast sideband control of a weakly coupled multimode bosonic memory (2025), arXiv:2503.10623 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [34]

    X. You, A. C. Y. Li, T. Roy, S. Zhu, A. Roma- nenko, A. Grassellino, Y. Lu, and S. Chakram, Floquet- engineered fast SNAP gates in weakly coupled cQED sys- tems (2025), arXiv:2506.03034 [quant-ph]

    2025

  26. [35]

    Pietik¨ ainen, O

    I. Pietik¨ ainen, O. c. v.ˇCernot ´ ık, A. Eickbusch, A. Maiti, J. W. Garmon, R. Filip, and S. M. Girvin, Strategies and trade-offs for controllability and memory time of ultra- high-quality microwave cavities in circuit quantum elec- trodynamics, PRX Quantum5, 040307 (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    Padamsee, J

    H. Padamsee, J. Knobloch, and T. Hays,RF supercon- ductivity for accelerators(1998)

    1998

  28. [37]

    B. Aune, R. Bandelmann, D. Bloess, B. Bonin, A. Bosotti, M. Champion, C. Crawford, G. Deppe, B. Dwersteg, D. A. Edwards, H. T. Edwards, M. Ferrario, M. Fouaidy, P.-D. Gall, A. Gamp, A. G¨ ossel, J. Graber, D. Hubert, M. H¨ uning, M. Juillard, T. Junquera, H. Kaiser, G. Kreps, ...

    2000

  29. [38]

    Reineri, S

    A. Reineri, S. Zorzetti, T. Roy, and X. You, Exploration of superconducting multi-mode cavity architectures for quantum computing, in2023 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01 (2023) pp. 1342–1348

    2023

  30. [39]

    Heidler, C

    P. Heidler, C. M. F. Schneider, K. Kustura, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, O. Romero-Isart, and G. Kirchmair, Non- markovian effects of two-level systems in a niobium coax- ial resonator with a single-photon lifetime of 10 millisec- onds, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 034024 (2021)

    2021

  31. [40]

    Charpentier, A

    T. Charpentier, A. Khvalyuk, L. Ioffe, M. Feigel’man, N. Roch, and B. Sac´ ep´ e, Universal scaling of mi- crowave dissipation in superconducting circuits (2025), arXiv:2507.08953 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Krastanov, V

    S. Krastanov, V. V. Albert, C. Shen, C.-L. Zou, R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. Jiang, Uni- versal control of an oscillator with dispersive coupling to a qubit, Phys. Rev. A92, 040303 (2015)

    2015

  33. [42]

    C. K. Law and J. H. Eberly, Arbitrary control of a quan- tum electromagnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 1055 (1996)

    1996

  34. [43]

    Eickbusch, V

    A. Eickbusch, V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, S. S. Elder, S. R. Jha, J. Venkatraman, B. Royer, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Fast universal control of an oscillator with weak dispersive coupling to a qubit, Nature Physics 18, 1464 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    A. A. Diringer, E. Blumenthal, A. Grinberg, L. Jiang, and S. Hacohen-Gourgy, Conditional-not displacement: Fast multioscillator control with a single qubit, Phys. Rev. X14, 011055 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    X. You, Y. Lu, T. Kim, D. M. K¨ urk¸ c¨ uolu, S. Zhu, D. van Zanten, T. Roy, Y. Lu, S. Chakram, A. Grassellino, A. Romanenko, J. Koch, and S. Zorzetti, Crosstalk- robust quantum control in multimode bosonic systems, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 044072 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Zeytino˘ glu, M

    S. Zeytino˘ glu, M. Pechal, S. Berger, A. A. Abduma- likov, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Microwave-induced amplitude- and phase-tunable qubit-resonator coupling in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A91, 043846 (2015)

    2015

  38. [47]

    Y. Liu, J. Sinanan-Singh, M. T. Kearney, G. Mintzer, and I. L. Chuang, Constructing qudits from infinite- dimensional oscillators by coupling to qubits, Phys. Rev. A104, 032605 (2021)

    2021

  39. [48]

    Rosenblum, P

    S. Rosenblum, P. Reinhold, M. Mirrahimi, L. Jiang, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Fault-tolerant detec- tion of a quantum error, Science361, 266–270 (2018)

    2018

  40. [49]

    S. S. Elder, C. S. Wang, P. Reinhold, C. T. Hann, K. S. Chou, B. J. Lester, S. Rosenblum, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, High-fidelity measurement of qubits encoded in multilevel superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. X10, 011001 (2020)

    2020

  41. [50]

    Reinhold, S

    P. Reinhold, S. Rosenblum, W.-L. Ma, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Error-corrected gates on an encoded qubit, Nature Physics16, 822–826 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    Tsunoda, J

    T. Tsunoda, J. D. Teoh, W. D. Kalfus, S. J. de Graaf, B. J. Chapman, J. C. Curtis, N. Thakur, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Error-detectable bosonic entan- gling gates with a noisy ancilla, PRX Quantum4, 020354 (2023)

    2023

  43. [52]

    J. D. Teoh, P. Winkel, H. K. Babla, B. J. Chapman, J. Claes, S. J. de Graaf, J. W. Garmon, W. D. Kalfus, Y. Lu, A. Maiti,et al., Dual-rail encoding with supercon- ducting cavities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2221736120 (2023)

    2023

  44. [53]

    Hofheinz, H

    M. Hofheinz, H. Wang, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. O’connell, D. Sank, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis,et al., Synthesizing arbitrary quantum states in a superconducting resonator, Nature459, 546 (2009)

    2009

  45. [54]

    Mischuck and K

    B. Mischuck and K. Mølmer, Qudit quantum computa- tion in the jaynes-cummings model, Phys. Rev. A87, 022341 (2013)

    2013

  46. [55]

    M. S. Blok, V. V. Ramasesh, T. Schuster, K. O’Brien, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. Dahlen, A. Morvan, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Quantum information scram- bling on a superconducting qutrit processor, Phys. Rev. X11, 021010 (2021)

    2021

  47. [56]

    N. Goss, A. Morvan, B. Marinelli, B. K. Mitchell, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, L. Chen, C. J¨ unger, J. M. Kreike- baum, D. I. Santiago,et al., High-fidelity qutrit entan- gling gates for superconducting circuits, Nature commu- nications13, 7481 (2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    T. Roy, Z. Li, E. Kapit, and D. Schuster, Two-qutrit quantum algorithms on a programmable superconducting 24 processor, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064024 (2023)

    2023

  49. [58]

    L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y. Kim, E. Younis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Em- powering a qudit-based quantum processor by travers- ing the dual bosonic ladder, Nature Communications15, 7117 (2024)

    2024

  50. [59]

    A. S. Nikolaevaet al., Scalable improvement of the gen- eralized Toffoli gate realization using trapped-ion-based qutrits (2024), arXiv:2407.07758 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, D. Liu, E. M. Murairi, and S. Zhu, Synthesis of Single Qutrit Circuits from Clif- ford+R (2025), arXiv:2503.20203 [quant-ph]

    2025

  52. [61]

    Litteken, L

    A. Litteken, L. M. Seifert, J. D. Chadwick, N. Notting- ham, T. Roy, Z. Li, D. Schuster, F. T. Chong, and J. M. Baker, Dancing the quantum waltz: Compiling three- qubit gates on four level architectures, inProceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Arch...

    2023

  53. [62]

    S. Cao, M. Bakr, G. Campanaro, S. D. Fasciati, J. Wills, D. Lall, B. Shteynas, V. Chidambaram, I. Rungger, and P. Leek, Emulating two qubits with a four-level transmon qudit for variational quantum algorithms, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology9, 035003 (2024)

    2024

  54. [63]

    Z. Wang, R. W. Parker, E. Champion, and M. S. Blok, High-EJ /EC transmon qudits with up to 12 levels, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 034046 (2025)

    2025

  55. [64]

    Champion, Z

    E. Champion, Z. Wang, R. W. Parker, and M. S. Blok, Efficient control of a transmon qudit using effective spin- 7/2 rotations, Phys. Rev. X15, 021096 (2025)

    2025

  56. [65]

    X. Shi, J. Sinanan-Singh, T. J. Burke, J. Chi- averini, and I. L. Chuang, Efficient implementation of a quantum algorithm with a trapped ion qudit (2025), arXiv:2506.09371 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Agrawal, A

    A. Agrawal, A. V. Dixit, T. Roy, S. Chakram, K. He, R. K. Naik, D. I. Schuster, and A. Chou, Stimulated emission of signal photons from dark matter waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 140801 (2024)

    2024

  58. [67]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y. Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou,et al., Quantum- enhanced metrology with large fock states, Nature Physics20, 1874 (2024)

    2024

  59. [68]

    Gustafson, Prospects for Simulating a Qudit Based Model of (1+1)d Scalar QED, Phys

    E. Gustafson, Prospects for Simulating a Qudit Based Model of (1+1)d Scalar QED, Phys. Rev. D103, 114505 (2021), arXiv:2104.10136 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Ciavarella, N

    A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Trailhead for quantum simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory in the local multiplet basis, Phys. Rev. D103, 094501 (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [70]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Ri- naldi, A. Roggero, D. I. ...

    2023

  62. [71]

    M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations of SO(5) many-fermion systems using qu- dits, Phys. Rev. C108, 064306 (2023), arXiv:2305.11941 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [72]

    D. M. K¨ urk¸ c¨ uoglu, H. Lamm, and A. Maestri, Qudit Gate Decomposition Dependence for Lattice Gauge The- ories (2024), arXiv:2410.16414 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [73]

    M. Meth, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. J. Jena, A. Steiner, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, et al., Simulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer, Nature Physics21, 570 (2025)

    2025

  65. [74]

    Y. Y. Gao, B. J. Lester, Y. Zhang, C. Wang, S. Rosen- blum, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Programmable interference between two mi- crowave quantum memories, Phys. Rev. X8, 021073 (2018)

    2018

  66. [75]

    Pfaff, C

    W. Pfaff, C. J. Axline, L. D. Burkhart, U. Vool, P. Rein- hold, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Controlled release of multiphoton quantum states from a microwave cavity memory, Nature Physics 13, 882 (2017)

    2017

  67. [76]

    Boissonneault, J

    M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Non- linear dispersive regime of cavity qed: The dressed de- phasing model, Phys. Rev. A77, 060305 (2008)

    2008

  68. [77]

    Zhang, B

    Y. Zhang, B. J. Lester, Y. Y. Gao, L. Jiang, R. J. Schoelkopf, and S. M. Girvin, Engineering bilinear mode coupling in circuit QED: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. A99, 012314 (2019)

    2019

  69. [78]

    K. S. Chou, T. Shemma, H. McCarrick, T.-C. Chien, J. D. Teoh, P. Winkel, A. Anderson, J. Chen, J. C. Cur- tis, S. J. de Graaf,et al., A superconducting dual-rail cavity qubit with erasure-detected logical measurements, Nature Physics20, 1454 (2024)

    2024

  70. [79]

    Z. Li, E. Gupta, F. Zhao, R. Banerjee, Y. Lu, T. Roy, A. Oriani, A. Vrajitoarea, S. Chakram, and D. I. Schus- ter, A cascaded random access quantum memory (2025), arXiv:2503.13953 [quant-ph]

    2025

  71. [80]

    Posen, A

    S. Posen, A. Romanenko, A. Grassellino, O. Melnychuk, and D. Sergatskov, Ultralow surface resistance via vac- uum heat treatment of superconducting radio-frequency cavities, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 014024 (2020)

    2020

  72. [81]

    C. Zhou, P. Lu, M. Praquin, T.-C. Chien, R. Kaufman, X. Cao, M. Xia, R. S. Mong, W. Pfaff, D. Pekker,et al., Realizing all-to-all couplings among detachable quantum modules using a microwave quantum state router, npj quantum information9, 54 (2023)

    2023

  73. [82]

    F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. Bylander, X. Jin, F. Yoshihara, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, T. P. Orlando, and W. D. Oliver, Rotating-frame relaxation as a noise spectrum analyser of a superconducting qubit undergoing driven evolution, Nature communications4, 2337 (2013)

    2013

  74. [83]

    A. A. Clerk and D. W. Utami, Using a qubit to measure photon-number statistics of a driven thermal oscillator, Phys. Rev. A75, 042302 (2007)

    2007

  75. [84]

    A. P. Read, B. J. Chapman, C. U. Lei, J. C. Cur- tis, S. Ganjam, L. Krayzman, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Precision measurement of the microwave di- electric loss of sapphire in the quantum regime with parts-per-billion sensitivity, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 034064 (2023)

    2023

  76. [85]

    Romanenko and D

    A. Romanenko and D. I. Schuster, Understanding quality factor degradation in superconducting niobium cavities at low microwave field amplitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 264801 (2017)

    2017

  77. [86]

    Ganjam, Y

    S. Ganjam, Y. Wang, Y. Lu, A. Banerjee, C. U. Lei, L. Krayzman, K. Kisslinger, C. Zhou, R. Li, Y. Jia, M. Liu, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Surpassing mil- lisecond coherence in on chip superconducting quantum memories by optimizing materials and circuit design, Na- 25 tu...

    2024

  78. [87]

    Z. K. Minev, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, L. Chris- takis, I. M. Pop, and M. H. Devoret, Energy-participation quantization of Josephson circuits, npj Quantum Infor- mation7, 131 (2021)

    2021

  79. [88]

    Y. Lu, S. Chakram, N. Leung, N. Earnest, R. K. Naik, Z. Huang, P. Groszkowski, E. Kapit, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Universal stabilization of a parametrically cou- pled qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 150502 (2017)

    2017

  80. [89]

    Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics32, 400 (1991)

    M. Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics32, 400 (1991)

    1991

  81. [90]

    J. Li, M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, G. S. Paraoanu, and P. J. Hako- nen, Pure dephasing in a superconducting three-level sys- tem, Journal of Physics: Conference Series400, 042039 (2012)

    2012

  82. [91]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  83. [92]

    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 Journal of Physics20, 043053 (2018)

    2018

  84. [93]

    M. R. Geller, Rigorous measurement error correction, Quantum Science and Technology5, 03LT01 (2020)

    2020

  85. [94]

    Peters, A

    E. Peters, A. C. Y. Li, and G. N. Perdue, Perturbative readout-error mitigation for near-term quantum comput- ers, Phys. Rev. A107, 062426 (2023)

    2023

  86. [95]

    Shavitt and L

    I. Shavitt and L. T. Redmon, Quasidegenerate pertur- bation theories. a canonical van Vleck formalism and its relationship to other approaches, The Journal of Chemi- cal Physics73, 5711 (1980)

    1980

  87. [96]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum informa- tion with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  88. [97]

    X. Wang, B. C. Sanders, and D. W. Berry, Entangling power and operator entanglement in qudit systems, Phys. Rev. A67, 042323 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.