Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 10 minor 2 cited by

First-principle crosstalk dynamics and Hamiltonian learning via Rabi experiments

T0 review · 4 major / 10 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Crosstalk on a transmon chip is pairwise additive: two-qubit Rabi fits predict three- and four-qubit drive dynamics to about 4%.

desk verdict Practical crosstalk measurement protocol with a real additivity result, but the beta_aa=1 assumption needs a calibration check before the main claim fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05362 v1 pith:M25DTPKE submitted 2025-02-07 quant-ph

Jan Balewski , Adam Winick , Yilun Xu , Neel Vora , Gang Huang , David Santiago , Joseph Emerson , Irfan Siddiqi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords crosstalkcharacterizationHamiltonianlearningsimultaneousRabiexperimentscoherenterrorstransmonqubitsquantumcontrolpulseprecompilationsuperconductingprocessor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the coherent crosstalk corrupting simultaneous qubit operations is described by a small set of pairwise parameters, learned from two-qubit experiments, that then predict the dynamics of three and four simultaneously driven qubits without additional multi-qubit fitting. The authors introduce a simultaneous-Rabi protocol in which a primary qubit is driven at its own frequency while a secondary qubit is driven at that same frequency with a scanned phase; fitting the measured response yields the relative strength and phase of the directed crosstalk for that pair. Combining these pairwise terms additively in the Hamiltonian, they predict three- and four-qubit drive traces on an 8-qubit superconducting transmon processor and report agreement of about 4% for most of roughly 80 random qubit multiplets. If the claim holds, crosstalk becomes a learnable, precompilable coherent error, and whole-chip crosstalk maps can be produced from shallow pairwise Rabi sweeps. This matters because coherent errors are a main barrier to scaling quantum processors, and a model that predicts multi-qubit dynamics before execution enables digital pulse precompensation.

What carries the argument

The working engine is the closed-form two-qubit Rabi solution, Eqs. (4)–(9), whose core object is the generalized Rabi frequency $\eta_{ab} = \sqrt{1+\beta_{ab}^2+2\beta_{ab}\cos(\Delta\phi_{ab}-\theta_{ab})}$ appearing in $\langle Z \rangle_a = \cos(\eta_{ab} \bar{\Omega} t)$. This formula turns each directed qubit pair into a two-parameter fit $(\beta_{ab}, \theta_{ab})$ obtained from one phase scan with the secondary drive set to the primary qubit's frequency. The transfer to larger circuits relies on the linearity of the drive Hamiltonian: the multi-qubit analogue is $\eta^2 = 1 + \sum_p \beta_p^2 + \sum_{p<q} 2\beta_p\beta_q\cos(\theta_p-\theta_q)$ over all pairs, so predictions for $N$ simultaneous drives are assembled from pairwise data alone. This additive structure is what makes the model predictive rather than descriptive.

What would settle it

Re-fit the two-qubit phase scans with each qubit's self-drive amplitude left free (calibrated by an independent Rabi-rate measurement), then recompute the three- and four-qubit predictions; if the predictions shift by more than the reported ~4%, the fixed $\beta_{aa}=1$ convention, rather than pairwise additivity alone, is responsible for part of the agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the drive Hamiltonian of a transmon under many simultaneous drives is, to the tested accuracy, the linear superposition of directed two-qubit drive terms. For each ordered pair $(a,b)$ the coupling is set by a strength $\beta_{ab}$ and a phase $\theta_{ab}$, with $H_d^{(jk)} = \beta_{jk}\Omega_k(t_{jk})\cos(\omega'_k t_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varphi_k)(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^{\dagger})$. Assuming $\beta_{aa}=1$ and neglecting transmon anharmonicity, the two-qubit simultaneous-Rabi problem is exactly solvable: driving qubit $b$ at qubit $a$'s frequency with a relative phase $\Delta\phi$ gives $\langle Z \rangle_a = \cos(\bar{\Omega} t \sqrt{1+\beta_{ab}^2+2\beta_{ab}\cos(\Delta\phi-\theta_{ab})})$. Fits of this curve to all 49 working directed pairs on the 8-qubit transmon chip yield median $\chi^2/\nu \approx 1$. The same formula, with the squared generalized Rabi frequency built from the sum of pairwise contributions, then predicts three- and four-qubit experiments with no new free parameters; the median prediction $\chi^2/\nu$ is about 1.6–1.7, which the authors translate to roughly 4% accuracy for most cases.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation and all fits assume that a qubit's own drive has exactly unit strength ($\beta_{aa}=1$) and that transmon anharmonicity is negligible for the 160 ns cosine pulses; if the true self-drive strength differs from 1, the fitted crosstalk values absorb the error and bias the additive multi-qubit predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Whole-chip crosstalk maps require $O(N(N-1))$ directed two-qubit phase scans, reducing to $O(N)$ when crosstalk is local and possibly $O(1)$ with simultaneous regional drives, making the method practical for larger processors.
  • With the pairwise Hamiltonian learned, multi-qubit driven dynamics can be simulated classically without running the circuits, enabling digital precompilation of drive pulses to cancel coherent crosstalk errors.
  • Because the calibration circuits are shallow single-qubit gates, the method is less sensitive to decoherence than randomized-benchmarking approaches and needs only a reasonable Rx gate plus readout-error correction.
  • Prediction failures concentrate in cases where the cosine pulse envelope distorts the trajectory or a qubit is unstable, and the authors note that switching to shaped pulses requires no change to the Hamiltonian model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper fixes $\beta_{aa}=1$, an independent calibration of each qubit's self-drive Rabi rate, followed by re-fitting $\beta$ and $\theta$ with $\beta_{aa}$ free, would show whether the reported multi-qubit agreement is robust or partly an artifact of absorbing self-amplitude error into the crosstalk parameters.
  • The pairwise map could be inverted for pulse design: with $\beta_{ab}$ and $\theta_{ab}$ known, one could solve for drive amplitudes and phases that cancel crosstalk on the target qubit, turning characterization into precompilation; the paper motivates this direction but does not demonstrate it.
  • Because the model neglects anharmonicity and higher transmon levels, the 4% accuracy should degrade at higher drive powers or shorter pulses; repeating the protocol with shaped pulses would map the boundary of the pairwise-additive regime.
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

4 major / 10 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a phenomenological pairwise Hamiltonian for classical drive crosstalk on transmon qubits, parameterized by relative amplitudes β_ab and phases θ_ab. The authors perform two-qubit simultaneous Rabi experiments on an 8-qubit AQT processor, fit β_ab and θ_ab for each directional pair, and then use the linear superposition of these pairwise terms to predict three- and four-qubit Rabi dynamics. They report median χ²/ν around 1 for the pairwise fits and below 2 for the multi-qubit predictions, interpreting this as evidence that pairwise additivity of crosstalk holds and that the model can predict multi-qubit coherent errors without additional multi-qubit fitting.

Significance. If the pairwise-additivity result holds, the protocol offers a practical and scalable way to characterize classical drive crosstalk and provides a basis for pulse precompensation. The verification design is a genuine strength: the three- and four-qubit predictions use parameters learned from independent pairwise experiments, so the agreement is not a refit of the target data. The paper also reports reduced chi-squared statistics for both the fits and the predictions and explicitly identifies outlier cases. However, the quantitative support for the central claim is weakened by an unquantified self-drive amplitude assumption, an omitted derivation of the central analytic solution, and the absence of parameter uncertainties and prediction bands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The analytic solution is derived under the explicit assumption β_aa=1, immediately after the text acknowledges that β_jj need not equal 1 in practice. Because the two-qubit fits determine β_ab and θ_ab only relative to the assumed self-drive amplitude, any actual deviation of β_aa from 1 is absorbed into the fitted crosstalk parameters and then re-inserted as β_aa=1 in the multi-qubit predictions of Eqs. (11)-(14). For the 160 ns, 2.5π pulses used here, a few-percent self-amplitude error produces percent-level errors in ⟨Z⟩, comparable to the claimed 'about 4%' accuracy. The paper reports no single-qubit Rabi calibration, no measurement of the actual Rabi rate during the simultaneous sweeps, and no leakage measurement that would bound the two-level approximation. Please add an independent calibration of β_aa, or fit β_aa as a free parameter, and propagate its uncertainty through the multi-qubit predictions.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The derivation of the closed-form solution leading to Eqs. (4)-(6) is omitted. The derivation is needed to verify the rotating-wave approximation, the replacement of the time-dependent cosine envelope by the integrated area ⟨Ω⟩t, and the treatment of the time-delay matrix τ introduced in Eq. (3). In particular, τ_ab is silently set to zero in the passage from Eq. (3) to Eq. (6) without justification or a measured bound. Please provide the derivation in an appendix or supplement and state each approximation explicitly, including why the time delays are negligible or how they are calibrated.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (10) and Section IV, Figs. 7-9] No confidence intervals are reported for the fitted β_ab and θ_ab values, and no uncertainty is propagated into the multi-qubit predictions. In addition, Eq. (10) defines χ²/ν with p fitted parameters, but for the predictions in Figs. 7-9 there are no fitted parameters, so the degrees of freedom should be N rather than N−p; if p=2 was used for the predictions, the reported values are not directly comparable to the fit statistics. Please report parameter covariances and bootstrap or analytic prediction bands, and state explicitly how σ_i is estimated from the 1000 shots and the M3 readout correction.
  4. [Section IV, after Fig. 7] The text says 'About half of the measured triplets were accurately predicted,' but the following paragraph concludes that the model 'reasonably predicts three- and four-qubit experiments with an accuracy of about 4% for most cases' on the basis of median χ²/ν below 2. These statements are in tension. Please report the empirical fraction of triplets and quadruplets with χ²/ν below chosen thresholds, define the 4% accuracy metric precisely, and discuss the outliers (e.g., χ²/ν=12.6 and 26.8) quantitatively rather than attributing them qualitatively to TLS or pulse imperfections.
minor comments (10)
  1. [Eq. (13)] In Eq. (13), the term written as '2β_ac cos(∆ϕ − θ_ad)' should presumably read '2β_ad cos(∆ϕ − θ_ad)'; as written, the equation is inconsistent with the pairwise superposition used for the four-qubit prediction.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption of Fig. 7 says the three-qubit prediction uses Eq. (14), but Eq. (14) is the four-qubit model; the three-qubit prediction is given by Eq. (12).
  3. [Section IV] The number of verification experiments is given as 'about 40 qubits multiplets' and later as 'about 80 randomly chosen multiplets'; please clarify whether the 80 is the sum of triplets and quadruplets.
  4. [Title] The title's 'First-principle' is inaccurate because the Hamiltonian is a phenomenological pairwise model with parameters fitted to experiment; consider rewording to 'Hamiltonian-based' or 'model-based'.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typographical errors such as 'Hamitonians' and 'dives', and the notation ⟨Ω⟩ for the pulse area should be defined precisely when first used.
  6. [Data availability] For a characterization method, the manuscript should include a machine-readable table of all fitted β_ab and θ_ab values and a data/code availability statement; the current graphical representation in Fig. 5 is not sufficient for reproducing the predictions.
  7. [Introduction] The introduction's claim that the model explains 'virtually all' coherent errors is stronger than the data, which include prediction χ²/ν values of 12.6 and 26.8; please temper this claim.
  8. [Eq. (10)] Please specify whether σ_i in Eq. (10) includes only statistical shot noise or also readout-calibration uncertainty, and derive the stated 'about 3%' statistical error from the 1000 shots.
  9. [Fig. 4b] The statement that no statistically significant correlation is observed between β and θ is based only on a scatter plot; please report a correlation coefficient and its uncertainty.
  10. [Section III] The criterion for excluding qubit 5 as a readout qubit ('operated incorrectly or its calibration drifted away too quickly') should be stated more precisely, e.g., using calibration drift metrics, for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multi-qubit 'predictions' are evaluated on held-out data using pair-fitted parameters, so the central claim is not forced by construction; the beta_aa=1 assumption is a stated calibration ambiguity, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) adopt a pairwise drive-crosstalk Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-3); (ii) fit beta_ab and theta_ab to two-qubit simultaneous Rabi sweeps using Eq. (6); (iii) combine only those pair-fitted parameters in Eqs. (11)-(14) to predict three- and four-qubit <Z> curves; (iv) compare those predictions to multi-qubit data that were not used in any fit. Because the three/four-qubit targets are independent of the fit data and no parameter is refit to them, the central claim (about 4% accuracy) is a genuine out-of-sample test of pairwise additivity, not a prediction statistically forced by construction. The only self-citation with model-level content is Ref. [9] (Winick, Wallman, Emerson), which supplies the crosstalk framework; however, the present paper independently tests that framework against new AQT data, so the citation is background, not a load-bearing circular justification. The acknowledged assumption 'beta_aa = 1' (Sec. II, before Eqs. 4-6) after noting that 'beta_jj is not necessarily exactly equal to 1' is a real calibration ambiguity: if the self-drive amplitude deviates from unity, fitted beta_ab/theta_ab absorb the error and the re-insertion of beta_aa = 1 in multi-qubit predictions could bias the predicted Rabi angle at the few-percent level, the same order as the claimed accuracy. This is a correctness-risk/calibration concern, not a circularity: the prediction is not defined as the fit, and no equation reduces the target data to the fit inputs. Similarly, the paper's own attribution of outlier triplets/quadruplets to cosine-envelope errors and TLS instability (Sec. IV) is a limitation statement, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All predictive content rests on the semiclassical pairwise drive Hamiltonian from the authors' earlier framework, plus four unquantified physical assumptions: two-level transmon, beta_aa=1, pair-additive crosstalk, and negligible drive time delays. The fitted beta/theta are per-pair parameters, so the ledger is dominated by assumptions rather than invented entities. The main independent support is that 3/4-qubit predictions are not refit to the target data.

free parameters (2)
  • beta_ab (directional crosstalk strength) = 0.02 to 0.20 for 49 ordered pairs
    Fit to phase-sweep Rabi curves via Eq (6) for every ordered qubit pair on the chip.
  • theta_ab (directional crosstalk phase) = about 0.1 pi to 2.0 pi; e.g., 2.86, 3.31 rad in Fig 3
    Second fit parameter in Eq (6); values are reported in figures for each pair.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Per-qubit Hamiltonian is the sum H0 + sum_k H_d^(jk) with drive crosstalk captured by beta_jk and theta_jk (Eqs 1-3).
    Taken from the authors' prior framework (Ref [9]); the paper does not derive this form from device physics but treats it as the model to be validated.
  • domain assumption The transmon can be treated as a two-level system during 160 ns cosine pulses; anharmonicity and leakage are negligible.
    Stated in Sec II ("assuming we can neglect the anharmonic behavior"), justified only by large anharmonicity (>600 MHz) but not by leakage measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper The primary qubit's own drive amplitude beta_aa = 1 exactly.
    Assumed before Eq (4) while the text acknowledges beta_jj need not be exactly 1; no calibration check is reported.
  • domain assumption Crosstalk is pair-additive; three- and four-qubit dynamics are the vector sum of pairwise contributions with no many-body crosstalk terms.
    Section IV constructs 3- and 4-qubit eta from pairwise beta/theta; this additivity is the content being tested, not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Relative time delays tau_jk between drive channels are negligible or absorbed into the fitted phase theta.
    Time delays are introduced in Sec II but absent from Eqs (4)-(14); the experiments do not attempt to measure tau.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First-principle crosstalk dynamics and Hamiltonian learning via Rabi experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M25DTPKE

@misc{pith2026250205362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First-principle crosstalk dynamics and Hamiltonian learning via Rabi experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M25DTPKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05362}
}
read the original abstract

Coherent errors constitute a significant barrier to successful large-scale quantum computation. One such error mechanism is crosstalk, which violates spatial locality or the independence of operations. We present a description of crosstalk and learn the underlying parameters by executing novel simultaneous Rabi experiments and fitting the Hamiltonian to the observed data. We use this model to predict three- and four-qubit experiments and observe excellent agreement between our theoretical predictions and experimental results. Our technique enables researchers to study the dynamics of multi-qubit circuits without performing experiments, potentially facilitating the minimization of coherent gate errors via digital pulse precompilation. Additionally, this method provides whole-chip crosstalk characterization, a useful tool for guiding quantum processor design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05362 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A standard Rx(Ω) rotation is applied to the ‘pri- ˆ mary’ qubit a, characterized by the driving frequency fa. The symbol Z denotes measuring the expectation value (EV) of this qubit in the Z-basis. Simultaneously, a non-standard pulse is applied to the other qubit b as a modified Rx rotation, with its driving frequency shifted from fb to fa. To enhance the crosstalk signal and re￾duce the shot cost, we use a relativ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Schematic native connectivity for the AQT chip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Examples of measured crosstalk using circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Statistical characterization of crosstalk strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Quantum circuit for 3 qubits experiment used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Examples of measured and predicted crosstalk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Accumulation of crosstalk for qubit 0 when simultaneously driving 1,2, and 6. Panels a-c) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The perfect entangler spectrum as a tool to analyze crosstalk

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A frequency-scanned perfect-entangler-distance spectrum detects and explains crosstalk from spectator qubits during two-qubit gates.

  2. Pulse-Level Simulation of Crosstalk Attacks on Superconducting Quantum Hardware

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a simulated three-qubit superconducting device, adversarial pulses injected into adjacent qubits can bias a sensitive coin-flip protocol while leaving an XOR classifier nearly unaffected.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    2019

  2. [2]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. B. Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. S. Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 626, 58 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, 7 P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature 627, 778 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    P. W. Shor, Physical Review A 52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    Gottesman, Physical Review A 54, 1862 (1996)

    D. Gottesman, Physical Review A 54, 1862 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Science 279, 342 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, SIAM Journal on Comput- ing 38, 1207 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    A. M. Steane, Physical Review A 68, 042322 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Winick, J

    A. Winick, J. J. Wallman, and J. Emerson, Physical Re- view Letters 126, 230502 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Rudinger, T

    K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, D. Langharst, M. Sarovar, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Physical Review X 9, 021045 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Sarovar, T

    M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Quantum 4, 321 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, S. A. Caldwell, B. R. Johnson, and C. A. Ryan, Physical Review Applied 12, 064022 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    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, Physical Review A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, npj Quan- tum Information 3, 2 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    D. C. McKay, S. Filipp, A. Mezzacapo, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical Review Applied 6, 064007 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Hashim, A

    A. Hashim, A. Carignan-Dugas, L. Chen, C. Juenger, N. Fruitwala, Y. Xu, G. Huang, J. Wallman, and I. Sid- diqi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14139 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hashim, M

    A. Hashim, M. Yuan, P. Gokhale, L. Chen, C. Juenger, N. Fruitwala, Y. Xu, G. Huang, L. Jiang, and I. Siddiqi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18768 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Advanced quantum testbed, https://aqt.lbl.gov/ (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Derivative Removal by Adiabatic Gate

  13. [21]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Physical Review Letters 103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gam- betta, PRX Quantum 2, 040326 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    P. R. Bevington and D. K. Robinson, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, 2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    N. T. Bronn, V. P. Adiga, S. B. Olivadese, X. Wu, J. M. Chow, and D. P. Pappas, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy 3, 024007 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Y. Xu, G. Huang, J. Balewski, R. Naik, A. Morvan, B. Mitchell, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Y. Xu, G. Huang, N. Fruitwala, A. Rajagopala, R. K. Naik, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10333 (2023). Appendix A: QubiC - quantum processor controller Experimental data for this work were collected using Qubit Control ( QubiC ) system [...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.