Arxiv:2009.08021V3 [Quant-Ph] 29 Jan 2021 C

Home , Flux qubit

Gate-based superconducting quantum computing Sangil Kwon,1, a) Akiyoshi Tomonaga,1, 2 Gopika Lakshmi Bhai,1, 2 Simon J. Devitt,3 and Jaw-Shen Tsai1, 2 1)Department of Physics, Tokyo University of Science, Shinjuku, Tokyo 162-0825, Japan 2)RIKEN, Center for Emergent Matter Science (CEMS), Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan 3)Centre for Quantum Software and Information (QSI), Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia (Dated: 2 February 2021) In this tutorial, we introduce basic conceptual elements to understand and build a gate-based superconducting quantum computing system.

CONTENTS D. Two-Qubit Gate 26 1. iSWAP: Coherent Exchange 26 I. Introduction 2 2. iSWAP and bSWAP: Parametric Coupling 27 II. Universal Quantum Computing System 3 3. CZ: Adiabatic Excursion 28 A. Essential Elements 3 4. CZ: Coherent Exchange and Parametric 1. Quantum Bit 3 Coupling 29 2. Quantum Gate 4 5. CR: All Microwave Control 29 B. Structure 4 E. Initialization 31 III. Superconducting Qubit 5 1. Entropy Dumping 31 A. Design Criteria 5 2. Measurement-Based Initialization 31 B. Josephson Junction 5 C. Elementary Circuits 6 VII. Quantum Error Correction 31 1. Generic Hamiltonian 6 A. Introduction 31 2. Island-Based Qubit 7 B. Surface Code 33 3. Loop-Based Qubit 8 1. Definition 33 IV. Effect of Noise 10 2. Logical Qubit Construction 33 A. Relaxation 10 3. Error Detection and Correction 34 1. Concept 10 4. Logical Gate Operation 35 2. Thermalization 10 C. Proposed Device Architectures 37 3. Dephasing 12 B. Noise-Resilient Designs 13 VIII. Characterizing a Quantum System 37 1. Island-Based Qubit 13 A. Spectroscopy 37 2. Loop-Based Qubit 13 1. Single-Tone Spectroscopy 37 2. Two-Tone Spectroscopy 37 V. Coupling 14 A. Two Coupled Classical Oscillators 15 3. Dispersive Shift 38 B. From Circuit to Atom 15 B. Time-Domain Measurement 39 1. Qubit, Resonator, and Somewhere 1. Rabi Oscillation 40 between Them 15 2. Relaxation Time: T1 40 2. Qubit-Resonator Coupling 17 3. Relaxation Time: T2 40 3. Qubit-Qubit Coupling 18 arXiv:2009.08021v3 [quant-ph] 29 Jan 2021 C. Strong (Transverse) Coupling 19 IX. Controlling a Quantum System 41 A. Elementary Pulse Shaping 41 VI. Implementation of Quantum 1. Excitation Bandwidth 41 Computation 20 A. Equation of Motion 20 2. Pulse Distortion 42 B. Readout 21 B. Numerical Optimization 42 1. Dispersive Readout 21 1. GRAPE Algorithm 43 2. Josephson Parametric Amplifier 23 2. Example: Controlling Excitation C. Single-Qubit Gate 25 Bandwidth 44 C. Refocusing Technique 45 D. Evaluation of Gate Operation 47

a)Electronic mail: [email protected] Acknowledgments 49 2

I. INTRODUCTION TABLE I. Brief description of the contents.

Quantum computing is considered as a next-generation Section information processing technology. The basic element of a quantum computing system is a quantum bit, often II. Universal Quantum Computing System called a qubit. Over the last few decades, considerable This section introduces a quantum bit, quan- progress has been made toward realizing quantum com- tum gates, and a possible structure of a universal puting systems by physically implementing a qubit in quantum computing system. various systems such as ion traps, quantum dots, nuclear III. Superconducting Qubit spins, and cavity quantum electrodynamics. The scala- This section describes elementary circuits that bility of such a qubit is considered to be a prerequisite can be used as qubits and their properties in var- for a practical quantum computer of the future. In this ious circuit parameter regimes. regard, a solid-state qubit has been considered to be in- IV. Effect of Noise dispensable. Superconducting quantum systems are one This section discusses mechanisms of loss of quan- of the most promising candidates because, in these sys- tum information and several noise-resilient circuit tems, qubits are intrinsically integrated in a solid-state designs. device, and their wide range of choice for the qubit parameters is a considerable advantage, which in turn gives V. Coupling flexibility in designing such quantum circuits. This section explains coupling schemes between a In this tutorial, we try to provide basic conceptual el- qubit and other quantum systems with classical ements to understand and build a potentially scalable analogies. superconducting quantum computing system based on VI. Implementation of Quantum Computation gate operations. The logical flow is roughly from princi- This section explains how to implement basic ple to practice. After introducing the qubit and structure functions that are required for quantum com- of a universal quantum computing system (Sec. II), we putation, such as readout, gate operation, and explain a superconducting circuit that can be used as a initialization. qubit (Secs. III and IV) and how to implement basic func- VII. Quantum Error Correction tions that are required for quantum computation (Secs. V This section explains how to construct an error- and VI). Then, we introduce a quantum error correction free logical qubit and how to perform logical gate scheme, called the surface code, that is believed to be operations in the context of the surface code. suitable for superconducting qubit systems (Sec. VII). VIII. Characterizing a Quantum System Lastly, we deal with practical topics, such as how to char- This section describes standard procedures for the acterize and control a quantum system (Secs. VIII and quantum system characterization. IX). The contents of this tutorial are briefly summarized in Table I. IX. Controlling a Quantum System This section explains several useful techniques for Since this is a tutorial, the topics covered here are very controlling a quantum system and their working selective rather than comprehensive. Hence, we cite refer- principles. ences that are more accessible to readers. Another reason for this is that many concepts and experimental techniques for superconducting circuits were originally developed in other branches of science—tracing all historical literature is not meaningful for readers. For comprehensive reviews on this field, see Refs. 1–6. Regarding the difficulty of this tutorial, we assume that semiconductor industry, scaling means reducing the size readers are somewhat familiar with quantum mechanics, of the information processing device used, such as a tran- especially the Dirac notation and the occupation num- sistor, and the energy cost per bit, so that we can inte- ber representation (second quantization), and elemen- grate more and more devices into a chip. In quantum tary statistical mechanics, such as the Boltzmann distri- engineering, “scaling” simply means adding more qubits bution. Since superconducting quantum computing sys- because physical quantities involved in operations of a tems are electrical circuits, knowledge on basic electrical superconducting quantum computing platform, such as engineering will be helpful, especially the S-parameters. the charge of a Cooper pair and magnetic flux quantum, However, readers do not need to be masters of these top- are already at the quantum limit, and a quantum infor- ics. Reading this tutorial does not require deep physical mation processing device is lossless. Thus, the dramatic insights—it is more like learning a new language.7 Once size reduction as demonstrated in Moore’s law may not you get used to it, you will enjoy it. be expected for superconducting qubits. Before entering the main part, we would like to point out that the word “scaling” in quantum engineering is A set of formulas for deriving equations in this tutorial different from that in the semiconductor industry. In the are summarized in Table VI at the end of the main text. 3

(a) Bloch sphere representation of the qubit state plays phase coherence (often just called coherence) between the states |0i and |1i. z An arbitrary qubit state can also be expressed in the density matrix form: ... h0| h1| ρˆ = |ψihψ| = |0i |α|2 αβ∗ , (3) Energy |1i α∗β |β|2 y x where kets and bras around the density matrix indicate the basis. Note that the diagonal elements represent the populations of the basis states and the oﬀ-diagonal (b) Changing a frame of reference elements represent the phase coherences between these states. Hence, the populations and coherences depend on Inertial frame Rotating frame the chosen basis. z z’ Note that a qubit and a spin-1/2 system are mathematically identical. This allows us to represent the qubit state conveniently as an arrow, called the Bloch vector, in the Bloch sphere [Fig. 1(a)]. Conventionally, the qubit y y’ quantization axis is set as the z-axis, and the north and x x’ south poles represent |0i and |1i, respectively. Hence, the longitudinal component of the Bloch vector corresponds FIG. 1. (a) Bloch sphere representation of the qubit state. In to the polarization of the qubit, and the transverse com- the energy level diagram, the two lowest states in the dashed ponent corresponds to the coherence between the two boundary are used for computation. This subspace is called basis states. the computational subspace. To selectively control these two In spherical coordinates, the Bloch vector ~s can be levels, ω 6= ω is required, where ω is the transition fre- q 1-2 q written as quency between |0i and |1i, and ω1-2 is the transition frequency between |1i and |2i. (b) In the rotating frame, “trivial evolution” is eliminated such that we can concentrate on ~s = (sin θ cos φ, sin θ sin φ, cos θ), (4) the dynamics we are interested in. The axes with the prime indicate that we are in the rotating frame. As in the majority where θ and φ are the polar and azimuthal angles, re- of the literature, all Bloch spheres in this tutorial are in the spectively [Fig. 1(a)]. Conversion from the Bloch vector rotating frame. to the density matrix can be done by using the Pauli matrices:

1 ˆ II. UNIVERSAL QUANTUM COMPUTING SYSTEM ρˆ = (I + sxσˆx + syσˆy + szσˆz) 2 ! cos2 θ e−iφ cos θ sin θ A. Essential Elements = 2 2 2 . (5) iφ θ θ 2 θ e cos 2 sin 2 sin 2 1. Quantum Bit One possible mapping between Eqs. (3) and (5) is α = cos(θ/2) and β = eiφ sin(θ/2). A qubit is a two-level system whose quantum mechan- The rotation of the Bloch vector with the angle η about ical state displays phase coherence between two basis the k-axis is done by the rotation operator Rˆk(η): states, |0i and |1i. The phase coherence between two quantum states can be deﬁned as follows. The quantum σˆ η η Rˆ (η) ≡ exp −iη k = cos Iˆ− i sin σˆ (6) state of a qubit, in general, is a linear superposition of k 2 2 2 k the two basis states |0i and |1i, Here, we used the formula |ψi = α |0i + β |1i , (1) η2 η3 2 2 exp −iηAˆ = 1 − + ··· Iˆ− i η − + ··· Aˆ where α and β are complex numbers and |α| + |β| = 1. 2! 3! We can deﬁne the relative quantum phase ϕ of the two ˆ ˆ ˆ2 ˆ basis states as = cos(η)I − i sin(η)A, if A = I. (7)

ϕ ≡ arg(α∗β). (2) When we use the Bloch sphere, we are free to choose a frame of reference. In the majority of the literature, If ϕ of a given quantum mechanical state has a definite including this tutorial, the dynamics of the qubit state value, we say that a given quantum mechanical state dis- are described in the rotating frame [Fig. 1(b)]. To de- 4 termine the rotating frame frequency, we have to know ˆ the dynamics we want to focus on. Then, we eliminate TABLE II. Universal quantum gate set. Rk(η)(k = x, y, z) is the rotation operator defined in Eq. (6). |ψi indicates the the trivial evolution by performing a unitary transforma- t(c) tion, which changes our frame of reference. Note that this quantum state of the target (control) qubit. Xˆ is the X gate is conceptually and mathematically identical to switch- in the operator form. ing into the interaction picture. Usually, the qubit fre- Name Function Symbol Matrix quency, the resonator frequency (see Sec. V B), or the external drive frequency (Sec. VI C) is chosen as the ro- 0 1 Pauli-X (X) Rˆ (π) tating frame frequency. x X 1 0 A qubit is often implemented by the two lowest states 0 −i Pauli-Y (Y ) Rˆ (π) of a quantum system, such as (artificial or natural) atoms y Y i 0 [Fig. 1(a)]. This subspace is called the computational sub- 1 0 space. In general, any Hilbert space whose dimension is Pauli-Z (Z) Rˆz(π) Z truncated into two can be used as a qubit. This gener- 0 −1 alized definition of a qubit is essential for constructing a 1 1 1 Hadamard (H) Rˆx(π)Rˆx(π/2) H √ logical qubit (Sec. VII). 2 1 −1 In this tutorial, the notations denoting the qubit states, 1 0 Phase (S) Rˆ (π/2) {|0i, |1i, |2i (higher excitation level)} and {|gi, |ei, |f i}, z S 0 i are used interchangeably to avoid confusion with the pho- ˆ 1 0 ton or the charge number states. In addition, ωq, which π/8 (T ) Rz(π/4) T iπ/4 we call the qubit frequency, is the transition frequency 0 e   between |0i and |1i, and ωi-j (with a hyphen in the sub- 1 0 0 0 Controlled-NOT ˆ • 0 1 0 0 script) is the transition frequency between |ii and |ji; ωij X |ψit     (without a hyphen in the subscript) indicates the energy (CNOT) if |ψic = |1i 0 0 0 1 level of the two-qubit state, |ii ⊗ |ji (or |iji in the short 0 0 1 0 form). A generic two-qubit state can be written as Thus, a gate operation is implemented by engineering |ψi = α |00i + β |01i + γ |10i + δ |11i , (8) the system Hamiltonian such that the resulting unitary where α, β, γ, and δ are complex numbers and |α|2 + evolution of the qubits implements the target gate. |β|2 + |γ|2 + |δ|2 = 1. In the density matrix form, Any multiqubit gate operation can be decomposed into a set of single-qubit and controlled-NOT (CNOT) gates. h00| h01| h10| h11| Thus, the gate set {single-qubit gates, CNOT} is called a universal quantum gate set. An arbitrary single-qubit |00i |α|2 αβ∗ αγ∗ αδ∗ gate can be well approximated by the discrete gate set ρˆ = |01i α∗β |β|2 βγ∗ βδ∗ . (9)   {H, S, T } (Solovay–Kitaev theorem10). Hence, we can |10i α∗γ β∗γ |γ|2 γδ∗    rewrite a universal gate set as {H, S, T , CNOT}. The |11i α∗δ β∗δ γ∗δ |δ|2 definitions of these gates and other popular gates are summarized in Table II. Among these universal quantum gates, the quantum 2. Quantum Gate gates generated by the H, S, and CNOT gates form a group called the Clifford group. This group is important in quantum computation, especially for quantum A quantum gate is a discrete control acting on qubits error correction (Sec. VII) and efficient gate qualifica- inducing the unitary evolution of the quantum states of tion (Sec. IX D). However, it is known that a quantum the qubits. Quantum computation is basically a series of computer operated by only Clifford gates can be sim- quantum gate operations. ulated efficiently on a probabilistic classical computer Consider a closed quantum system described by the (Gottesman–Knill theorem10). Thus, a non-Clifford gate, ˆ time-independent Hamiltonian H. The time evolution such as the T gate, is required to show the advantage of of such a system is described by a unitary operator quantum computation. Uˆ(t), which is called the time-evolution operator or the propagator:8,9

|ψ(t)i = Uˆ(t) |ψ(0)i . (10) B. Structure

The Schr¨odinger equation connects Uˆ(t) and Hˆ: A gate-operation-based, universal, and scalable superconducting quantum computer will likely have the fol- ˆ Uˆ(t) = e−iHt/~. (11) lowing structure (Fig. 2):11,12 5

1. Proper operating frequency range: A qubit must Algorithmic Resources have a transition frequency that is significantly Running quantum algorithms higher than the thermal energy of a typical solid- state system to observe quantum nature. The only continuous refrigeration method for solid state devices below 0.3 K is to use a dilution refrigerator, Logical Resources whose base temperature is usually about 10 mK Control and readout of logical qubits (∼200 MHz). This means that the transition frequency of a qubit must be at least a few gigahertz. At the same time, the qubit transition frequency should be sufficiently lower than the superconduct- Error Correction Resources ing energy gap of the host superconductor so as Constructing error-free logical qubits not to excite quasiparticles. For aluminum, which using quantum error correction is the most popular material for superconducting qubit systems, the energy gap is about 100 GHz. 2. Large anharmonicity: To be a well-defined two- level system, a qubit should have anharmonicity Physical Resources α ≡ ω1-2 − ωq of at least ∼100 MHz to perform a Physical qubits and circuits for control and readout reasonably fast gate operation. (See Sec. IX A 1 for the gate time and frequency selectivity.) Recently, it has been found that having a third level in an ac- FIG. 2. Structure of a universal quantum computing system. cessible frequency range can be beneficial, such as for initialization or two-qubit gate operation. (See Secs. VI D and VI E 1.) Physical resources: This layer is a collection of physical qubits and necessary circuits for the control and 3. Long coherence time: The assigned quantum state readout of the physical qubits. should last for a long time compared with the time for gate operations. Error correction resources: In this layer, errors act- 4. Ease of coupling: For readout and (multi)qubit gate ing on quantum information stored in a set of phys- operation, a reasonably strong coupling between ical qubits are corrected. This operation produces a qubit and another quantum system, such as a a single error-free logical qubit. For this, high fi- resonator or neighboring qubit, should be achieved delity controls, such as initialization, gate opera- easily. tion, readout, and feedback, for physical qubits are 5. Ease of control: The quantum state should be required. brought to a superposition easily and straightfor- Logical resources: Initialization, gate operation, and wardly by an external mean. readout of logical qubits are performed in this layer. 6. Ease of fabrication: A qubit should be easy to fab- ricate with standard nanotechnology for good re- Algorithmic resources: Quantum algorithms, such as producibility. Shor’s factoring and Grover’s search algorithms, are performed in this layer. B. Josephson Junction In this tutorial, the physical resources, the error correction resources, and part of the logical resources are briefly covered. For quantum algorithms, see the standard text- A superconductor is a macroscopic quantum mechan- books on quantum computation, such as Refs. 10 and ical system in the sense that it can be described by a 13. single macroscopic wavefunction, i.e., the order parameter Ψ. However, this property is not a sufficient condition for being a qubit; we need a confinement potential to have discrete energy eigenstates such as electrons in III. SUPERCONDUCTING QUBIT the Coulomb potential forming an atom. Moreover, to control the two lowest energy eigenstates selectively, the A. Design Criteria potential must be anharmonic to have distinct energy separation between eigenstates. A superconducting qubit is the two lowest energy The solution for discrete energy eigenstates is to make eigenstates of an artificial atom made of a superconduct- an electrical circuit. In a superconducting circuit, the ing circuit. To be a useful qubit, the circuit must be de- quantized energy level emerges from the quantization of signed to satisfy the following conditions: the charge and the magnetic flux stored in various electri- 6

(a) (a) Island-based qubit (b) Loop-based qubit Superconductor 1 Superconductor 2 charge flux bias V bias charge flux flux I island reservoir island coherent coherent charge flux tunneling tunneling charge Tunnel barrier reservoir

FIG. 3. (a) Schematic diagram of a Josephson junction where a pair of superconductors are weakly coupled via an oxide FIG. 4. (a) and (b) Elementary circuits of a superconducting tunnel barrier. The phase and the number difference of the qubit. The dashed boundary line indicates the charge island. macroscopic wavefunctions Ψ and Ψ fully determine the 1 2 In a certain parameter range, their operations as qubits can physics of the junction. (b) A DC SQUID can be considered be understood as the coherent tunneling of charge or flux as a variable Josephson junction tuned by an external mag- (see Secs. III C 2 and III C 3). (c) Parallel circuit composed netic flux Φ. The symbol of a cross in a square represents a of an inductor with L, a capacitor with C, and a Josephson Josephson junction. junction with the critical current Ic as a generic model of a superconducting qubit. cal components just like the position and the momentum 1 of electrons in a real atom. can flow through the junction, i.e., the critical current of The solution for the anharmonicity is a Josephson junc- the junction. tion where a pair of superconductors are weakly cou- Here, we point out that a DC Superconducting Quan- pled [Fig. 3(a)]. In a superconducting circuit, a Josephson tum Interference Device (DC SQUID), which consists junction acts as a nonlinear inductor, resulting in an an- of two Josephson junctions and a superconducting loop harmonic potential. Since a superconductor is a macro- [Fig. 3(b)], can be considered as a variable Josephson scopic quantum mechanical system, only two quantities junction whose effective Josephson energy EJ,eff as a are required to describe the physics of a Josephson junc- function of the external flux bias Φ is given by tion: the number imbalance of electrons N and the relative phase ϕ between the two superconductors. Here, N q 2 2 corresponds to the difference in |Ψ|2 of the two super- EJ,eff(ϕext) = EJ,1 + EJ,2 + 2EJ,1EJ,2 cos ϕext, (14) conductors. The equations of motion regarding these two quantities, called the Josephson equations, are given by15 where ϕext(≡ 2πΦ/Φ0) is the phase offset due to the external flux bias. This idea is useful for making tunable dN(t) 2E dϕ(t) 2e superconducting devices. = J sin ϕ(t) and = − V (t), (12) dt ~ dt ~ where EJ is the Josephson energy, which is a measure of C. Elementary Circuits the ability of Cooper pairs to tunnel through the junction; ~ is the reduced Planck constant; e is the magnitude 1. Generic Hamiltonian of the charge carried by a single electron; and V is the voltage difference maintained across the junction. The popular form of the left equation in Eq. (12) is16 We can categorize elementary circuits of superconducting qubits into two groups, an island and a loop (Fig. 4). In the early literature, these two kinds of qubits were Is(t) = Ic sin ϕ(t), (13) called a charge qubit and a flux qubit, respectively, on where Is is a zero-voltage supercurrent flow through the the basis of the spread of the wavefunctions in the num- junction and Ic(=2eEJ/~) is the maximum current that ber (charge) and phase (flux) bases [typical wavefunctions of a charge qubit are shown in Fig. 5(d)].17 How- ever, such a classification is valid only for a certain parameter range; it does not work well for sophisticated 1 Since the charge and the magnetic flux are collective coordinates qubits whose wavefunctions often show exotic distribu- that represent the cooperative motion of large numbers of elec- tions in both the number and the phase bases. Therefore, trons, the circuit quantization is essentially phenomenological.14 we simply categorize circuits of superconducting qubits 7 based on the geometry. Then, we will show how the qubit In the small EJ/EC limit, the EC term is dominant in properties change as we tune the circuit parameters. The Eq. (15); as a result, the wavefunctions are localized in knowledge acquired in this way can also be used for an- the number basis as shown in Fig. 5(d), suggesting that alyzing more complex qubits. the number basis will be more convenient to describe the We introduce a Hamiltonian for a parallel circuit com- physics in this regime. In Fig. 5(a), the gray lines indi- posed of a capacitor with the capacitance C including cate the EC term associated with |N = 0i and |±1i. At the intrinsic capacitance of a junction, an inductor with Next = 0.5, |N = 0i and |1i are energetically degener- the inductance L, and a Josephson junction, as a generic ated. Here, the EJ term hybridizes these two states via model of a superconducting qubit [Fig. 4(c)]. This par- coherent charge tunneling [Fig. 4(a)], resulting in an an- ticular circuit is easily quantized by treating N and ϕ as ticrossing whose size is approximately EJ. At zero bias, the operators Nˆ andϕ ˆ. (The standard introduction to a similar, but significantly smaller, hybridization occurs superconducting circuit quantization is Ref. 18.) Here, between |N = −1i and |1i. This results in the first exci- the number operator Nˆ is conjugate to the phase opera- tation level at ≈ 4EC. ˆ 2 torϕ ˆ: N = −i∂/∂ϕˆ. The resulting circuit Hamiltonian As EJ/EC increases, the contribution from the anti- Hˆq is given by crossing dominates [Fig. 5(b)]; eventually, in the large EJ/EC limit, the energy levels become flat, i.e., insensi- 1 2 2 tive to Next [Fig. 5(c)]. In this regime, the wavefunctions Hˆq = 4EC(Nˆ −Next) + ELϕˆ −EJ cos(ϕ ˆ − ϕext), (15) 2 are localized in the phase basis as shown in Fig. 5(e);

2 hence, it is reasonable to treat the EJ term in Eq. (15) where EC(≡e /2C) is the capacitive energy, which is the as the periodic potential and the EC term as the kinetic energy cost to charge a capacitor with a single electron term. In addition, since the kinetic term is much less than (the factor of 4 comes from the Cooper pairing), and 2 the potential term (EJ/EC 1), the displacement in EL[≡ (Φ0/2π) /L] is the inductive energy, which is the the phase basis during the evolution of the qubit state is energy cost to “charge” an inductor with a single flux small. Thus, as depicted in Fig. 5(f), we can approximate quantum Φ0. The EJ term, which represents the energy the periodic potential (solid line) as a weakly nonlinear stored in the junction, was obtained by integrating the R harmonic potential (dashed line). Then, the qubit fre- electrical work IsV dt with Eqs. (12) and (13). Lastly, quency can be obtained by approximating Eq. (16) as a Next is the charge offset due to the external voltage bias quantum harmonic oscillator (cosϕ ˆ ≈ 1 − ϕˆ2/2), and ϕext(≡2πΦ/Φ0) is the phase offset due to the external flux bias Φ. Inserting this phase offset in the Joseph- 1 Hˆ ≈ 4E Nˆ 2 + E ϕˆ2, (17) son junction term is based on the assumption that a mag- q C 2 J netic flux penetrates into the loop through the junction, not through the inductor. where Next is ignored because the energy levels are in- Equation (15) suggests that characteristics of a super- sensitive to Next. By comparing Eq. (17) with a standard conducting qubit can be engineered by three circuit pa- spring-block harmonic oscillator with the√ spring constant rameters, E , E , and E . In Secs. III C 2 and III C 3, we k and the mass m, we obtain ωq ≈ 8EJEC/~ from J C L p explore how these circuit parameters determine the basic ω0 = k/m, where ω0 is the resonance frequency of properties of a qubit. the spring-block oscillator. Since we are considering the −1 regime whereϕ ˆ is localized, C corresponds to m, and LJ 2 corresponds to k, where LJ[≡ (Φ0/2π) /EJ] is the effec- 2. Island-Based Qubit tive inductance of the junction. Moreover, in this large EJ/EC regime, the anharmonicity will decrease with an increase in E /E because the Hamiltonian [Eq. (16)] The Hamiltonian of an island-based qubit is Eq. (15) J C becomes closer to that of a quantum harmonic oscillator in the E → 0 and ϕ → 0 limits: L ext [Eq. (17)] in this direction. 2 Hˆq = 4EC(Nˆ − Next) − EJ cosϕ. ˆ (16) More systematic plots regarding the two observations, (i) the flattening of the energy band and (ii) the sup- Therefore, the properties of an island-based qubit are pression of the anharmonicity in the large EJ/EC limit, mainly determined by the ratio EJ/EC. are given in Fig. 5(g) and (h), respectively. Note that the difference between the transition frequencies at Next = 0 and 0.5, denoted by ∆ωq, decreases exponentially as shown in the inset of Fig. 5(g). This indicates that the 2 They satisfy the relation eiϕ ˆNê−iϕ ˆ = Nˆ −1. The popular form of energy levels are completely flat if EJ/EC & 50. ˆ this relation is [ϕ, ˆ N] = i. However, this form is not mathemat- The anharmonicity at N = 0 and 0.5 also collapses ically rigorous because the phase operator is not Hermitian. It ext holds approximately only if Nˆ andϕ ˆ are the relative number and into a single curve because of the flattening of the energy phase operators between two superconductors, and this number band [Fig. 5(h)]. The crucial observation is that, although imbalance of electrons is much less than the number of electrons α is also approaching zero, its slope is algebraic rather in each superconductor. For details, see Refs. 15 and 19. than exponential. This suggests that we can use the cir- 8

Energy levels of an island-based qubit Weakly anharmonic potential (a) (b) (c) (f)

Wavefunctions of the ground and excited states Engineering transition frequency and anharmonicity (d) (e) (g) (h)

FIG. 5. (a)–(c) Energy levels of an island-based qubit with three diﬀerent EJ/EC ratios. (d) and (e) Wavefunctions of the ground state |gi and the excited state |ei in the number and phase bases. (f) If the displacement in the phase basis is reasonably small, which is the case when EJ/EC 1, we can approximate the cosine potential U (solid line) as a weakly nonlinear harmonic potential (dashed line). (g) Transition frequency between |gi and |ei, ωq, as a function of EJ/EC ratio at Next = 0 (dashed line) and 0.5 (solid line). The inset shows the EJ/EC dependence of ∆ωq[≡ ωq(Next =0) − ωq(0.5)]. (h) Anharmonicity α(≡ωe-f − ωq, where ωe-f is the transition frequency between |ei and the higher excitation level |f i) as a function of EJ/EC ratio.

cuit in the large EJ/EC limit as a charge-insensitive For EJ/EC > 1, the physics of a loop-based qubit can qubit, which is called a transmon (see Sec. IV B for the be understood in a similar way to that of an island- implementation of a transmon).20 based qubit. In Fig. 6(f) and (g), the gray lines show the EL term in Eq. (15) associated with |ϕ = 0i and |±2πi, which means that the numbers of trapped fluxes 3. Loop-Based Qubit in the loop are 0 and ±1, respectively. Note that, at Φ/Φ0 = 0.5 (ϕext = π), the potential has a double-well A loop-based qubit is not as simple as an island-based shape, resulting in energy degeneracy between |ϕ ≈ +πi qubit because we have to consider all terms in Eq. (15). and |ϕ ≈ −πi. These degenerated states correspond to We start with the effect of EL. Since EL is a function two superposed currents circulating in opposite direc- of ϕ, it is convenient to take the phase basis, and conse- tions [Fig. 6(b) and its inset]. Similarly to the degeneracy quently, to treat EJ and EL terms as the potential. We point in an island-based qubit, the hybridization medi- first consider the regime in which EJ/EL 1. In this ated by the kinetic energy (EC term) breaks the degen- regime, the periodic shape is prominent in the potential eracy, resulting in an anticrossing. This process can be as shown in Fig. 6(a)–(d). When EJ/EC 1 [Fig. 6(e)], understood as coherent flux tunneling between the flux the energy√ level diagram is almost independent of Φ, and island (loop) and the flux reservoir [Fig. 4(b)]. On the ωq ≈ 8ELEC/~. The reason is that the oscillating po- basis of this explanation, it is easy to understand that ωq tential is averaged out owing to the large kinetic energy at Φ/Φ0 = 0.5 decreases monotonically as a function of [Fig. 6(a)], and consequently, only the harmonic terms EJ/EC [Fig. 6(m), dashed lines]. are effective in Eq. (15). In this regime, Nˆ is localized. At zero flux bias, the first excitation level is formed Thus, Nˆ corresponds to the position in the spring-block through the hybridization of states |ϕ ≈ ±2πi, as shown oscillator analogy, L corresponds to the mass, and C−1 in Fig. 6(c). Since this hybridization requires the tun- corresponds to the spring constant. neling of two potential barriers, the energy gap is sig- 9

Energy levels of a loop-based qubit (a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Engineering transition frequency and anharmonicity (i) (j) (m) (n) 2 1 5 10 20 1 50 2

5 100

(k) (l) 10

100 50 50 100 2 1 5

10 50 20 20 100 10 1 52

FIG. 6. (a)–(h) Potential U [(a)–(d)] and energy level diagrams [(e)–(h)] of a loop-based qubit when EJ/EL 1. The potential- energy level correspondence is [(a) and (e)], [(b), (c) and (f), (g)], and [(d) and (h)]. Φ is the external flux bias and Φ0 is the flux quantum. The inset in (b) shows the circulating currents in the circuit; the inset in (d) shows a circuit describing a loop-based qubit as two charge islands (dashed lines) that are connected by an inductor. Gray lines in (f)–(h) indicate how the ground and first excited levels appear from Eq. (15). (i)–(l) Similar diagrams for the potential and the energy levels when EJ/EL ∼ 1. (m) Transition frequencies ωq at Φ/Φ0 = 0 (solid lines in the upper panel) and 0.5 (dashed lines), and their difference ∆ωq (lower panel) as a function of EJ/EC. Arrows in the upper panel indicate the EJ/EL and EJ/EC ratios employed in (e)–(h). (n) Anharmonicity as a function of EJ/EC. At Φ/Φ0 = 0.5, α is positive, while it is negative at zero bias. In (m) and (n), the numbers near solid lines indicate the corresponding EJ/EL ratios. 10 nificantly smaller than that at Φ/Φ0 = 0.5. Hence, ωq laxation time (T2). As the name implies, T1 is the time 2 2 at zero bias is approximately 2π EL[= EL(±2π) /2] and constant for recovering the longitudinal component of the weakly depends on EJ/EC. This explains why ωq at zero Bloch vector to its thermal equilibrium value. Thus, the bias shows a plateau in Fig. 6(m). physical process responsible for T1 is thermalization of 3 As EC decreases further [Fig. 6(h)], the ground and the qubit. T2 is the time constant for the decay of the excited states at zero bias become bound states within transverse component of the Bloch vector to zero. Note a well of the periodic potential. In this case, we can ap- that there are two contributions to T2 in Fig. 7(a): one is proximate the potential as a weakly nonlinear harmonic the shortening of arrows and the other is the spreading potential√ [Fig. 6(d)] as we did in Sec. III C 2. Hence, of arrows. The shortening of arrows is due to the growth ωq ≈ 8EJEC/~. This explanation suggests that the of the longitudinal component, whereas the spreading physics of a loop-based qubit in this regime is actually is due to the loss of the phase coherence of the qubit, close to that of two island-based qubits connected by called dephasing. As shown in Fig. 7(b) and (c), dephas- an inductor, i.e., inductively shunted junction [the in- ing is caused by the temporal fluctuation in qubit transi- set of Fig. 6(d)]. The reason is that L is very large in tion frequency. Hence, both thermalization and dephas- the regime EJ/EL 1 such that the reactance at ωq is ing contribute to T2, while T1 is entirely determined by significant, whereas the circuit is electrically shorted at thermalization. This explanation can be written as21 the low-frequency limit. 1 1 Γ In the regime EJ/EL ∼ 1, the harmonic contribu- k = Γk, = + Γϕ, (18) tion to the potential is substantial; thus, it is difficult T1 T2 2 to separate the contributions from the periodic and harmonic potentials to the energy levels. One consequence where Γk is the decay rate of the excited state population is that the minimum of the potential becomes almost flat and Γϕ is the dephasing rate. The reason for the factor of 2 in Γk/2 will be given in Sec. VI A. The measurement at Φ/Φ0 = 0.5 as shown in Fig. 6(j). The other consequence is that, in Fig. 6(k) and (l), the first excita- procedures for T1 and T2 are described in Sec. VIII B. tion level near zero bias already has a parabolic shape The interaction with the surrounding environment is rather than a cross shape because the first excitation usually treated as various noise processes. The effects of level at zero bias is mostly governed by the physics shown noises are explained further in Secs. IV A 2 and IV A 3. in Fig. 6(d), rather than the hybridization shown in Fig. 6(c). This explains why ωq at Φ/Φ0 = 0 in this regime decreases monotonically with increasing EJ/EC without any plateau in Fig. 6(m). 2. Thermalization The experimentally accessible range of EJ/EC is typically from ∼ 0.1 to ∼ 100. In this range, ωq of a loop- based qubit with EJ/EL 1 at Φ/Φ0 = 0.5 is often Thermalization of a qubit occurs via incoherent en- too low to satisfy condition 1 in Sec. III A, while ωq of a ergy exchange between the qubit and the environment qubit with EJ/EL ∼ 1 at zero bias is too high. Regarding [Fig. 7(d)]. The effect of such an interaction is usually the anharmonicity, a loop-based qubit with EJ/EL 1 modeled as fluctuations in qubit Hamiltonian. In the is more advantageous than that with EJ/EL ∼ 1 as qubit Hamiltonian, there are physical quantities that me- shown in Fig. 6(n). If EL increases even further such that diate the interaction between the qubit and the environ- EJ/EL 1, the potential becomes almost harmonic, and ment, such as external charge and flux biases. If we de- as a result, the circuit does not show enough anharmonic- note such a physical quantity as λ, the susceptibility of ity to be a qubit. the qubit Hamiltonian to the fluctuation in λ, denoted by Xˆλ, is given by the derivative of the qubit Hamilto- nian Hˆq with respect to λ. For example, the noise caused IV. EFFECT OF NOISE by fluctuating charges nearby, called charge noise, is coupled to the qubit through the external charge bias; hence, A. Relaxation λ = Next. For the noise caused by fluctuating spins, called flux noise, λ = ϕext. Similarly, the effect of the fluctua- 1. Concept tion in critical current can be estimated by λ = EJ (or Ic). Then, for Hˆq in Eq. (15), Xˆλ for these quantities are In general, the states of a qubit cannot last forever; after some time, they relax back to the ground state because of the interaction between the qubit and the surrounding environment. This is the reason for having condition 3 in Sec. III A. We can define two experimentally 3 A considerable number of papers use the term “depolarizing” to measurable time scales that characterize the relaxation describe the physical process responsible for T1. We do not use of a quantum state [Fig. 7(a)]: one is the longitudinal this term to avoid confusion with the depolarizing channel, which contracts the Bloch vector independently of its direction.10,13 relaxation time (T1) and the other is the transverse re- 11

(a) Relaxation in the Bloch sphere (d) Mechanisms

1 z’ 2 z’ 3 z’ Thermalization Dephasing

y’ y’ y’ x’ x’ x’

(b) Dephasing in spectroscopic measurements (e) Strategy for suppressing thermalization Counts Intensity

Frequency Frequency

Time Time External bias External bias

FIG. 7. (a) Relaxation of qubit states in a set of identical measurements represented in the Bloch sphere. Each arrow represents the qubit state for each measurement. Primes(0) in the axes indicate the rotating frame with the average qubit transition frequency. The numbers in circles indicate the time instant during a single measurement. The thick arrow growing along the z0-axis represents the longitudinal relaxation, while spreading and shortening arrows in the x0y0-plane represent the transverse relaxation. (b) In spectroscopic measurements, the qubit transition frequency varies with time because of noises from the surrounding environment. In general, a large deviation from the center is unlikely to occur as shown in the histogram (left figure). Such a fluctuation broadens the qubit spectrum (right figure). (The measurement procedure is described in Sec. VIII A 2.) This phenomenon, called dephasing, corresponds to the spreading of arrows in (a). (c) The temporal fluctuation in qubit transition frequency induces the loss of phase coherence between the signals obtained in each measurement (left figure). The averaged signal is a decaying signal with the time constant T2 (right figure). (The measurement procedure is described in Sec. VIII B 3.) Note that the Fourier transform connects the decay in time-domain measurement and the spread in spectroscopic measurement; hence, the width of the qubit spectrum is about 1/πT2 in Hz as shown in (b). In (b) and (c), T1 is assumed to be much longer than T2. (d) Relaxation mechanisms. Thermalization is due to incoherent energy exchange between the qubit and the environment. Dephasing is due to fluctuations in the transition frequency of the qubit, δωq. (e) Thermalization can be suppressed by reducing the overlap between the ground-state and excited-state wavefunctions in the circuit variable space, such as Nˆ andϕ ˆ in Eq. (15). In this figure, the circuit variables are denoted by x1 and x2 for generality. (f) Dephasing can be suppressed by designing the qubit to be less sensitive to the external bias and operating the qubit at its sweet spot. The figure shows the schematic external bias dependence of the qubit transition frequency (ωq). Red circles indicate sweet spots.

given by frequency is near ωq. Using Fermi’s golden rule, Γk can be written as21 ∂Hˆq Xˆ = = 8E N,ˆ (19) 2 N C 1 X ˆ ∂Next Γk = h1|Xλ|0i |Sλ(ωq) + Sλ(−ωq)|, (22) ~2 ∂Hˆq λ XˆΦ = = −EJ sin(ϕ ˆ − ϕext), (20) ∂ϕext where Sλ is the noise power spectral density associated ˆ ˆ ∂Hq with the fluctuation in λ. On the basis of Eq. (22), the XEJ = EJ = −EJ cos(ϕ ˆ − ϕext). (21) ∂EJ thermalization process is often interpreted as the dipole transition associated with the effective dipole moment ˆ Xˆ . Here, we insert EJ in Eq. (21) to set the dimension of XEJ λ identical to the other two equations for fair comparison. In Eq. (22), Sλ(ωq) and Sλ(−ωq) represent emission To thermalize a qubit, the environment must be able (from |1i to |0i) and absorption (from |0i to |1i), respec- to dissipate an electromagnetic energy near ωq. Thus, the tively. When the qubit frequency is much greater than thermalization process is governed by the noise whose the temperature of the environment T , i.e., ~ωq kBT , 12 we can safely ignore the contribution from the absorption Equation (24) suggests that the dephasing is determined process. Then, we have by the diagonal matrix elements of Nˆ andϕ ˆ [Eqs. (19)– (21)]. In the Bloch sphere [Fig. 7(a)], if ωq is the same 2π × 1 [Hz]µ S (ω ) + S (−ω ) ≈ A2 , (23) as the frequency of the rotating frame, the transverse λ q λ q λ 0 ωq component will lie along the y -axis. However, owing to the fluctuation in ωq, the transverse component rotates where Aλ is the noise magnitude, and µ ≈ 1 for 1/f noise around the z0-axis with amount of rotation differing from and µ ≈ −1 for Ohmic noise. It has been reported that measurement to another measurement, resulting in the Ohmic noise is chiefly responsible for Γk (Refs. 22 and spreading of arrows [Fig. 7(a)]. As a result, the qubit 23) and 1/f noise is responsible for Γϕ (Refs. 24–26). loses the phase coherence and the averaged transverse Equations (19)–(22) suggest that thermalization due to component in the Bloch vector decays in time as shown various noise processes acting on a qubit is determined in Fig. 7(c). To yield such a decay, the time scale of the by the circuit parameters and the off-diagonal matrix ele- fluctuation must be much slower than the qubit tran- ments of Nˆ andϕ ˆ, i.e., the overlap between wavefunctions sition (thus, adiabatic) and should be a similar order of in the circuit variable space. magnitude to the measurement time scale. Therefore, the Currently, there are three approaches to suppressing dephasing rate Γϕ is mainly determined by low-frequency thermalization: noise. To estimate Γϕ, we have to perform an integration with 1. Clean environment: This approach eliminates the respect to the frequency of the noise. For this, we set noise source by removing any unnecessary quantum the low-frequency ω and high-frequency ω cutoffs. systems, such as defects, which could possibly cou- low high If our time scale of interest τ satisfies ωlowτ 1 and ple to the qubit. Naturally, this approach requires ω τ 1, Γ is roughly given by20,21 much knowledge and engineering regarding materi- high ϕ als, such as host superconductors, substrates, and ∂ω 27–29 q oxide layers. For example, it is known that a Γϕ ∼ Aλ , (25) ∂λ qubit on a silicon substrate usually shows a shorter T1 than that on a sapphire substrate, partly be- where A is the noise magnitude defined in Eq. (23). 30 λ cause of a lossy amorphous silicon oxide layer. On the basis of what we have learned thus far, we ex- For a comprehensive review for this approach, see plain two approaches to suppressing dephasing. Ref. 31. 2. Reducing participation ratio: This approach re- 1. Geometry: We can select a circuit geometry that duces losses in dielectric media, such as oxides or is insensitive to a certain type of noise. A fixed- organics at the surface of a qubit, by minimizing the frequency island-based qubit is insensitive to flux participation ratio that is defined as the fraction of noise simply because there is no loop that can con- the electric field energy stored within the volume of tain a flux [Fig. 4(a)]. For a loop-based qubit, the each dielectric medium.32,33 Since an electric field sensitivity to flux noise depends on the circuit pa- in a planar device is highly concentrated near the rameters. If the qubit is in a circuit parameter range edges, a qubit made of large superconducting pads in which the qubit states are the circulating current with a simple design shows good performance in states shown in Fig. 4(b) and the inset of Fig. 6(b), general.30,32 the qubit is insensitive to charge noise. The reason is that a continuously flowing DC supercurrent 3. Reducing wavefunction overlap: We can engineer does not allow any charge offset within the current the potential by choosing the geometry and pa- path, i.e., the circuit is electrically shorted in the rameters of the circuit to minimize the effective low-frequency limit. However, such a state is sen- dipole moment, i.e., the wavefunction overlap in the sitive to flux noise. If the circuit parameters are circuit variable space, as shown in Fig. 7(e). This chosen such that the qubit states are similar to the is the strategy that the so-called protected qubit island-like qubit shown in the inset of Fig. 6(d), 34–39 takes. However, reducing the effective dipole then the qubit states are sensitive to charge noise moment inevitably makes the qubit difficult to con- but less sensitive to flux noise. trol [compare Eqs. (22) and (34)]. 2. Bias dependence: Since Γϕ is proportional to ∂λωq [Eq. (25)], we can choose the circuit parameters that give minimal bias dependence as shown in 3. Dephasing Fig. 7(f). In this regard, operating a qubit at a bias at which ∂λωq = 0, called a sweet spot [red Dephasing is due to the temporal fluctuation in the circles in Fig. 7(f)], is necessary because the qubit transition frequency δωq [Fig. 7(d)], which can be ex- is first-order insensitive to noise at this particular pressed as21 bias [Γϕ = 0 in Eq. (24)]. ˆ ˆ δωq ∝ h1|Xλ|1i − h0|Xλ|0i . (24) Note that the energy of a qubit is conserved during 13 dephasing, in contrast to thermalization. This allows us too small to satisfy condition 2 in Sec. III A as explained to recover the phase coherence by applying pulses that in Sec. III C 3. can revert the direction of the time evolution. Such a A popular strategy is to add multiple Josephson junc- technique is called refocusing and will be discussed in tions, where the Josephson energy for each junction is Sec. IX C. βEJ, as an effective inductor. Here, we still want to keep In Sec. IV B, we briefly explore several noise-resilient the current flowing in the loop dominated by the main qubit designs and discuss how to improve the robustness junction [black junction in Fig. 8(b)].4 Since the flux tun- of the qubit by tuning the circuit parameters. neling rate through a Josephson junction is roughly pro- p portional to exp − EJ/EC (Ref. 44), β must be larger than 1. ˆ B. Noise-Resilient Designs The resulting potential term U is given by

N XJ 1. Island-Based Qubit Uˆ ≈ −EJ cosϕ ˆ − βEJ cosϕ î, (26) i=1 The most successful noise-resilient design of an island- based qubit is a transmon. As mentioned in Sec. IV, the where NJ is the number of additional Josephson junctions dephasing rate of an island-based qubit in Fig. 8(a) is in- andϕ î is the phase difference across additional junc- sensitive to flux noise because of the absence of a loop. To tion i. Note that the loop inductance does not appear suppress the effect of charge noise, the transmon design in Eq. (26). The reason is that the phase variable asso- pushes strategy 2 in Sec. IV A 3 to the limit: eliminat- ciated with the loop inductance is nearly zero because of the large EL; thus, its contribution to the qubit dy- ing the Next dependence by choosing EJ/EC = 50–100 (Fig. 5). namics is small compared with that from the additional junctions. On the other hand, in the phase dimensions This limit can be achieved by adopting a shunt ca- associated with the additional junctions, the potential pacitor [red capacitor in Fig. 8(a)]. The shunt capacitor has periodic modulations that can support coherent flux takes the majority of the effect of the charge noise, thus tunneling.45,46 minimizes this effect on the junction. The physics of this First, we consider the case when N is 2 or 3 and β ≈ 2 idea is the same as adding a heavy mass to reduce the J [upper figures in Fig. 8(b)]. The circuit with these param- sensitivity to mechanical noise. eters, which roughly corresponds to a loop-based qubit As mentioned in Sec. III C 2, the trade-off is the re- with E /E ∼ 1, is called a flux qubit. Although the duced anharmonicity: in the large E /E limit, the qubit J L J C resulting energy level structure from Eq. (26) is not the wavefunctions are localized in the phase space; hence, a same as that from Eq. (15), the overall dependence of the transmon is a weakly nonlinear harmonic oscillator. From energy levels on the circuit parameters is qualitatively this reasoning, we can easily imagine that, if we treat the similar to that in Fig. 6(k)–(n). qubit wavefunction as a rolling glass bead in a potential For a noise-resilient qubit, we need to select E to min- well, the bead sees more anharmonicity as the kinetic J imize the ϕ dependence as mentioned in Sec. IV. At energy (E ) increases. Indeed, the anharmonicity of a ext C the same time, we also need to satisfy condition 1 in transmon is roughly given by −E (see Sec. V B 1). E C C Sec. III A. It was found that E ∼ 10–100 GHz and β ≈ 2 is usually chosen 100–500 MHz to satisfy condition 2 in J balance these two.23 However, there is a trade-off: the Sec. III A. Then E must be 10–30 GHz to satisfy condi- J qubit becomes sensitive to charge noise because the cir- tion 1 in Sec. III A. The resulting circuit parameters are culating currents are close to zero even at Φ/Φ = 0.5. summarized in Table III. 0 To circumvent this, a shunt capacitance is added to the A DC SQUID is employed to tune the qubit frequency main junction as we did for the transmon; thus, we have as explained in Sec. III B [rightmost figure in Fig. 8(a)]. EC = 0.1–1 GHz. The final circuit shown in Fig. 8(b) is However, in this case, the transmon is exposed to the called a capacitively shunted (C-shunt) flux qubit [upper flux noise. Therefore, we need to design a DC SQUID 47 43 rightmost figure in Fig. 8(b)]. with minimal flux dependence based on Eq. (14). In One might ask, “can a flux-tunable transmon be con- addition, we have to operate the tunable transmon at sidered as a kind of C-shunt flux qubit?” Our answer the flux bias sweet spot. is yes, but the working flux bias at which criterion 1 in Sec. III A is satisfied is different: a transmon is usually operated at zero flux bias, while a C-shunt flux qubit is 2. Loop-Based Qubit operated at Φ/Φ0 = 0.5. With a sufficiently large NJ (∼10–100), Eq. (26) can The main difficulty in implementing a loop-based qubit be treated as a linear inductor with EL ≈ βEJ/NJ [lower is designing an inductor with sufficiently large inductance because the inductance of a superconducting loop made of aluminum or niobium is usually very small such that 4 In the literature, the main junction is often called the “α junction”, where α = β−1, for historical reasons. EL > EJ. Consequently, the resulting anharmonicity is 14

(a) Island-based qubit Transmon no charge bias

charge island shunt capacitor capacitive frequency shunting tunability

(b) Flux qubit C-shunt ﬂux qubit

a few JJ Loop-based qubit

implementing capacitive inductor Fluxonium shunting C-shunt ﬂuxonium ... 10−100 JJ ...

FIG. 8. Conceptual evolution of noise-resilient qubit designs from an island-based qubit (a) and a loop-based qubit (b). Dashed boundaries indicate islands. JJ stands for Josephson junction.

figures in Fig. 8(b)], if the self-resonance frequency of the junction array is sufficiently higher than that of each TABLE III. Circuit parameters of several noise-resilient qubit √ designs. For the flux qubit and fluxonium, which have multi- junction, 8EJEC/h (Ref. 48). This condition can be p ple junctions, EJ is for the smallest junction [the black junc- satisfied by limiting NJ to NJ . CJ/Cg, where CJ is tions in Fig. 8(b)]. In addition, the flux qubit and fluxonium the capacitance across each junction and Cg is the capaci- considered in this table are capacitively shunted ones. tance between the junction array and the ground. By tuning β and NJ, we can satisfy EL EJ. A superconduct- Type EJ [GHz] EJ/EC EJ/EL β NJ Ref. ing qubit in this regime is called a fluxonium or an RF Transmon 10–30 50–100 40,41 SQUID qubit. In this case, it is easy for ω at zero bias to q Flux qubit 10–100 10–100 ∼1 ≈2 2–3 23 satisfy condition 1 in Sec. III A; at Φ/Φ = 0.5, ω might 0 q Fluxonium 1–10 1–10 3–10 2–5 10–100 42 be too low. This drawback can be resolved by employing active qubit initialization protocols (see Sec. VI E). Ac- cording to Fig. 6(h), the anisotropy is significantly larger than that of a flux qubit. Capacitive shunting has also tive contribution to the impedance that arises from ki- been applied to a fluxonium [lower rightmost figure in netic energy of the charge carrier, instead of geometric Fig. 8(b)], resulting in improved T2 (Ref. 42). inductance. (For further discussion about kinetic inductance, see Sec. VI B 2.) Very recently, a qubit made of Lastly, we would like to point out that a Josephson Josephson junction arrays with extremely high induc- junction array as a linear inductor itself is an interesting tance (E < 100 MHz) succeeded in implementing the system. The reason is that it is difficult, although not L regime shown in Fig. 6(a) and (e).52 impossible,49 to make a geometric inductor whose reactance exceeds the superconducting resistance quantum 2 RQ = h/(2e) ≈ 6.5 kΩ because of stray capacitance and radiation to vacuum, whose impedance is about 377 V. COUPLING Ω. Such a linear inductor whose impedance is similar to or larger than RQ is often called a superinductor. Thus far, we have explained how to make a qubit Thus, implementations of superinductors have usually out of superconductors. To perform actual computation, been based on kinetic inductance,48,50,51 i.e., an induc- a qubit must be coupled to other systems so that the 15 qubit state can be controlled or read. The most com- of parametric amplification will be discussed further in monly used physics for these operations is the cavity Sec. VI B 2. The other is to drive oscillator 1 with the 53 quantum electrodynamics. It provides an integrated frequency fd. When fd = f2, x2 increases linearly with control/readout scheme via the interaction between an time. atom and a cavity. The same physics can be applied to When we apply the physics learned from these energy a superconducting circuit as the interaction between a injection processes, we need to consider the quantum qubit and a resonator. This circuit version of the cavity statistics. If two coupled quantum systems are bosonic, quantum electrodynamics is called the circuit Quantum we can simply interpret the displacement of the blocks as ElectroDynamics (cQED).6,54,55 In addition, for multi- the population. However, if one or both of the systems are qubit gate operation, qubit-qubit coupling is required. In fermionic, we will see an oscillation in the population, in- this section, we discuss how to couple a qubit to other stead of the linear increase that we saw in Fig. 9(c). Such systems. an oscillation is called the Rabi oscillation, which will be discussed further in Sec. VI C.

A. Two Coupled Classical Oscillators

B. From Circuit to Atom Before exploring a quantum system, considering a similar classical system is often helpful to understand the physics in the quantum regime. As we will see soon, the 1. Qubit, Resonator, and Somewhere between Them physics behind various couplings associated with qubits can be captured using two simple classical harmonic oscil- Now that we are well equipped with the necessary lators. Figure 9 shows a schematic diagram of our model physics, it is time to move back to quantum. In cQED, system: it is composed of two classical simple harmonic the circuit Hamiltonians for a qubit and a resonator are oscillators, each made of a spring and a block. The two mapped to spin-1/2 fermionic and bosonic Hamiltonians, oscillators interact via the coupling spring, whose spring respectively: constant can be either static [Fig. 9(a) and (c)] or time- varying [Fig. 9(b)]. In addition, oscillator 1 may be driven ˆ σˆz ˆ † Hq → ~ωq , Hr → ~ωraˆ a,ˆ (28) by an external force [Fig. 9(c)]. The equations of motion 2 of this system are given by † whereσ ˆz is the Pauli z operator anda ˆ (â) is the bosonic creation (annihilation) operator. m1x¨1 = −(k1 + κ)x1 + κx2 + Ad cos(2πfdt), (27) m x¨ = −(k + κ)x + κx , Note that this mapping assumes an ideal two-level 2 2 2 2 1 system and a single-mode resonator. As we will see in where mi is the mass of oscillator i, where i = 1, 2; ki is Secs. VI D and VI E 1, however, higher excitation levels the spring constant of oscillator i; xi is the position of the of a qubit have to be considered in many situations, es- center of block i; κ is the spring constant of the coupling pecially for a transmon whose anharmonicity is weak. On spring, which can be decomposed into two parts, namely, the other hand, the resonator may show a small nonlin- the static κ0 and the time-varying κm cos(2πfmt); and earity that has to be considered for high fidelity control. Ad and fd are the amplitude and the frequency of the Hence, we sketch how to model a transmon in the second drive, respectively. quantization formalism as an example of a weakly an- Note that, although the coupling spring is always harmonic/nonlinear system. By expanding Eq. (16), we present, its effect on the dynamics strongly depends on have the system parameters. When κ is the static parame- ˆ ˆ 2 1 2 1 4 ter κ , the two oscillators exchange their energy only Hq ≈ 4ECN + EJϕˆ − EJϕˆ . (29) 0 2 24 when they are on-resonance [Fig. 9(a)]. Even if the oscillators are off-resonance, we can force them to ex- In Eq. (29), the first two terms, i.e., harmonic terms, can change their energy by modulating κ with the frequency be diagonalized by defining difference between the two oscillators, |f1 − f2|, where p ˆ ˆ ˆ† ˆ ˆ† 2πfi = (ki + κ0)/mi [Fig. 9(b)]. These two phenom- N = −iN0(b − b ), ϕˆ = ϕ0(b + b ), (30) ena can be seen in both classical and quantum systems 2 p 2 p regardless of whether statistics is fermionic (qubit) or where N0 = EJ/32EC and ϕ0 = 2EC/EJ are the bosonic (resonator). zero-point fluctuations, and ˆb† (ˆb) is the bosonic creation Next, we inject energy into the system by two meth- (annihilation) operator for a transmon. Note that the ods. One is to modulate the coupling constant with zero-point fluctuations are determined by the EJ/EC ra- fm = f1 + f2. In this case, as one can see in Fig. 9(b), tio. After normal ordering, we obtain both x1 and x2 increase exponentially with time. This is p EC parametric amplification, which is important for realiz- Hˆ ≈ 8E E − E ˆb†ˆb − ˆb†ˆb†ˆbˆb. (31) ing noiseless amplification. The concept and applications q J C C 2 16

(a) Static coupling (b) Time-varying coupling

1 2 1 2

Time Time Fourier transform Time Time Magnitude Magnitude Magnitude Magnitude

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency

(a), qubit-qubit two-qubit gate: 1 2 coherent exchange (Sec. VI D 1) control target (b), qubit-qubit two-qubit gate: parametric coupling (Sec. VI D 2)

(b), QHO-QHO parametric ampliﬁcation (Sec. VI B 2)

(c), qubit-qubit two-qubit gate: all microwave control (Sec. VI D 5)

(c), QHO-qubit single-qubit gate (Sec. VI C)

Time Time

FIG. 9. Two coupled classical harmonic oscillators without damping. Each oscillator is composed of a spring and a block. ki is the spring constant of oscillator i; fi is the resonance frequency; and xi is the position. Two oscillators are coupled via a coupling spring whose spring constant is κ. The graphs show the solutions of Eq. (27) for various conditions. (a) Evolution of the system when the coupling is static: κ = κ0. The two oscillators do not interact with each other if f1 6= f2; however, if f1 = f2, the oscillators exchange their energy at a rate of 2δfκ0 , whose quantity is determined by κ0. As shown by the

Fourier-transformed solution, the energy exchange can be interpreted as a splitting of the resonance frequency with 2δfκ0 . (b) Evolution of the system with a time-varying coupling constant κ0 + κm cos(2πfmt), where fm is the modulation frequency. When fm = |f1 − f2|, the two oscillators exchange their energy even if f1 6= f2. The Fourier transform shows that the resonance frequency of each oscillator is split by 2δfκm whose quantity is determined by κm. (c) Evolution of the system with the static coupling and an external drive acting on oscillator 1. Here, oscillator 1 is the control oscillator and oscillator 2 is the target oscillator. The amplitude and frequency of the drive are denoted by Ad and fd, respectively. The parameter sets are given as 2 2 follows: {m1 = 10/(2π) , m2 = 2.5/(2π) , k1 = 10, k2 = 40, κ0 = 1}, if not specified. In (a), k2 = 10 for f1 = f2. In (b), {κm = 3, fm =|f1 − f2|} and {κm =0.75, fm =f1 + f2}. In (c), Ad =30, and fd =f2 + 1 or f2. The initial conditions are as follows: for (a) and (b), {x1(t = 0) = 1,x ˙ 1(0) = 0, x2(0) = 0,x ˙ 2(0) = 0}; and for (c), {0, 0, 0, 0}. All numbers are unitless. (d) Correspondence between classical analogies in this figure and required operations for quantum computation covered in this tutorial. The left column indicates the analogies in this figure and actual quantum oscillators; the right column indicates the target operation. For example, the last row means that “we can understand the physics of the single-qubit gate operation by replacing oscillators 1 and 2 in (c) with a Quantum Harmonic Oscillator (QHO) and a qubit, respectively.” 17

Here, the terms whose mean excitation number is (a) Circuit implementation of atom-cavity coupling nonzero, such as ˆbˆb and ˆb†ˆb†, are ignored because the resonator dynamics induced by these terms will be averaged out at the time scale we are interested in. (This is the rotating qubit wave approximation, which will be introduced formally atom in Sec. V B 2). Thus, a transmon can be mapped into a harmonic oscillator with the Kerr-type nonlinearity: cavity feedline K Hˆ → ω ˆb†ˆb + ~ ˆb†ˆb†ˆbˆb, (32) (b) Types of qubit-resonator coupling q ~ q 2 Transverse: Longitudinal: energy exchange energy level shift where K is the Kerr coeﬃcient.√ Equations (31) and (32) suggests that ωq is about 8EJEC/~ (∵ EJ/EC 1) and the anharmonicity, i.e., ~K, is −EC. These results are consistent with Secs. III C 2 and IV B 1.

Although Eq. (32) models several important proper- qubit resonator External bias ties of a weakly anharmonic/nonlinear system success- fully, we still need a unified description of superconduct- FIG. 10. (a) In a superconducting circuit, the atom-cavity ing circuits in a wide range of nonlinearity for compli- interaction can be implemented by the qubit-resonator cou- cated circuits. Moreover, off-resonant resonator modes pling. Here, the resonator can be either a planar resonator have been known to contribute substantially to the re- or a 3D cavity; in either case, it is usually modeled as an laxation times of a qubit via the Purcell effect (see LC circuit. The circuit shows the capacitive coupling be- Sec. VI B 1).56 To remedy these issues, semiclassical su- tween a quarter-wavelength (λ/4) resonator and an island- perconducting circuit quantization methods have been based qubit. Here, g represents the strength of the transverse proposed and showed a good agreement with experimen- coupling between the resonator and the qubit; κ represents tal data. Interested readers should see Refs. 33, 57–60. the loss rate of photons from the resonator; and γ represents the transverse relaxation rate of the qubit. (b) Mechanisms for For the rest of this section, we model a superconduct- the transverse and longitudinal coupling between a qubit and ing qubit as an ideal two-level system because this pro- a resonator. For the longitudinal coupling, the change in bias vides a qualitatively satisfactory picture to understand shifts the qubit transition frequency ωq at the bias shown by the physics of various couplings associated with a qubit the green square, resulting in a strong longitudinal coupling; at the level of this tutorial. at the bias shown by the red circle, the longitudinal coupling is zero.

2. Qubit-Resonator Coupling between the coupling and stored energies, which is the Consider a single qubit capacitively coupled to a single- same as the ratio of the coupling capacitance to the total mode resonator without an external drive;5 one example capacitance of the qubit; and (â +a ˆ†) represents the pro- is shown in Fig. 10(a). In this case, the physical process cess of populating/depopulating the resonator. Defining of the coupling is the zero-point voltage fluctuation of the coupling constant the resonator acting on the net charge 2eNˆ (2e is the charge of a Cooper pair) via the coupling capacitor be- ˆ ~gij = 2eβVr,0 hi|N|ji , (34) tween the qubit and the resonator [the capacitor labeled g in Fig. 10(a)]. Then, 2eNˆ can be considered as the effec- where |ii and |ji (i, j = 0, 1) are the eigenstates of the tive dipole moment of this artificial atom [see Eq. (19)]. bare qubit, yields The qubit-resonator coupling Hamiltonian Hˆqr can be ˆ X † written as Hqr = ~ gij |iihj| (â +a ˆ ) i,j † Hˆqr = 2eNβVˆ r,0(â +a ˆ ). (33) † = ~(gxσˆx + gzσˆz)(â +a ˆ ), (35) p Here, Vr,0(= ωr/2Cr, where Cr is the capacitance of ~ where gx and gz are defined by the resonator) is the root-mean-square voltage of the zero-point fluctuation in the resonator; β is the ratio g − g g ≡ g (= g ), g ≡ 00 11 . (36) x 01 10 z 2

The gx term is called the transverse coupling because the 5 Usually capacitive coupling is easier to design because, for induc- axis for the Pauli operator is perpendicular to the qubit tive coupling, we need to consider not only geometric inductance quantization axis; the gz term is called the longitudinal but also kinetic inductance, which is harder to simulate or esti- coupling. Here, a term associated with y is omitted be- mate than the capacitance. cause the choice of x or y is just a matter of convention. 18

The transverse coupling mediates the energy exchange Direct Indirect between the qubit and the resonator [Fig. 10(b)]. Thus, the transverse coupling is eﬀective when the coupled sys- Capacitive tem has a mode whose frequency is close to ωq as we saw in Fig. 9(a). The longitudinal coupling changes the qubit resonator frequency. It is eﬀective when ωq varies considerably with the external bias [Fig. 10(b)]. Note that the physics of the relaxation processes in Sec. IV can be understood within Inductive this framework; the transverse and longitudinal couplings are actually the mechanisms for thermalization and de- tunable coupler phasing, respectively.

Equations (34) and (36) suggest that, if ωq does not FIG. 11. Implementations of qubit-qubit coupling. Two qubits depend on the physical parameter that is coupled to the can be coupled either directly or indirectly via a coupling res- effective dipole moment, the voltage in this case, there is onator. Here, a half-wavelength (λ/2) resonator and a tun- no longitudinal coupling. Note that, because of this, the able coupler are shown as examples. Solid lines labeled B and E represent magnetic and electric field profiles in the res- dominant coupling associated with a qubit at its sweet onators, respectively. For fixed-frequency island-based qubits, spot is the transverse coupling. One consequence is that the capacitive coupling is the only available coupling scheme. the only possible coupling associated with a capacitively However, for loop-based qubits, not only inductive coupling coupled transmon is the transverse coupling because ωq but also capacitive coupling is possible because a loop-based of a transmon is insensitive to the external voltage fluctu- qubit can also be understood as two superconducting islands ation, i.e., a transmon is always at its charge bias sweet as shown in the inset of Fig. 6(d). Note that the circuit for the spot. To implement the longitudinal coupling, a trans- tunable coupler is the same as that of the neighboring qubits. mon needs a flux-tunable element, such as a DC SQUID, The qubit-qubit coupling constant is tuned by the external and should be coupled to the target system inductively.61 flux bias Φ. Although Eq. (35) captures all the physics regarding the capacitive coupling, solving Eq. (35) with Eq. (28) is approximation (RWA). easy. We ignore the gz term because the gx term is the ˆ dominant term at the sweet spot as mentioned above. After applying the RWA, Hqr becomes (now we move Then, we have back to the inertial frame) † Hˆqr ≈ g(ˆσ+aˆ +σ ˆ−aˆ ). (40) Hˆ1q = Hˆq + Hˆr + Hˆqr ~ σˆz † † The physical meaning of g is the exchange of energy be- = ~ωq + ~ωraˆ aˆ + ~gσˆx(â +a ˆ ). (37) 2 tween a quantized electromagnetic field and a qubit at a Here, we omit the subscript x in g for simplicity. rate of g/2π. Such an energy exchange with a well-defined period and phase is called coherent exchange; this will Now, we move to the rotating frame to focus on the dy- be useful for two-qubit gate operation (Sec. VI D). Equa- namics induced by the coupling term. The Hamiltonian tion (40), together with Eq. (28), is called the Jaynes– defining this frame is Cummings Hamiltonian HˆJC (Refs. 53 and 62): ˆ σˆz † H0 = ~ωq + ~ωraˆ a.ˆ (38) ˆ σˆz † † 2 HJC = ωq + ωraˆ aˆ + g(ˆσ+aˆ +σ ˆ−aˆ ). (41) ~ 2 ~ ~ The final single-qubit Hamiltonian in the rotating frame ˆrot Equation (41) will be the central equation in Sec. VI B 1. H1q can be obtained by the unitary transformation:

ˆ ˆ Hˆrot = eiH0t/~(Hˆ − Hˆ )e−iH0t/~ 1q 1q 0 3. Qubit-Qubit Coupling −iωrt † iωrt = ~g [ˆσx cos(ωqt) − iˆσy sin(ωqt)] aê +a ˆ e i(ωq−ωr)t † −i(ωq−ωr)t The physics of qubit-qubit coupling is similar to that = ~g σˆ+aˆ e +σ ˆ−aˆ e of qubit-resonator coupling. The Hamiltonian describing † i(ωq+ωr)t −i(ωq+ωr)t +σ ˆ+aˆ e +σ ˆ−aˆ e , (39) the qubit-qubit coupling can be written as whereσ ˆ± = (ˆσx ± iˆσy)/2. In the above equation, if g is ˆ (1) (2) (1) (2) Hqq = ~ Jxxσˆx σˆx + Jzxσˆz σˆx a constant, all terms will be averaged out at the time (1) (2) (1) (2) scale we are interested in unless ωq and ωr are reason- + Jxzσˆx σˆz + Jzzσˆz σˆz , (42) ably close. In this context, the transverse coupling is told (j) to be effective only if ωq ≈ ωr. Moreover, we can safely where σi (i = x, z) represents the Pauli operators for † ignore fast-oscillating terms,σ ˆ+aˆ andσ ˆ−aˆ, in most situ- qubit j and Jkl is the qubit-qubit coupling constant. Note ations. Such an approximation is called the rotating wave that we have four terms in the qubit-qubit coupling be- 19 cause both systems are fermions (see the last paragraph of Sec. V B 1). For better visibility, we call each term with a its subscripts, for example, the Jzz term as the ZZ term or the ZZ interaction. b In Eq. (42), the XX interaction corresponds to the Frequency transverse interaction. Regarding the longitudinal inter- Transmission action, there is ambiguity in its definition. If we follow c the convention in the qubit-resonator interaction con- a b c sistently, only the XZ and ZX interactions must be Flux bias Frequency called the longitudinal interactions. However, a considerable number of papers designate all non-transverse in- FIG. 12. Anticrossing due to strong qubit-resonator coupling teractions, which includes the ZZ interaction, as the lon- for the circuit shown in Fig. 10(a). The splitting when ωq = ωr gitudinal interactions. In this tutorial, we use the term is 2g. “longitudinal interaction” for the qubit-resonator interaction only. For the qubit-qubit interaction, we call the of the following actions is taken: (i) tuning ω or ω type of interaction explicitly, such as the XZ interaction, q1 q2 so that ω ≈ ω ; (ii) modulating J with the frequency for clarity. q1 q2 |ωq1 ±ωq2| to cancel out oscillating factors; or (iii) adding We consider transmons coupled directly and capaci- an additional drive term. These strategies are based on tively (Fig. 11). In this case, the transverse (XX) in- the lessons learned in Sec. V A and will be the basis of teraction is the dominant interaction as discussed in two-qubit gates in Sec. VI D. Sec. V B 2. Hence, we consider the XX term only and It is often necessary to couple two qubits separated by omit the subscript xx for simplicity. Similarly to the ca- a macroscopic distance. In this case, a resonator or even pacitive qubit-resonator coupling, J is determined by the a qubit is employed as a coupler—such a scheme is called coupling capacitance C12 and the voltage fluctuations of indirect coupling (Fig. 11). Here, we need to be careful the ground states, not to excite the coupler itself; otherwise, the information will leak to the Hilbert space of the coupler. Hence, (1) (2) ~ C12 √ J = C V V ≈ ω ω , (43) the resonance frequency of the coupler must be signifi- ~ 12 q,0 q,0 2 p q1 q2 Cq1Cq2 cantly far from the transition frequency of the qubits such (i) (i) (i) that ωr − ωqi g , where g is the transverse cou- where Vq,0 (i = 1, 2) is the root-mean-square voltage of pling constant associated with the resonator and qubit i. the ground state of qubit i; ωqi and Cqi are the transition The coupler mediates the exchange of virtual photons be- frequency and total capacitance of qubit i, respectively. tween the two qubits. Such a system can also be modeled Since a transmon is a weakly nonlinear harmonic oscilla- as Eq. (44).66,67 (i) p tor (Sec. IV B 1), Vq,0 ≈ ~ωqi/2Cqi if C12 Cqi. Note that J depends on the transition frequency. Hence, for a coupling associated with a frequency-tunable qubit, J is C. Strong (Transverse) Coupling also tunable. The resulting two-qubit Hamiltonian is In this subsection, we consider how to quantify the strength of the transverse coupling because the current (1) (2) σˆz σˆz standard qubit control and readout methods are based Hˆ = ω + ω + Jσˆ(1)σˆ(2). (44) 2q ~ q1 2 ~ q2 2 ~ x x on the transverse coupling.6 For efficient qubit control and readout, we need a reasonably strong qubit-resonator We move to the rotating frame defined by coupling; otherwise, the signal will be too small and the (1) (2) control will be too slow. Similarly, we also need a strong ˆ σˆz σˆz qubit-qubit interaction for efficient two-qubit gate opera- H0 = ~ωq1 + ~ωq2 . (45) 2 2 tion. (See Secs. VI B 1 and VI D for further explanation.) Then, what are the criteria that must be satisfied to be Then, we have an equation similar to Eq. (39): called a strong coupling? ˆ ˆ The strength of the qubit-resonator coupling is usually ˆrot iH0t/~ ˆ ˆ −iH0t/~ H2q = e (H2q − H0)e characterized by three quantities: g, κ, and γ [Fig. 10(a)]. (1) (2) (1) (2) i(ωq1−ωq2)t −i(ωq1−ωq2)t Here, g/2π is the transverse coupling strength in Hz, = ~J σˆ+ σˆ− e +σ ˆ− σˆ+ e κ/2π is the loss rate of photons from the resonator, i.e., (1) (2) i(ωq1+ωq2)t (1) (2) −i(ωq1+ωq2)t +σ ˆ+ σˆ+ e +σ ˆ− σˆ− e . (46)

If J is static and |ωq1 − ωq2| J, it is clear that 6 There are many studies on the potential use of the longitudinal the coupling term will be averaged out, and consequently qubit-resonator coupling for quantum computation. Interested cannot be used for two-qubit gate operation unless one readers should see Refs. 61, 63–65 20 the spectral linewidth of the resonator, in Hz (κ = ωr/Q, two entangled qubits, and transitions between different where Q is the quality factor of the resonator), and symmetries are forbidden.66,68 γ/2π(=1/πT2) is the transverse relaxation rate, i.e., the Note that, compared with other quantum systems, su- spectral linewidth, of the qubit in Hz. When the sys- perconducting planar circuit is particularly convenient tem satisfies g > κ/2, γ/2, the coupling is regarded as a system for realizing a strong coupling because the low- strong coupling. The physical meaning is clear: to ensure dimensional nature of this system results in a strongly a strong qubit-resonator interaction, the photon must concentrated electromagnetic field profile and conse- stay in the resonator and the qubit needs to keep its quently produces a large Vr,0 in Eq. (34). coherence while the two systems exchange their energy. The experimental signature of a strong qubit-resonator or qubit-qubit coupling is an anticrossing called the vac- VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF QUANTUM uum Rabi splitting (Fig. 12). Such a situation is well de- COMPUTATION scribed by the Jaynes–Cummings Hamiltonian [Eq. (41)]. In the Jaynes–Cummings Hamiltonian, when the qubit A. Equation of Motion and the resonator are far off-resonance, the ground state of the entire system is roughly given by |g0i (biases a and c in Fig. 12), where |iji denotes the quantum state To implement functions required for quantum compu- where the ith state of the bare qubit and the jth state tation, we need to know how our qubits evolve during various operations. For a closed quantum system, the evo- of the bare resonator are occupied. At√ on-resonance, the ground state becomes (|g1i + |e0i)/ 2 because of the lution of a density matrixρ ˆ is fully described by the von hybridization between the qubit state and the resonator Neumann equation: state (bias b in Fig. 12). In the time domain, the pop- dρˆ 1 ulation of the two systems oscillates out-of-phase. This = [Hˆ, ρˆ], (48) dt i oscillation is called the vacuum Rabi oscillation. ~ The physics of the vacuum Rabi splitting/oscillation where Hˆ is the Hamiltonian of the system that the can be understood using our classical oscillators in density matrix represents. Note that Eq. (48) is in Sec. V A. When the coupling is static and there is no the Schrödingerpicture; in the Heisenberg picture, the external drive, Eq. (27) can be written in the Hamilto- density matrix is not time-dependent. If Hˆ is time- nian form independent, the solution of Eq. (48) is given by p2 k + κ p2 k + κ 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 −iHˆt/ iHˆt/ † H = + x1 + + x2 − κ0 x1x2 . ρˆ(t) = e ~ρˆ(0)e ~ = Uˆ(t)ˆρ(0)Uˆ (t), (49) 2m1 2 2m2 2 | {z } | {z } | {z } Hc Hosc1 Hosc2 which is the density matrix version of Eq. (10). (47) However, a qubit is actually an open quantum system—it is always interacting with the environment, The energy exchange and frequency splitting shown in a readout resonator, and other control lines, resulting in Fig. 9(a) is caused by the coupling term Hc. Thus, this the relaxation of a quantum state as discussed in Sec. IV. 7 coupling term corresponds to the transverse coupling. Thus, this relaxation phenomenon have to be included Although our classical oscillators show essentially the in the equation of motion for precise control. To sim- same physics, the vacuum Rabi splitting/oscillation is a plify the situation, we introduce three assumptions. The highly quantum phenomenon because it is a consequence first one is the Born approximation, which assumes that of coupling between the qubit and the vacuum mode of the interaction between the qubit and the environment is the resonator. reasonably weak such that the environment is practically The strong transverse qubit-qubit coupling also yields unaffected by the system. The second one is the Marko- a similar anticrossing. However, the transition probabil- vian approximation, which assumes that the noise pro- ity, i.e., the strength of the signal, near the anticrossing cess acting on the system is memoryless. In other words, is more complex than that of the qubit-resonator cou- the internal dynamics of the environment hides any en- pling. The reason is that there are two types of symmetry, tanglement with the system as quickly as it arises. The triplet and singlet, associated with the quantum states of last one is that the initial states of the system and environment are not entangled, i.e.,ρ ˆ(t = 0) =ρ ˆsys ⊗ ρênv. With these approximations, the dynamics of the qubit can be well described by the Lindblad master equation, 7 There is no longitudinal coupling in our classical oscillators be- which is given by53,69 cause this system is harmonic. The state of a harmonic system, i.e., boson, cannot be represented in the Bloch sphere because dρˆ 1 X † 1 n † o there is no well-defined geometrical quantization axis. However, = [Hˆ, ρˆ] + Lˆ ρˆLˆ − Lˆ Lˆ , ρˆ . (50) dt i k k 2 k k bosons can couple to each other and exchange their energy; we ~ k just call this coupling transverse to be consistent with that for fermionic systems. To describe the dynamics of the qubit properly, we 21 need to choose the Lindblad operator Lˆk based on the (a) Shift in resonator frequency: dispersive shift model we have. For example, the effects of an environment on a single qubit can be modeled by r q Γ Lˆ = Γ σˆ , Lˆ = ϕ σˆ . (51) Phase 1 k − 2 2 z A

ˆ Magnitude Here, L1 describes the thermalization process, i.e., the B transition from |1i to |0i (ˆσ−), and Lˆ2 describes the dephasing process. Other eﬀects can also be considered by introducing additional Lindblad operators. The unit of −1/2 Lˆk is [s ]. Readout frequency Let us solve the equation with Lˆ1 only for simplicity. ˆ† ˆ Using the identity L1L1 = Γk |1ih1| in Eq. (50), we obtain (b) Shift in qubit frequency: number spliing d ρ00 ρ01 ρ11 −ρ01/2 = Γk . (52) dt ρ10 ρ11 −ρ10/2 −ρ11

Solving this is straightforward:

−Γkt −Γkt/2 ρ00(t) ρ01(t) 1 − ρ11(0)e ρ01(0)e Magnitude = −Γ t/2 −Γ t . ρ10(t) ρ11(t) ρ10(0)e k ρ11(0)e k (53)

Note that the diagonal elements decay with the time con- Drive frequency stant Γk, whereas the off-diagonal elements decay with Γk/2. This explains Eq. (18). FIG. 13. (a) Qubit-state-dependent shift in resonator fre- The Lindblad master equation can also be applied to quency. This frequency shift, called the dispersive shift, allows a resonator. In this case, us to detect the qubit state by monitoring the S-parameters of the circuit. For the circuit shown in Fig. 10(a), the qubit state r κ can be inferred by measuring the transmission of the circuit Lˆ = a.ˆ (54) 2π at ωr. If the measured phase is A, then the qubit state is |gi; if the phase is B, the qubit state is |ei. (b) Resonator-state- Although the Lindblad master equation is an appropri- dependent shift in qubit frequency. In the strong coupling ate tool to describe the dynamics of a quantum system in- regime, the qubit frequency can be split by the photon-state- duced by uncontrolled interactions with the environment, dependent frequency shift. The resonator state is assumed to be a coherence state whose average photon number isn ¯. we need another formalism that describes the interaction This figure was obtained by solving the Lindblad equation between the system and a “controlled” environment, such [Eq. (50)] with Eqs. (51), (54), and (57). For the solution, as traveling electromagnetic fields through transmission QuTiP was used.73,74 lines, to model an actual experiment. Input-output theory is a theory for this. Here, “input” refers to the field that drives the system and “output” refers to the field not rely on the dominant degree of freedom of a qubit, that propagates away from the system. Interested read- such as charge or flux, and (ii) its nondestructive na- ers should see Refs. 70–72. ture. Before dispersive readout, a single-electron transis- tor was employed for island-based qubit readout and a DC SQUID was used for loop-based qubit readout be- B. Readout cause of their excellent sensitivity to charge and flux, respectively. The problem was that if the eigenstates of 1. Dispersive Readout the qubit show significant spread or superposition in the number or phase basis [Fig. 5(d) and (e)], which happens Readout of a qubit state means to transfer the informa- in all noise-resilient qubits mentioned in Sec. IV B, these tion of the qubit state to a change in a physical quantity quantity-specific detection methods are not effective and of a classical device. At the time of writing, the standard often suffer from a strong backaction that disturbs the method of detecting the superconducting qubit state is subsequent evolution of the measured observable. As a dispersive readout, i.e., detecting the qubit state by ob- result, the qubit state becomes uncertain after the read- serving the shift in the resonance frequency of a readout out. This prevents any feedback scheme based on the resonator interacting with the qubit [Fig. 13(a)]. measurement outcome. Advantages of dispersive readout are that (i) it does In the dispersive readout scheme, a qubit state is de- 22 tected and controlled by a resonator via a strong qubit- turb the subsequent evolution of the qubit and resonator, resonator interaction. However, near on-resonance (ωq ≈ meaning that the dispersive readout scheme is nonde- ωr), we cannot selectively detect or control the qubit state structive. Such a measurement scheme is called Quan- because, in this regime, the strong qubit-resonator in- tum NonDemolition (QND) measurement.53,77,78 Here, teraction hybridizes the qubit and resonator states (see we emphasize that the term “nondemolition” does not Sec. V C). Hence, we detune ωq such that the qubit- mean the absence of wavefunction collapse. If the mea- resonator detuning ∆qr(≡ωr − ωq) is much greater than surement scheme is QND-type, a measured qubit remains g and κ. This limit is called the dispersive limit. In this in the eigenstate that we record as a measurement out- off-resonant regime, a qubit transition induced by photon come, and subsequent measurements reproduce the out- exchange with the resonator is negligible. However, the come of the first measurement. qubit shows small but easily measurable frequency shifts For quantum error correction, the state of an ancilla that depend on the resonator state; at the same time, qubit (see Sec. VII) must be determined in a single shot— the resonator also shows a small frequency shift that de- without averaging the output signals of repeated identi- pends on the qubit state. The qubit state is detected by cal measurements. Thus, maximizing the Signal-to-Noise measuring this frequency shift of the resonator. Ratio (SNR) is crucial. While we can enhance the SNR To see the physics in the dispersive limit more clearly, by increasing the probe power, i.e., the average number we consider the Jaynes–Cummings Hamiltonian HˆJC of photonsn ¯ for the detection of the resonator state,n ¯ [Eq. (41)]. Here, we treat the qubit-resonator interac- must be significantly less than the critical photon number n , which is given by ∆ /4g2 (Ref. 55). If not, Eq. (57) tion Hˆqr [Eq. (40)] as the perturbation to the uncou- crit qr pled qubit-resonator Hamiltonian Hˆ [Eq. (38)]. Then, we would no longer be valid. Then, the readout process is 0 no longer QND, and the photons induce an unwanted take a unitary transformation that diagonalizes Hˆ per- JC qubit transition as a backaction.79 The resulting change turbatively to first order in Hˆ . Such a transformation qr in qubit population during the readout process reduces is called the Schrieffer–Wolff transformation.75,76 (The the readout fidelity. In experiments, it was found thatn ¯ same results can be obtained using the standard pertur- 79,80 ˆ must be . 10 for high-fidelity readout. bation theory.53,62) A unitary operator Uˆ = eS for disp The next question we have to consider is the follow- the Schrieffer–Wolff transformation is defined such that ing: with a givenn ¯, what is the optimal readout condi- Sˆ† = −Sˆ and [S,ˆ Hˆ ] = −Hˆ . Then, we have (use the 0 qr tion that ensures fast readout with high fidelity? From formulas in Table VI) Fig. 13(a), we can see that κ should not be too large compared with χ; otherwise, the frequency shift would Hˆdisp = Uˆ Hˆ Uˆ † JC disp JC disp be difficult to observe. The opposite limit, the small κ = Hˆ0 + Hˆqr + [S,ˆ Hˆ0] + [S,ˆ Hˆqr] limit, is not so good either—it would make the readout process inefficient because photons would stay too long 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ + [S, [S, H0]] + [S, [S, Hqr]] + ··· in the resonator, resulting in a small signal. Careful theo- 2 2 80,81 1 retical and experimental studies found that the con- ≈ Hˆ + [S,ˆ Hˆ ]. (55) dition for the best SNR is 2χ = κ. In experiments, the 0 2 qr quality factor (=ωr/κ) of the readout resonator is usually designed to be on the order of 100–1000 (Ref. 82). If we In our case, Uˆdisp is given by lower the quality factor further, the readout process will be faster; however, achieving a comparable χ might not ˆ g † Udisp = exp (ˆσ−aˆ − σˆ+aˆ) . (56) satisfy the dispersive limit because a large χ is achieved ∆qr by either enhancing g or reducing ∆qr. Moreover, if g is From Eq. (55), we obtain on the order of 0.1ωq or larger, the qubit-resonator coupling enters the so-called ultrastrong coupling regime, in σˆ which the RWA is no longer applicable.83,84 Hˆdisp ≈ (ω − χ) z + (ω − χσˆ )â†a,ˆ (57) JC ~ q 2 ~ r z Another important phenomenon that must be considered is the Purcell effect that refers to the increase in 2 where χ ≡ g /∆qr. The second term in Eq. (57) shows the spontaneous emission rate of a qubit, i.e., the reduc- that the resonator frequency shifts by ∓χ, depending on tion in T1, by the resonator coupled to the qubit. The the qubit state [Fig. 13(a)]. Therefore, dispersive read- Purcell effect is maximized when ωq = ωr because it is out detects the longitudinal component of the Bloch vec- caused by the resonator concentrating the density of de- tor. This is the novel feature of the dispersive readout— 62 cay channels. Therefore, if ∆qr is not large enough, T1 creating a qubit-resonator interaction withσ ˆz, which en- 56 will be severely limited. The problem is that a large ∆qr ables us to detect the qubit state, from a purely transis not always desirable because the resulting χ might be verse interaction by taking the dispersive limit. too small to ensure a high readout fidelity. To maximize † Note that the dispersive term [χσˆzaˆ aˆ in Eq. (57)] the readout fidelity while maintaining the fast readout commutes with the bare qubit and bare resonator terms; capability, the Purcell filter was developed. Contrary to in other words, measuring the qubit state does not dis- the Purcell effect, the Purcell filter “filters out” the den- 23 sity of decay channels near the qubit transition frequency; cause, if a signal passes a chain of amplifiers, the SNR is hence, it protects the qubit from the unwanted acceler- primarily established by the noise figure of the first am- ation of energy relaxation. For details, see Refs. 85 and plifier in the chain (Friis formula). Therefore, having a 86. good amplifier immediately after the qubit is important. In a real experiment, the measured dispersive shift can Commercially available High-Electron-Mobility Tran- 2 be significantly different from the value of g /∆qr be- sistor (HEMT) amplifiers are widely used and installed cause of the contribution from higher excitation levels in the output microwave wiring (at the 4K plate of the interacting with the resonator. To fully account for this dilution refrigerator), typically providing a gain of 30–40 contribution, we also need to calculate gij using Eq. (34), dB. Although an HEMT amplifier has a high gain and 2 and χij = |gij| /(ωr − ωi-j), where ωi-j is the energy re- broad operation bandwidth, it adds on an average of 10– leased in the transition from |ii to |ji (i 6= j). (Note that 20 noise photons to the signal photons, which in turn ωi-j is negative when i < j.) The total dispersive shift worsens the SNR. To overcome this, practically noise- χtotal, which is what we observe in experiments, is given less parametric amplifiers were developed using Joseph- PM by j=0[(χj1 −χ1j)−(χj0 −χ0j)]/2, where M is the cut- son junctions. 87,88 off energy level. Fortunately, by considering χtotal as A parametric amplifier basically transfers energy from an empirical χ, we can understand the readout process a strong pump to a weak signal by mixing the signal with the physics explained in this section. and pump frequencies via the modulation of the reac- We can also write Eq. (57) in the following form: tance. Hence, the reactance is a time-varying parameter, from which the name of the amplifier originates. This disp σˆz type of amplifier has low noise because it modulates the Hˆ ≈ [ω − χ(1 + 2â†aˆ)] + ω aˆ†a.ˆ (58) JC ~ q 2 ~ r reactance instead of the resistance. In superconducting circuits, a variable inductor can be implemented using In this form, we can interpret the χ term as the Lamb † Josephson junctions, hence the name Josephson Para- (1 in parentheses) and AC Stark (2â aˆ) shifts in qubit metric Amplifier (JPA). frequency. This suggests that a different photon number state of the resonator yields a different shift in the qubit The physics of parametric amplification was intro- frequency, resulting in the splitting of the qubit spec- duced in Fig. 9(b): x1 and x2 correspond to the signal trum, called number splitting, as shown in Fig. 13(b). (non-zero initial value) and the idler (zero initial value), Note that the AC Stark shift makes the qubit lose its respectively. Here, the idler is a tone generated during phase coherence because the qubit state interacting with the amplification process as a consequence of the energy a different number state acquires different phases dur- conservation: ωm = ωs + ωI, where ωm is the modulation ing the evolution. Such a process is called measurement- frequency, ωs is the signal frequency, and ωI is the idler induced dephasing. frequency. On the basis of the physics we have explored thus In general, JPAs can be categorized on the basis of far, the dispersive readout process can be described as two factors. One is how to maximize the time for en- follows:81 (i) A set of photons, the energy of each of which ergy transfer from the pump to the signal. This can be achieved by using either a resonator (multiple bounces is about ωr, enter the resonator. (ii) The qubit state information is encoded to the photons, for example, as the in a cavity) or a long waveguide. The other is how to phase of the transmission, by the qubit-resonator inter- modulate the inductance. Depending on the modulation action. The measurement-induced dephasing caused by method or operation conditions, ωm can be either the the same interaction makes the qubit state lose its phase same or twice the pump frequency ωp. coherence and collapse into |0i or |1i. (iii) The photons For further explanation, we present a resonator-based escape from the resonator and are then detected. JPA in Fig. 14(a) as an example. Note that the λ/4 resonator is terminated with a DC SQUID with a flux bias. As mentioned in Sec. III B, a DC SQUID is a variable 2. Josephson Parametric Amplifier junction whose effective inductance LJ,eff is given by 2 Φ0 1 Although dispersive readout can give a reasonably L (ϕ ) = J,eff ext 2π E (ϕ ) good SNR, achieving single-shot readout is still diffi- J,eff ext cult because the SNR is deteriorated by thermal noise Φ 2 1 1 = 0 . (59) during travel from the chip to the room-temperature 2π 2EJ |cos(ϕext/2)| instruments. This is an inevitable consequence of the limited number of microwave photons, the energy of Here, Eq. (14) is used with the assumption that EJ1 = each of which is orders of magnitude smaller than EJ2 = EJ. By varying the flux bias, we can modulate the the room-temperature thermal energy. Hence, the pre- inductance [red coil in Fig. 14(a)]. This type of modula- 89 amplification of the signal before detection is indispens- tion is called flux pumping. Here, we decompose ϕext dc able. One might think that using multiple amplifiers will into the DC component ϕext and the pump component p solve the problem. However, this is not a good option be- ϕext. We can operate the amplifier in two regimes de- 24

(a) Resonator-based JPA (b) Flux pumping (c) Current pumping

DC ﬂux bias idler

resonator Reﬂection a b current pump signal ﬂux pump Frequency

(d) Waveguide-based JPA (JTWPA) (e) Energy gap

Resonant phase matching

pump ... signal idler

Periodic modulation of the refractive index Frequency b (high )

... a (low )

Wave vecter

FIG. 14. (a) Josephson Parametric Amplifier (JPA) based on a quarter-wavelength resonator terminated by a DC SQUID for which the tunability is provided by a DC flux bias Φ. During the amplification process, another frequency tone is generated, called the idler, to satisfy the energy conservation. This type of JPA can be operated by either a flux pump or a current pump. (b) DC flux bias Φ dependence of ωr. At zero DC bias (bias a), the pump frequency ωp must be the same as ωr to have parametric amplification, whereas ωp can be 2ωr for an appreciable amount of DC bias (bias b). (c) Pump current Ip dependence of the resonator line shape. As Ip increases, the resonance frequency decreases because of the inductive contribution from Ip. (d) Schematic circuit diagrams of a Josephson Traveling-Wave Parametric Amplifier (JTWPA). The phases of interacting tones can be matched either by resonant structures (in red) or by the periodic modulation of the refractive index, i.e., the junction size. The inductance of this amplifier is modulated by a current pump. (e) Dispersion relation engineered to have a gap at the frequency ωg for phase matching. The long-dashed diagonal line shows the dispersion relation without the gap. Frequencies a and b are examples of possible pump frequencies at low and high pump currents, respectively.

dc pending on ϕext: ing current, flowing through the Josephson junctions. dc Roughly speaking, the number of charge carriers, i.e., 1. If ϕext = 0 [bias a in Fig. 14(b)], LJ,eff varies p Cooper pairs, is locally and partially reduced in a Joseph- quadratically with ϕext because 1/ cos(x/2) ≈ 1 + 2 son junction owing to its weak link nature. Because of x /8. This results that ωm = 2ωp, where ωp = ωr. this, the charge carriers must have a higher speed near Such a process is called the four-wave mixing pro- the junctions to maintain the same current in and out of cess (ωs, ωI, and two ωp). the junctions. The resulting large kinetic energy of the dc 2. For a suitable value of ϕext, we can have an appre- charge carriers contributes to the inductance of the cir- ciable contribution from the linear term in Eq. (59). cuit, in addition to the geometric inductance. This addi- Bias b in Fig. 14(b) is an example of this. In this tional inductance is called the kinetic inductance. Since case, ωm = ωp. The parametric amplification of the the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the signals is then achieved by applying a pump tone velocity of the charge carriers, the kinetic inductance is with ωp = 2ωr. This process is called the three-wave roughly proportional to the square of the pump current. mixing process (ωs, ωI, and one ωp). Advantages of Thus, the current-pumped amplification is a four-wave this operation are that (i) we can easily separate mixing process regardless of a DC flux bias.93 Such an in- the pump tone and the signal in the frequency do- ductive contribution from current pumping shifts the res- dc main, and (ii) we can tune ωr by adjusting ϕext. onance frequency of the resonator as shown in Fig. 14(c). This characteristic line shape can be modeled as a Duff- There is another method for the inductance mod- ing oscillator.91,92 ulation, called current pumping [green arrows in Fig. 14(a)].90 In this method, the inductance of a JPA The resonator-based JPA is relatively easy to make is modulated by applying a large current, i.e., pump- but suffers from a gain-bandwidth trade-off. The reason 25 is that, to have a higher gain, the signal must bounce Counterclockwise rotation about the x-axis: X gate in the resonator more; this requires a higher quality fac- 1 z’ 2 z’ 3 z’ tor and inevitably reduces the bandwidth. A waveguide- based JPA is called a Josephson Traveling-Wave Para- metric Amplifier (JTWPA). A JTWPA is free from the gain-bandwidth trade-off. This allows us to achieve high- y’ y’ y’ bandwidth (several gigahertz) and high-gain (> 20 dB) x’ x’ x’ amplification.94 Since the waveguide has to be nonlinear to mix the signal and pump tones, it is implemented using 1 a long Josephson junction array with current pumping. 2 The challenge in making a JTWPA is the phase match- 1 ing: the phases of all interacting tones (pump, signal, and 3 Population idler) must be matched. (A resonator-based JPA is free 0 from this problem because it is geometrically confined.) 0 The phase mismatch results from changes in phase veloc- (rad) ity, i.e., the refractive index, caused by the interaction between the strong pump tone and the nonlinear medium. FIG. 15. Evolution of the quantum state of a single qubit in a To match the phase, we create a local distortion in the Bloch sphere under an external drive. Gray solid lines in the dispersion relation as shown in Fig. 14(e). Then, depend- Bloch spheres indicate the evolution trajectory of the qubit state. The numbers in circles indicate time steps. The rotation ing on the pump current Ip, a value of ωp that matches angle of the Bloch vector is determined by ΩRτ, where ΩR is the phase can be chosen. If Ip is very small compared to the critical current of the junction, the phase mismatch the Rabi frequency and τ is the length of the external drive. The rotation of the Bloch vector results in an oscillation of will be small; thus, a frequency where the wave vector the qubit population with a period ΩR; such an oscillation is is close to that from the linear dispersion relation (long- called the Rabi oscillation. Note that the population of the dashed line) will match the phase well. Frequency a in qubit is inverted at time ○3 , thus implementing the X gate. Fig. 14(e) is an example for this. For Ip comparable to the The frequency of the rotating frame is the drive frequency, junction critical current, we have to choose a frequency which is on-resonance with the qubit. where the dispersion relation deviates significantly from the linear one as ωp; frequency b is such an example. For actual implementation, we can either insert a resonant structure near each Josephson junction94,95 or periodi- system and assume that the qubit is driven via the res- cally modulate the refractive index similarly to what is onator. A classical analog of this system is shown in done in photonic crystals [Fig. 14(d)].96 Here, modulat- Fig. 9(c). As we drive oscillator 1 (control oscillator) with ing the refractive index can be achieved by modulating fd = f2, the amplitude of oscillator 2 (target oscillator) the size of the junctions in DC SQUIDs. increases indefinitely. However, this does not happen for These JPAs can perform as quantum-limited ampli- a qubit because it is intrinsically a nonlinear quantum fiers, which add only the minimum noise allowed by the object. Instead, the population of the qubit oscillates as laws of quantum mechanics. For a phase-preserving linear a function of time or the amplitude of the drive. This amplifier, whose gain is the same regardless of the phase oscillation in the qubit population is called the Rabi os- of the input signal, this minimum amount of added noise cillation (Fig. 15). is equivalent to half a photon.97,98 For theories of para- Now we consider the counterclockwise rotation of the metric amplification, including JPA, see Refs. 72, 92, 99– Bloch vector about the x-axis as an example. The exter- 101. nal drive is usually modeled quantum mechanically53,55

ˆ † −iωdt +iωdt Hd(t) = ~Er(t)(â e +a ê ), (61) C. Single-Qubit Gate where Er and ωd are the amplitude and frequency of the external drive, respectively. Now, we have to perform As mentioned in Sec. II A 2, performing a gate opera- multiple transformations. First, to focus on the disper- tion is basically engineering the system Hamiltonian such sive limit, we apply the Schrieffer–Wolff transformation that the resulting unitary evolution of a qubit implements (Sec. VI B 1) to Eq. (61): the target gate. From Eq. (11), Hˆdisp = Uˆ Hˆ (t)Uˆ † ˆ d disp d disp Uˆ = e−iHt/~ = Uˆ . (60) target † −iωdt +iωdt ≈ ~Er(t)(â e +a ê ) Here, the method we use to engineer the system Hamil- E (t)g ~ r −iωdt +iωdt − (ˆσ+e +σ ˆ−e ), (62) tonian is to apply an external drive. ∆qr Since the standard qubit readout technique is dispersive readout (Sec. VI B 1), we consider a qubit-resonator where ∆qr ≡ ωr − ωq. In Eq. (62), we can see that the 26

ﬁrst line corresponds to (de)populating the resonator and (Do not omit the minus sign!) the second line corresponds to driving the qubit. Next, we Note that changing the rotation axis from x to y is combine Eqs. (62) and (58) to obtain the full single-qubit actually a z rotation. This suggests that shifting the ref- ˆfull Hamiltonian H1q : erence phase of the instruments is functionally equivalent to a rotation about the z-axis, which is called a virtual z ˆfull ˆdisp ˆdisp rotation.103 Since we do not apply a real pulse for this, H1q ≡ HJC + Hd . (63) the virtual z rotation is a nearly perfect and zero-time Then, we move to the rotating frame whose Hamiltonian operation. is deﬁned by

σˆ Hˆ = ω aˆ†aˆ + z . (64) D. Two-Qubit Gate 0 ~ d 2 Many two-qubit gates have been implemented by vari- The final single-qubit Hamiltonian in the rotating frame ous methods. Among them, four gates and four methods Hˆrot can be obtained by the unitary transformation: 1q are introduced in this tutorial. These methods are based ˆ ˆ on the transverse qubit-qubit interaction whose physics ˆrot iH0t/~ ˆfull ˆ −iH0t/~ H1q = e (H1q − H0)e is explored in Sec. V A. The two-qubit gates introduced † † in this tutorial are summarized in Table IV. = ~(ωr − ωd)â aˆ + ~Er(t)(â +a ˆ ) σˆ σˆ + [ω − χ(1 + 2â†aˆ) − ω ] z + Ω x , (65) ~ q d 2 ~ R 2 1. iSWAP: Coherent Exchange where ΩR is the Rabi frequency given by −4Erg/∆qr, whose physical meaning will be clarified in Eq. (67). For This method implements a two-qubit gate using these transformations, we use the formulas in Table VI. changes in the phase and population of the qubit states As mentioned in Sec. VI B 1, the number of photons in during the coherent exchange of a photon. The basic the readout resonator has to be close to zero to maintain mechanism for this is tuning the transition frequency of one of the qubits so that ωq1 = ωq2. The relevant analogy the phase coherence of the qubit. Thus, if we choose ωd = for this is shown in Fig. 9(a). ωq − χ, then the term relevant to the qubit dynamics in Eq. (65) is Consider two capacitively coupled transmons. This system is convenient because the dominant qubit-qubit cou- σˆ pling is transverse, as pointed out in Sec. V B 2, and it is Hˆrot = Ω x . (66) d ~ R 2 the most popular qubit system. For simplicity, we ignore the readout resonators as qubits are usually far detuned Using Eq. (7), we can obtain the evolution driven by from the resonators. Then, the system Hamiltonian re- Eq. (66) with the time τ: duces to Eq. (44). After taking the RWA (Sec. V B 2), Eq. (44) can be written in a similar manner to Eq. (41): −iHˆrotτ/ Uˆ(τ) = e d ~ σˆ(1) σˆ(2) cos(ΩRτ/2) −i sin(ΩRτ/2) ˆ z z (1) (2) (1) (2) = . (67) H2q = ~ωq1 + ~ωq2 + ~J σˆ+ σˆ− +σ ˆ− σˆ+ . −i sin(ΩRτ/2) cos(ΩRτ/2) 2 2 (68) Equation (67) is basically a rotation matrix describing a rotation of a Bloch vector around the x0-axis as shown in The resulting energy levels are shown in Fig. 16(a). Fig. 15. This rotation results in an oscillation of the qubit Now, we assume that ωq1 = ωq2. To focus on the dy- population, the z0 component of the Bloch sphere, with namics induced by the qubit-qubit coupling, we move to the rotating frame with the frequency ω . Then, Eq. (68) a period ΩRτ = 2π if we ignore the global phase factor. q1 This is the Rabi oscillation. Using this, the X gate can becomes be implemented by an external drive satisfying ΩRτ = π. ˆrot (1) (2) (1) (2) This is the main mechanism for how we flip a qubit. H2q = ~J σˆ+ σˆ− +σ ˆ− σˆ+ . (69) One might ask how the rotation axis is defined in a real This equation is the same as Eq. (46) with the RWA. The ˆrot experiment. The answer is that the reference phase of the propagator based on H2q with the time interval τ is instruments, such as the phase of the first pulse in the experiment, defines the rotation axis, which is usually set −iHˆrotτ/ Uˆ(τ) = e 2q ~ as x (Ref. 102). If we want to change the rotation axis   from x to y, then all we have to do is to add a π/2 phase 1 0 0 0 0 cos(Jτ) −i sin(Jτ) 0 shift to the subsequent pulses and the reference phase of =   . (70) the measurement instruments. This means that, if we set 0 −i sin(Jτ) cos(Jτ) 0 the x rotation cos(ωt), then the y rotation is − sin(ωt). 0 0 0 1 27

TABLE IV. Various two-qubit gates. From the columns “Tunable frequency” to “Small ωq separation”, the name of each column indicates the required condition for implementation. Here, the condition “Tunable frequency” implies that at least one of the qubits has to be out of its sweet spot during the gate operation. Note that these conditions are minimal conditions; having an additional condition can result in better performance. For example, it was reported that the CZ gate can be implemented with high ﬁdelity by adiabatic excursion with one tunable qubit and tunable coupling,108 or by coherent exchange with two tunable qubits and ﬁxed coupling,105 although the minimal condition for the CZ gate implementation is one tunable qubit as shown in this table. “Small ωq separation” means how close two qubit frequencies need to be; the value “Yes” means that |ωq1 − ωq2| is comparable to or less than the anharmonicity of the qubit. “Distance to CNOT” means the minimum number of two-qubit gates needed to implement the CNOT gate. Each value in this column is an intrinsic property of the corresponding gate; values do not depend on the implementation method.

Tunable Tunable Microwave Negative Small ω Distance Gate Method q Ref. frequency coupling drive anharmonicity separation to CNOT iSWAP Coherent exchange Yes No No No No 2 105 iSWAP Parametric coupling No Yes Yes No No 2 106 bSWAP Parametric coupling No Yes Yes No No 2 106 CZ Adiabatic excursion Yes No No Yes No 1 107,108 CZ Coherent exchange Yes No No Yes No 1 105 CZ Parametric coupling No Yes No No No 1 109 CR All microwave control No No Yes No Yes 1 110,111

Note that Eq. (70) is practically the same as Eq. (67) For qubits with negative anharmonicity, such as the two- because only two states, |01i and |10i, contribute to the transmon system shown in Fig. 16(a), the gate ﬁdelity of dynamics. a diabatic gate is limited mainly by population leakage Equation (70) is easy to derive if we use Eq. (7) with out of the computational subspace. This population leak- α = Jτ and age is driven by unwanted transitions, such as |11i-|02i and |11i-|20i transitions, because we pass anticrossings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 associated with |11i during the ﬂux bias ramping. Note 0 0 1 0 0 0 σˆ(1)σˆ(2) +σ ˆ(1)σˆ(2) =   ≡  Aˆ  . that this leakage is still a unitary evolution, suggesting + − − + 0 1 0 0 0 0 that the population leakage oscillates with time. Thus, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 the error due to this leakage can be minimized by syn- (71) chronizing the periods of the leakage and the iSWAP gate time.105 One useful two-qubit gate that can be implemented easily by this method is the iSWAP gate. The iSWAP gate swaps the populations of |10i and |01i with an additional phase factor −i. In the matrix form, 2. iSWAP and bSWAP: Parametric Coupling

1 0 0 0 The previous implementation of the iSWAP gate relies 0 0 −i 0 Uˆ =   . (72) on the frequency tunability of the qubit. This means that iSWAP 0 −i 0 0 the qubit must be out of its sweet spot for a while, which 0 0 0 1 potentially degrades the coherence. To resolve this issue, another scheme that allows qubits to stay at their sweet Thus, Eq. (70) with Jτ = π/2 implements Eq. (72). spots during the gate operation has been developed.114 The actual implementation can be done via the follow- In this scheme, the control knob is the qubit-qubit cou- ing steps [black arrowed path in Fig. 16(a) and lower fig- pling. Consider the two-qubit Hamiltonian in Eq. (44). ure in Fig. 16(c)]: (i) Prepare the initial state. In Fig. 16, (Here, the qubits do not need to be transmons.) If J is |01i was chosen as an example. At this stage, the tun- static and |ωq1 − ωq2| J, the qubit-qubit interaction able qubit, qubit 2 in this case, is at its sweet spot. (ii) is effectively turned off, i.e., the interaction is very slow Increase the flux bias to the point at which the energy compared with the time scale we are interested in, as levels of |10i and |01i are√ equal. At this bias, the new indicated by in Eq. (46). eigenstates, (|01i ± |10i)/ 2, exchange their energy at a Now we modulate the coupling constant as J(t) = J0 + rate of J/π. (iii) Wait for a while to satisfy Jτ = π/2. Jm cos(ωmt). Here, the modulation frequency ωm of the (iv) Decrease the flux bias to the sweet spot. coupler is the control parameter, from which the name The bias ramping in steps (ii) and (iv) must be as fast “parametric coupling” originates. Such a modulation can as possible for efficient gate operation. Thus, the iSWAP be achieved by modulating flux passing through the loop gate implemented using this method is a diabatic gate. of the coupler shown in Fig. 11. If ωm = |ωq1 − ωq2|, the 28

(a) (b) CZ Adiabatic excursion (AE) Coherent exchange (CE) Energy Energy

AE CZ (AE) CE

Time Time

Energy (c) iSWAP (d) iSWAP and bSWAP Coherent exchange (CE) Parametric coupling

iSWAP bSWAP

iSWAP (CE) Energy Energy Energy sweet spot Time Flux bias

FIG. 16. (a) Energy levels of a two-transmon system as a function of flux bias.116 It is assumed that (i) qubit 2 is tunable, (ii) ωq2 > ωq1 at the sweet spot, and (iii) the qubit-qubit coupling is strong as indicated by anticrossings. The sweet spot of qubit 2 is the leftmost flux bias as indicated by an arrow. The vertical dashed line in (a) indicates the bias at which the energy levels of |02i and |11i are equal. The solid lines with arrows show how the energy levels evolve during the gate operation: the lower one is the trajectory for the iSWAP gate implemented by coherent exchange, and the upper one is for the CZ gate implemented by adiabatic excursion. Here, CE stands for coherent exchange and AE stands for adiabatic excursion. (b) Implementation of the CZ gate via adiabatic excursion and coherent exchange. The left figure shows the energy levels near the anticrossing between |11i and |02i (indicated by the vertical dashed line). ζ(≡ ω10 + ω01 − ω11) is the effective coupling constant for the ZZ interaction. In the center and right figures, the upper figure shows the schematic energy level diagram. The curved solid arrows indicate the relative movement of ω02 with respect to ω11. The lower figure shows the same movement as√ a function of time. The dashed arrow for CE indicates the population swapping to |02i and then back to |11i at the rate 2J/π when ω11 = ω02. Note that, for adiabatic excursion, |02i does not meet |11i to satisfy adiabaticity. (c) Implementation of the iSWAP gate via coherent exchange. The upper figure shows the schematic energy level diagram. The curved solid arrow indicates the relative movement of ω01 with respect to ω10. The lower figure shows the same movement as a function of time. The dashed arrows present the two qubits exchanging their energy at the rate J/π when ω10 = ω01. (d) Implementation of the iSWAP and bSWAP gates via parametric coupling. Here, neither qubit needs to be tuned. The gate operation is performed by applying a microwave to the tunable coupler with the frequency |ωq1 − ωq2| (iSWAP) or ωq1 + ωq2 (bSWAP). two qubits exchange their energy as we saw in Fig. 9(b). In this case, Eq. (46) becomes This activates the transition between |01i and |10i. In J this case, Eq. (46) becomes Hˆrot = ~ m σˆ(1)σˆ(2) +σ ˆ(1)σˆ(2) . (75) 2q 2 + + − − rot ~Jm (1) (2) (1) (2) Hˆ = σˆ σˆ +σ ˆ σˆ . (73) The propagator based on this Hamiltonian is 2q 2 + − − +   Using Eq. (70), we can see that Jmτ = π implements the cos(Jmτ/2) 0 0 −i sin(Jmτ/2) 0 1 0 0 iSWAP gate. Uˆ(τ) =   . (76)  0 0 1 0  −i sin(Jmτ/2) 0 0 cos(Jmτ/2)

If ωm = ωq1 + ωq2, we can activate the transition be- It is clear that Jmτ = π implements the bSWAP gate. tween |00i and |11i. Using this transition, we can implement the bSWAP gate:106,115

 0 0 0 −i 3. CZ: Adiabatic Excursion 0 1 0 0 Uˆ =   . (74) bSWAP  0 0 1 0  Any two-qubit gate based on the transverse interac- −i 0 0 0 tion has to be performed at least twice to implement 29 the CNOT gate.112 Since the CNOT gate is the essential Implementing a high-fidelity and fast CZ gate is gate for quantum error correction (see Sec. VII), a more then reduced to finding an optimal trajectory satisfying R τ efficient implementation of the CNOT gate is desired. 0 ζ(t)dt = π. In general, the flux must be ramped up For this, we need a non-transverse qubit-qubit interac- fast at the beginning to reduce the gate time. Near the tion. It was soon realized that we have an effective ZZ anticrossing, the flux sweep is relatively slow to satisfy interaction that comes from the transverse interaction adiabaticity and acquire the phase we need [center figure associated with higher excitation levels.116 This interac- in Fig. 16(b)]. It was found that the Slepian shape is close tion allows us to implement the controlled-Z (CZ) gate, to the optimal trajectory.117 which is identical to the CNOT gate up to single-qubit rotations: 4. CZ: Coherent Exchange and Parametric Coupling • • = , (77) H • H The CZ gate can also be implemented by coherent exchange between |11i and |02i to acquire the phase factor where [right figure in Fig. 16(b)].67,105 Regarding coherent exchange, when ω = ω , we can construct a propagator 1 0 0 0  11 02 • similar to Eq. (70): ˆ 0 1 0 0  UCZ =   ≡ . (78) 0 0 1 0 • Uˆ(τ) = 0 0 0 −1 h00| h01| h10| h11| h02| h20| Equation (78) is read “apply the Z gate to qubit 2 if the |00i  1 0 0 0 0 0  state of qubit 1 is |1i.” |01i  0 1 0 0 0 0    As we explained in Sec. V B 3, if J is static and |10i  0 0 1 0 0 0  .  √ √  ωq1 6= ωq2, the contribution from the transverse qubit- |11i  0 0 0 cos 2Jτ −i sin 2Jτ 0  qubit interaction to the dynamics is small [Eq. (46)]. In  √ √  |02i  0 0 0 −i sin 2Jτ cos 2Jτ 0  this case, the propagator has the form |20i 0 0 0 0 0 1 (80) 1 0 0 0  0 eiθ01 0 0 Uˆ =   , (79) One difference from Eq. (70) is that the coupling constant 0 0 eiθ10 0  √   is 2J instead of J. In general, the coupling constant iθ11 0 0 0 e for the transverse interaction between |n , n − 1i and √ √1 2 |n − 1, n i is J n n becausea ˆ |ni = n |n − 1i and where θ is the phase of the state |iji acquired 1 √2 1 2 √ ij aˆ† |ni = n + 1 |n + 1i. What we want is cos 2Jτ = throughout the evolution for the time interval τ: θij = √ R τ ωij(t)dt. Therefore, to implement the CZ gate, we −1; thus, 2Jτ = π implements the CZ gate. 0 109 need to have θ11 − θ10 − θ01 = π. Parametric coupling can also be used. Since we do If we consider the computational subspace only, the not need to tune the qubit frequencies, negative anhar- difficulty in implementing the CZ gate is that ω11 is al- monicity is not required. Moreover, we can use the cou- ways the same as ω10 + ω01; thus, θ11 = θ10 + θ01. This is pling between |11i and either |02i or |20i. why we need a ZZ interaction. The crucial observation is that ω11 deviates from ω10 + ω01 because of the anticrossing between the |11i and |02i levels [left figure in 5. CR: All Microwave Control Fig. 16(b)]. This gives an effective ZZ interaction whose strength ζ is ω10 +ω01 −ω11. As shown in the left figure in All implementations of two-qubit gates discussed thus Fig. 16(b), ζ increases rapidly as the energy levels of |02i far require some tunability of the qubit frequency or and |11i become closer, suggesting that varying the flux qubit-qubit coupling. However, the phase coherence is 116 bias can be used to tune ζ by orders of magnitude. so delicate that any control line potentially degrades T2. Now we have the ZZ interaction. Note that, in This motivates the development of two-qubit gates purely Eq. (78), the population of each state must remain the driven by microwave activation. Among them, the cross- same. One way to implement the CZ gate is to tune the resonance (CR) gate is the most widely used one. energy levels adiabatically. In addition, another condi- The CR gate basically excites one qubit (target qubit) tion to make the CZ gate operation feasible is negative through the other qubit (control qubit). Hence, it is sim- anharmonicity such that the |11i-|02i anticrossing ap- ilar to a single-qubit gate, and its classical analogy is pears earlier than the |10i-|01i anticrossing. Otherwise, Fig. 9(c). The difference is that, instead of a harmonic os- the transition between |10i and |01i will be activated cillator (resonator), a nonlinear oscillator (qubit) is used during the gate operation, resulting in an unwanted pop- as a control oscillator.120 Because of the nonlinearity, the ulation change. Therefore, the most suitable qubit for the result of the gate operation depends on the state of the CZ gate operation is a transmon and its variants. control qubit, resulting in a two-qubit gate. 30

ˆrot In the following, we repeat the calculations we made in H2q can be obtained by the unitary transformation: Sec. VI C with slight modiﬁcations for a two-qubit sys- ˆ ˆ tem instead of a qubit-resonator system. We make three ˆrot iH0t/~ ˆfull ˆ −iH0t/~ H2q = e (H2q − H0)e assumptions. First, J ∆qq, where ∆qq ≡ ωq1 − ωq2. 2 (1) This is a kind of dispersive limit. Secondly, the control J σˆz (1) = ~ ωq1 + − ωd + ~Eq(t)ˆσx qubit, which is assumed to be qubit 1, is an ideal two-level ∆qq 2 system, i.e., α1 ∆qq, where α1 is the anharmonicity of 2 (2) J σˆz (1) (2) qubit 1. Lastly, there is no spurious cross-talk between + ~ ωq2 − − ωd + ~ΩCR(t)ˆσz σˆx , the two qubits. ∆qq 2 (87)

where Ω ≡ E J/∆ . For these transformations, we Since the first assumption is also a kind of dispersive CR q qq use the formulas in Table VI. limit, we can apply the Schrieffer–Wolff transformation, 2 If we set ωd = ωq2 − J /∆qq, the only term contribut- ˆ J (1) (2) (1) (2) ing to the two-qubit gate operation is the last term in Udisp = exp (ˆσ+ σˆ− − σˆ− σˆ+ ) , (81) ˆrot ∆qq Eq. (87), which we denote as Hd : ˆrot (1) (2) to Hˆ2q in Eq. (68) as we did in Sec. VI B 1: Hd = ~ΩCRσˆz σˆx . (88)

ˆdisp ˆ ˆ ˆ † Thus, the propagator is H2q = UdispH2qUdisp 2 (1) 2 (2) −iHˆrotτ/ J σˆz J σˆz Uˆ(τ) = e d ~ ≈ ~ ωq1 + + ~ ωq2 − ∆qq 2 ∆qq 2  cos(ΩCRτ) −i sin(ΩCRτ) 0 0  (82) −i sin(Ω τ) cos(Ω τ) 0 0 =  CR CR  .  0 0 cos(ΩCRτ) i sin(ΩCRτ) 0 0 i sin(ΩCRτ) cos(ΩCRτ) (89) Regarding the external drive, we use a Hamiltonian similar to Eq. (61): The above matrix is read as “rotate the target qubit state +ΩCRτ about the x-axis if the control qubit state is |0i, ˆ (1) −iωdt (1) +iωdt Hd(t) = ~Eq(t)(ˆσ+ e +σ ˆ− e ), (83) and rotate the target qubit state −ΩCRτ about the x-axis if the control qubit state is |1i.” where Eq and ωd are the amplitude and frequency of Note that the CR gate is related to the CNOT gate by the external drive, respectively. We apply the same only two single-qubit rotations:118 Schrieffer–Wolff transformation to Eq. (83): π disp † • Rz(− 2 ) • Hˆ = UˆdispHˆd(t)Uˆ d disp = , (90) (1) −iωdt (1) +iωdt π π ≈ Eq(t)(ˆσ e +σ ˆ e ) ~ + − CR( 2 ) Rx(− 2 ) E (t)J ~ q (1) (2) −iωdt (2) +iωdt + σˆz (ˆσ+ e +σ ˆ− e ). (84) ∆qq where  1 −i 0 0 In Eq. (84), we can see that the second line corresponds • π 1 −i 1 0 0 to driving qubit 2. = Uˆ ΩCRτ = = √   . CR( π ) 2 2  0 0 1 i 2 0 0 i 1 (91) Next, we combine Eqs. (82) and (84) to obtain the full two-qubit Hamiltonian Hˆfull: 2q For a qubit such as a transmon, the assumption for an ideal two-level system is not valid. In this case, we have to Hˆfull ≡ Hˆdisp + Hˆdisp. (85) 2q 2q d consider higher level contributions. Since the calculation needs some labor, we just quote the result:119,120 Now, we move to the rotating frame whose Hamiltonian is defined by ˆrot EqJ (2) α1 (1) (2) Hd = σˆx + ΩCRσˆz σˆx . (92) (1) (2) ! ∆qq + α1 ∆qq + α1 ˆ σˆz σˆz H0 = ~ωd + . (86) 2 2 Note that Eq. (92) becomes Eq. (88) in the α1 → ∞ limit (ideal two-level system). In the α1 → 0 limit (bosonic The final two-qubit Hamiltonian in the rotating frame system), only the single-qubit drive term (the first term) 31 survives—Eq. (92) becomes Eq. (66). Equation (92) sug- frequency. Note that we cannot induce a direct transi- gests that, if ∆qq α1, the CR drive amplitude is greatly tion between |e0i and |g1i because this transition is for- reduced. Therefore, to have a reliable CR drive ampli- bidden when the qubit-resonator interaction is Jaynes– 125 tude, ∆qq must be comparable to α1; if ∆qq is too small, Cummings-type [Eq. (40)]. the states of the two qubits are hybridized such that the These two methods can be understood using mechan- single-qubit gate operation will be nontrivial. In the ac- ical analogues shown in Fig. 17(a) and (b). tual operation, the unwanted single-qubit drive term in Eq. (92) can be canceled out by applying an additional pulse.111 2. Measurement-Based Initialization One might wonder about the fate of the effective ZZ interaction, which was a hero for the CZ gate This is a completely different initialization method (Sec. VI D 3). Now, it is a villain that degrades the fi- based on the QND measurement mentioned in Sec. VI B 1 delity of the CR gate. This interaction can be canceled and the measurement postulate, which states that a mea- out by a refocusing technique,111 which will be explained surement of an observable acting on a quantum state de- in Sec. IX C. stroys the phase coherence and forces the state to collapse into one of the eigenstates of the observable.8,9 If a measurement is QND-type and its outcome is |0i, then the E. Initialization qubit is initialized. If the outcome is |1i, we simply apply a π-pulse to flip the qubit state. The flow chart for this After computation, qubits should be initialized for the procedure is shown in Fig. 17(c). This method is often next computation. However, condition 3 in Sec. III A and called measurement-based initialization.126–128 fast initialization seem to be contradictory. Here, we in- One technical difficulty is that this method heavily re- troduce two categories of qubit initialization and their lies on high-fidelity projective measurement and fast feed- working principles. back. It can suffer from latency due to the classical data processing and the pulse generation and injection. Note that, in this method, we reduce the entropy of 1. Entropy Dumping the qubit by extracting information about its state. This suggests that information processing and thermodynam- This method is to pump entropy of the target system ics are connected intrinsically. One of the most famous to another system, which we call the pumping system, in- examples showing this connection is Maxwell’s demon teracting with the target system. Here, the required con- that is recently implemented in superconducting qubit 129–131 dition is that the relaxation of the pumping system has to systems. be much faster than that of the target system. This idea has been used in magnetic resonance for a long time, with the name “Dynamic Nuclear Polarization (DNP).”121,122 VII. QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION In DNP, the target system is a nuclear spin; the pumping system is an electron spin; and their interaction is A. Introduction mediated by the hyperfine interaction. In a superconducting circuit, the target system is a Noise in real physical systems, both classical and quan- superconducting qubit and the pumping system is usu- tum, cannot be eliminated completely. As quantum al- ally the readout resonator because the qubit must be gorithms of scientific and/or commercial use consist of isolated as much as possible to maintain the coherence, many qubits and time-steps, error correction schemes are while the resonator needs to be strongly coupled to the essential for reliable quantum computation at scale. The microwave feedline for fast readout. The strategy is to goal of Quantum Error Correction (QEC) is to gener- find an efficient and controllable energy transfer path to ate an error-free logical qubit, i.e., two selected quantum the environment. states, out of the large Hilbert space of a system com- One path is from the qubit state |ei to the resonator posed of multiple quantum systems. This introduces re- state |1i [Fig. 17(a)].56,85 For this, the Purcell effect dundancy that can be used to both detect and correct (Sec. VI B 1) is used. By using a frequency-tunable qubit, physical errors. we can tune ωq to ωr to speed up the qubit relaxation Classical error correction generally can introduce re- process. Once the energy is emitted from the qubit to dundancy by duplicating bits multiple times and then the resonator, the energy is quickly dissipated to the en- errors can be detected and corrected by comparing copies vironment. together. However, in QEC, the use of redundancy is An all-microwave option is also available.123,124 In different and much more difficult to achieve because of this case, the higher excitation level |f i is inserted into the following reasons. Firstly, the no-cloning theorem10,13 the |ei-|1i path [Fig. 17(b)]. The transitions between prevents this type of error-correction in quantum infor- the steps are induced by microwave drives. Hence, this mation as arbitrary quantum states cannot be copied. method is useful for a transmon with the fixed qubit Secondly, direct measurement of quantum states is not 32

(a) Entropy dumping via (b) Entropy dumping via (c) Measurement-based initialization the Purcell eﬀect the higher excitation level

Path: Path: 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 End of computation

qubit resonator qubit resonator

1 2 2 3 Measurement tuning to the env. 1 3 to the env. 4 Yes slow fast relaxation relaxation

pump No

basket 1 Apply a p-pulse

basket 2 basket 1 basket 2 low leak rate high leak rate Done! water bath water bath

: energy being transferred, i : time step, : spontaneous transition, : driven transition

FIG. 17. Qubit initialization methods. (a) and (b) Entropy-dumping-based qubit initialization via the Purcell effect (a) and via the higher excitation level |f i (b). The basic strategies for both methods are the same: transfer the energy in the qubit to a resonator whose relaxation process is significantly faster than that of the qubit. The difference is that, in (a), the qubit state is tuned to satisfy ωq = ωr, such that the energy is transferred directly from qubit state |ei to resonator state |1i via the Purcell effect, while in (b), all energy levels are fixed and the energy is transferred through |f i by our microwave drives. The diagram named “Path” shows the state of the qubit-resonator system during the initialization process. Below this, the energy levels of the qubit and resonator are shown. The lower figures show mechanical analogies. Baskets 1 and 2 correspond to the qubit and resonator, respectively. Water in each basket corresponds to the entropy of each system. In (a), the vertical position of the pipe connecting the two baskets must be matched to the position of the holes on the side of basket 2 to yield the water flow. This represents the condition for the Purcell effect, ωq = ωr. The dashed boundary represents the moment at which this condition is not satisfied. In (b), the pump represents our active microwave radiation to the system to activate the transitions |e0i ↔ |f0i and |f0i ↔ |g1i. (c) Flow chart describing the measurement-based initialization. possible as it will collapse the qubit state (measurement or syndrome qubits. Syndrome qubits are entangled with postulate in Sec. VI E 2). Hence, measurements that are encoded qubits, often called data qubits, within a logical used to detect actual errors have to be performed in an qubit and are used to extract information only related to indirect way. Finally, besides the bit flip error (|0i → |1i physical errors that may have occurred on individual data or |1i → |0i) which is the standard model for clas- qubits. These syndrome qubits are then measured, gen- sical information, quantum information can experience erating classical information called the error syndrome. a second type of the error, called the phase flip error This syndrome extraction procedure is specifically de- (α |0i + β |1i → α |0i − β |1i). Consequently, a quantum signed to avoid direct measurement of the computational error correction code must be able to simultaneously cor- state of any qubit and hence preserves the computation rect for both bit flips and phase flips. during the error-correction process. Multiple syndrome measurements of the data qubit are taken and this clas- As a quantum algorithm creates complex entangled sical information is decoded. This decoding procedure de- states between the constituent qubits, we require a tech- termines the most likely physical errors that resulted in nique that can detect individual errors on any physi- the specific set of syndrome measurements that were ob- cal qubits without extracting any information regarding served. the computational state of the computing system. Parity measurement that measures bit/phase parity of neighbor- Since we have to detect errors without knowing any ing qubits is such a technique. For this, additional qubits, information about the qubit state, to define a state which are not used for actual computation, are intro- as an eigenstate of a certain operator in the Heisen- duced. These are commonly referred to as ancilla qubits berg representation is more convenient than to write the 33 state itself. A formalism based on this idea is stabilizer for solid-state qubit systems.132,133 One of the advan- formalism.139,140 As it will be shown in the following, the tages of the surface code is that it requires each qubit to stabilizer formalism describes our action for error detec- be coupled to at most, four nearest neighboring qubits. tion and logical state construction in a unified manner. This allows us to arrange qubits a into two-dimensional A stabilizer set is a set of commuting multiqubit op- lattice (Fig. 18). A single square patch of qubits defines erators, made up of tensor products of Pauli-X, Y , and a single, logically encoded qubit. This patch is generally Z operators. These multiqubit operators are commonly parameterized by the number of physical qubits along an known as stabilizer operators or simply stabilizers. By edge, which is also relate to the distance, d, of the under- using multiqubit projective measurement, we can force lying quantum code—the distance of a quantum code is an arbitrary quantum state into simultaneous eigenstates the minimum number of physical errors needed to induce of these stabilizers. One consequence is that, if we re- a logical error. Another advantage is the fault-tolerant peat these projective measurements in the absence of threshold of the surface code. The fault-tolerant thresh- errors, we will repeatedly measure the same eigenvalue old is the maximum physical error rate that the code can and project the quantum state into the same eigenstate; correct. For the surface code, the fault-tolerant threshold this is why these operators are called stabilizer operators. is approximately one-percent including errors related to Note that the projective measurement on each stabilizer state readout and all gate operations. This error thresh- is actually parity measurement and its outcome is an er- old is one of the highest of any error correction scheme to ror syndrome. Physical errors cause eigenvalues to flip date and remains the highest of a code that is compati- between +1 and −1, depending on if the physical errors ble with the architectural constraints of current quantum commute or anti-commute with stabilizers. Bit flip errors computing hardware. However, we emphasize that fault- will anti-commute with stabilizers made up of Pauli-Y or tolerant thresholds vary significantly, depending on the Z operators and phase flip errors will anti-commute with actual QEC code that is utilized. stabilizers made up of Pauli-X and Y operators, allowing In this tutorial, we explain how to construct a logi- for the correction of both types of errors. cal qubit, how to detect and correct errors, and how to Another consequence is that the size of the stabilizer perform gate operations on a logical qubit in the con- set determines the size of the restricted subspace of states text of the surface code. Interested readers are referred that satisfy the eigen-conditions, thus defining a logical Refs. 10, 13, 134, and 135 for introductions to QEC and qubit. An N-qubit state is spanned by 2N possible basis Refs. 136–138 for comprehensive reviews. states, where a single qubit is spanned by two (|0i and |1i). Consequently, we say that there are N degrees of freedom for an N-qubit state. Taking N physical qubits B. Surface Code and encoding them into a single logical qubit requires us to fix N − 1 degrees of freedom with the one left over to 1. Definition represent the logical qubit. This is done by requiring the multiqubit state that defines the logical qubit to be in The surface code is defined over a two-dimensional lat- definite eigenstates of stabilizers whose eigenvalue is +1. tice of physical qubits that allow for nearest neighbor The logical qubit states, |0iL and |1iL, both satisfy the interactions. For a distance d code, the size of the lat- eigen-conditions defined by these stabilizers. tice is (2d − 1) × (2d − 1) physical qubits. Of the total In a real system, physical errors do not occur as dis- 4d2 − 4d + 1 physical qubits in the lattice, approximately crete bit and phase flips, instead either coherent (such half (2d2 − 2d + 1) are data qubits and the rest of the as imprecise control errors) or incoherent errors (such as physical qubits are syndrome qubits. It is sufficient to de- thermalization or dephasing) act to perturb a qubit state tect d(d − 1)/2e single-qubit errors, i.e., errors associated in a continuous manner. However, measuring the eigen- with a single data qubit, or correct b(d − 1)/2c single- values of the stabilizer operators acts to discretize this qubit errors. Thus, the smallest d required to correct any noise, which translates the continuous nature of the noise single-qubit error is 3. Figure 18 illustrates for a d = 4 into a probability of detecting a discrete error through surface code, which can detect 2 single-qubit errors and the measurement of the syndrome qubit. An arbitrary correct 1 single-qubit error. error operator can be written as a linear combination of X errors, Z errors, and Y errors. Therefore, correcting all three is sufficient to correct for all possible errors on a 2. Logical Qubit Construction single physical qubit. Here, as Y error can be decomposed into Z and X errors, Yˆ = iZˆXˆ, correcting for Z and X In this subsection, we give an example for constructing errors will together correct for any Y errors. Z and X a logical qubit with physical data qubits in the yellow errors are conventionally referred to as bit flip and phase square of Fig. 18. Although the yellowed lattice is too flip errors, respectively. small (d = 2) to specify the position and the type of an There are a plethora of QEC codes in existence and arbitrary single-qubit error uniquely (see Sec. VII B 1), many of them have been studied extensively. Amongst we use this yellowed lattice to give the simplest example these, the surface code remains the most suitable scheme for logical qubit construction and logical gate operation. 34

in which stabilizers are given by XXX X X X ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ZZZX X X Z S0 = XD0XD1XD2ID3ID4,

ZZZZZ Z Sˆ1 = IˆD0IˆD1XˆD2XˆD3XˆD4, (95) ZZZX Z X Z X Z ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ D0Xa D1 S2 = ZD0ID1ZD2ZD3ID4, X X X X X X Sˆ3 = IˆD0ZˆD1ZˆD2IˆD3ZˆD4, ZZZX Z X Z X Z D5Za D2 Zb Z ZZZ Z Z Z Z where Xî and Zî are the Pauli matrices applied to data qubit i. Here, Sˆ and Sˆ are X stabilizers, and Sˆ and Sˆ ZZZX Z X Z X Z 0 1 2 3 Xc D3 Xb D4 are Z stabilizers. All these stabilizers commute with each X X X X X X other and satisfy Eq. (94). Since both |0iL and |1iL are ZZZX Z X Z X Z eigenstates of this stabilizer set with the same eigenvalue, D6 ZZZZZ Z +1, repeatedly measuring these operators preserves the logical qubit states without destroying the phase coher- ZZZX X X Z ence between them. X X X X X X There are other methods for constructing a logical qubit when logical qubits are defined using defects in a qubit lattice. But these methods are out of the scope of FIG. 18. Arrangement of physical qubits in the surface code this tutorial. The standard introduction to this topic is with d = 4, where d is the number of data qubits along the Ref. 133. horizontal or vertical edge at the lattice boundary, which is represented by black solid lines. The black crosses are data qubits, the red crosses are Z syndrome qubits, and the green 3. Error Detection and Correction crosses are X syndrome qubits. The data and syndrome qubits are physically the same; only their functions are different. All qubits in the lattice boundary form a single logical qubit. In Error detection requires repeated parity measurements Sec. VII B 2, we will reduce the lattice boundary to the yellow of the stabilizers of the surface code. The syndrome square to give a simple example of logical qubit construction. qubits are used for this. These syndrome qubits are the only qubits measured during the error detection (syndrome extraction) process to avoid destruction of the logical information stored. As shown in Fig. 18, there are two types of syndrome qubits, namely, Z syndrome qubits, which are measured in the Z basis, and X syndrome qubits, which are measured in the X basis. These syndrome qubits are used We first write the logical qubit in the state vector nota- to measure the eigenvalue of Z and X stabilizers of the tion. Then we will re-express the same logical qubit using surface code, respectively. Having these two types of syn- the stabilizer formalism. In the state vector notation, the drome qubits allows us to detect both bit and phase flip logical qubit states are written as errors as physical bit flip errors will be detected by the measurement of Z stabilizers and physical phase flip er- 1 rors will be detected by the measurement of X stabilizers. |0iL = (|00000i + |00111i + |11011i + |11100i) , 2 (93) The following quantum circuits show one surface code 1 |1i = (|10010i + |10101i + |01001i + |01110i) , cycle for the Za and the Xb syndrome qubits. L 2 D0 |ψ i • where each ket represents |ψ ψ ψ ψ ψ i. In gen- D0 D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D2 |ψ i • eral, the logical qubit state during computations is D2 D3 |ψ i • |ψi = α |0i + β |1i , where α and β are complex num- D3 , (96) L L L D5 |ψ i • bers, and |α|2 + |β|2 = 1. D5 Za |0i

D2 |ψD2i In the stabilizer formalism, the same logical states are D3 |ψD3i deﬁned by D4 |ψD4i . (97) |ψi = Sˆ |ψi . (94) D6 |ψD6i Xb |0i H • • • • H In the literature, Eq. (94) is often read as “|ψi is stabi- lized by the operator set Sˆ.” Here, {Sˆ} is a stabilizer set Syndrome qubit measurements in these circuits occur 35

in the computational (Z) basis. Equation (97) can be measurements that are observed.143 rewritten as Once the existence of an error is confirmed, the error can be corrected by applying the microwave pulse to flip D2 |ψD2i H • H phase or bit of the D2 qubit. However, in practice, we can simply record the error in a classical computer and D3 |ψD3i H • H correct measurement outcomes that are affected by the D4 |ψD4i H • H , (98) error. This is known as tracking the Pauli frame.141 In the above example, the position and the type (bit D6 |ψD6i H • H or phase flip) of the error were already known. However, Xb |0i determining the position and the type of the error from syndrome measurements are difficult because it is an in- based on the following identity, verse problem. Moreover, the error position cannot be determined uniquely for some error patterns. For exam- • H H ple, error syndromes of Xa and Xc resulting from phase = . (99) errors in D0 and D5 are identical to that from phase er- H • H rors in D2 and D3. However, if the number of such an error is reasonably small, the identity of each error can By using the H gates, the CNOTs in Eq. (98) can be in- be almost completely inferred by minimum-weight per- verted, ensuring that both circuits have the ancilla qubit fect matching algorithm.133 This accuracy in using mini- as target for all CNOTs. Of course, for actual implemen- mum weight matching to identify the most likely physical tation, Eq. (97) is more economical than Eq. (98) because errors corresponding to a measured syndrome pattern is of the reduced number of gates. what effectively determines the fault-tolerant threshold. The quantum circuits [Eqs. (96) and (97)], called par- If error rates are too high, or errors spread too much ity check circuits, are designed to infer the bit and phase through the quantum circuits used in the syndrome ex- parities of neighboring data qubits by measuring the traction process, then decoding algorithms will not de- eigenvalue of specific four qubit Pauli operators. This code physical errors accurately and corrections may in- not only extracts the eigenvalue of the relevant Pauli duce logical errors. operator but also projects the four data qubits into One interesting consequence is that initialization of a the appropriate eigenstate. In Eq. (96), our measure- logical qubit can be considered as a kind of error correc- ment on the Za syndrome qubit forces the neighboring tion starting from a known state, such as |00000i. Ini- data qubits (D0, D2, D3, and D5) into an eigenstate of tializing the logical qubit from this state only requires ZˆD0ZˆD2ZˆD3ZˆD5 (Z stabilizer). Similarly, in Eq. (97), the projective measurement of the X stabilizers as the state measurement on the Xb syndrome qubit forces the neigh- |00000i already satisfies the eigen-conditions of the Z sta- boring data qubits (D2, D3, D4, and D6) into an eigen- bilizers. Additionally, when starting in the |00000i state, ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ state of XD2XD3XD4XD6 (X stabilizer). we initialize into the logical |0iL, because again our ini- If the D2 qubit has a phase error, Xa and Xb syndrome tial state before encoding is already in the +1 eigenstate qubits [Eq. (97)] return −1 as the error syndromes if there of the logical Z operator. Further examples can be found is no error in the syndrome qubits; if the D2 qubit has in Ref. 135. a bit flip error, Za and Zb syndrome qubits [Eq. (96)] Lastly, we briefly mention how we perform readout of return −1. Note that the existence of both a bit flip error a logical qubit. The logical readout of an error-corrected and a phase flip error can be detected simultaneously qubit ideally requires the direct measurement of all the 133,142 because ZˆD0ZˆD2ZˆD3ZˆD5 and XˆD2XˆD3XˆD4XˆD6 commute. physical qubits in an encoded block. To maintain Therefore, the parity measurement allows us to know the correct fault-tolerant operation, all of these physical mea- existence of both the bit flip and the phase flip errors surements on the encoded block have to take place. While without collapsing the quantum state of data qubits. it is possible to perform readout of an encoded qubit by performing a logical single qubit parity check of the X or These circuits has to be performed across the entire 142 lattice, with measurement of all X syndromes occurring Z operator, this would still require the assistance of a simultaneously followed by simultaneous measurement of fully encoded ancillary qubit that would still require the all Z syndromes. The measurement of every X and Z syn- physical measurement of all component qubits to perform drome is referred to as an error correction cycle, which the readout. is repeated continuously as the quantum computer is in operation. Consequently, after each error correction cycle, there will be d2 −d classical bits of information (error 4. Logical Gate Operation syndromes) related to X errors and d2 −d classical bits of information related to Z errors. After multiple cycles of After encoding, computing is performed on the code error-correction, all this information is then processed by using logical gates. Logical gates must preserve the sym- a classical error-correction decoder to determine the most metries enforced by the stabilizer operators, but manip- likely set of actual errors that resulted in the syndrome ulate the operators that define the logical state of the 36

(a)Logical X gate (b)Logical Z gate (c) Logical H gate 90 ◦ rotation

X X X Z X D0 D1 D0 D1 ZL D0 D1 D0 D1 D3 D0

D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 Z Z Z Z Z Z X X Z Z

D3 D4 D3 D4 D3 D4 D3 D4 D4 D1 X X X Z X XL expected logical H gate physical H gate for all data qubits

FIG. 19. Schematic images of (a) logical X gate, (b) logical Z gate, and (c) logical H gate. As in Fig. 18, the black crosses are data qubits, the red crosses are Z syndrome qubits, and the green crosses are X syndrome qubits. encoded qubit in the same way as operations on physical achieved by applying physical H gates to all data qubits qubits do. Consequently, logical gate operators commute (this changes all physical X operators to Z operators with all elements in the stabilizer set {Sˆ}, but by def- and visa versa), followed by 90◦ counterclockwise rotation inition are not contained in {Sˆ}. For the surface code, of the lattice (which interchanges horizontal chains with vertical ones and ensures that the X and Z stabilizer for example, the logical X gate, XˆL, corresponds to applying the physical X gate to all data qubits in one of operators stay in the same place in the lattice). columns—not including the Z syndrome qubits. The log- To see how this actually works, we apply the physical ical Z gate is achieved by applying the physical Z gate H gate to all data qubits composing |0iL [left qubit lattice to the all data qubits in one of rows—not including the in Fig. 19(c)]: X syndrome qubits. ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Figure 19 reproduces the yellow area in Fig. 18 with HD0HD1HD2HD3HD4 |0iL = the logical Z and the logical X operations. Applying 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ √ ( |00000i + |01101i + |11011i + |10110i ZL = ZD0ZD1ID2ID3ID4 and XL = XD0ID1ID2XD3ID4 2 2 to Eq. (93) helps to understand these logical operations. + |00011i + |01110i + |11000i + |01110i), (101) Note that ZˆL and XˆL commute with every stabilizers in Eq. (95) and anti-commute with each other as they must √ which is certainly not (|0iL + |1iL)/ 2. Actually, this is intersect on an odd number of physical qubits and phys- the right qubit lattice in Fig. 19(c), whereas what we ical X and Z gates anti-commute. Consequently, they want is the center qubit lattice in Fig. 19(c). Thus, we form a pair of Pauli operators that have the same com- have to rotate the qubit lattice 90◦ counterclockwise (ex- mutation properties as physical X and Z. changing the X stabilizers to the Z stabilizers) to obtain Another important single qubit gate is the Hadamard the logical H gate we want. This operation is equivalent (H) gate. What we expect from the logical H gate is the to changing indices of the data qubits (i.e. performing following operations: SWAP operations): D0 to D1, D1 to D4, D3 to D0, and D4 to D3. As a result, 1 HˆL |0i = √ (|0i + |1i ), L 2 L L Hˆ |0i = (100) L L ˆ 1 1 HL |1iL = √ (|0iL − |1iL), √ ( |00000i + |00111i + |11011i + |11100i 2 2 2 | {z } |0i i.e., the same operations as those for a physical qubit. In L the Heisenberg representation, the role of the physical H + |10010i + |10101i + |01001i + |01110i). (102) | {z } gate is to exchange the physical X gate with the physical |1iL Z gate, and vice versa. In other words, a qubit that is in the +1 eigenstate of Zˆ turns into a state that is in the Now, we have what we expect from the H gate. The +1 eigenstate of Xˆ because Hˆ †XˆHˆ = Zˆ and Hˆ †ZˆHˆ = actual operations for rotating the qubit lattice can be Xˆ. As the logical operation must preserve the stabilizer found in Ref. 142. set while interchanging the actual logical operators, the The logical two-qubit gate, such as the logical CNOT ˆ logical H needs to: (i) swap the operation of ZL and gate, is not as simple compared to the logical single-qubit XˆL by flipping a vertical chain of X operators into a gates. Implementing a non-Clifford gate, such as the T horizontal chain of X operators; and (ii) maintain the X gate (see Table II for its definition), for a logical qubit is and Z stabilizers in Fig. 19(c). These operations can be even more difficult than implementing the logical CNOT 37 gate. The reason for this is that non-Clifford gates cannot factor in a range where the infidelity is lower than the be operated directly on the stabilizer codes in a fault- threshold value of the surface code. tolerant manner, i.e., ensuring errors do not cascade out of control; whereas gates in the Clifford group (gates that map Pauli operators to Pauli operators) can generally be VIII. CHARACTERIZING A QUANTUM SYSTEM applied directly to encoded data. It should be noted that not all stabilizer codes can enact the full Clifford group To control a quantum system precisely, we have to of logical operations directly. In fact, the surface code know the Hamiltonian of the system. In other words, a cannot enact the S gate (Table II) directly and must set of parameters, called system parameters, that charac- use other constructions.133 Thus, these gates will not be terize the system must be determined. Since the system covered in this tutorial. Interested readers are referred parameters are based on our model describing the sys- Ref. 142 for the logical CNOT gate and Refs. 144 and tem, appropriate modeling is essential. For example, if 145 for non-Clifford logical gates. we treat our qubit as an ideal two-level system as we did in Sec. V B 1, knowing ωq might be good enough to set up the Hamiltonian. However, for high-fidelity gate op- C. Proposed Device Architectures eration, we must consider higher excitation levels; hence, we have to extract more information, such as the transi- One of the biggest problems in scaling up a supercon- tion frequency between |1i and |2i. If our target operation ducting qubit system is thet so-called wiring problem.146 requires strong drive, we may also have to consider the The wiring problem is that the number of wires required nonlinearity of the readout resonator. to operate qubits increases too fast with the number of In this section, we explain the minimal procedure for qubits because each qubit requires multiple channels such extracting system parameters and the related experimen- as control lines and measurement devices. In such a sit- tal methods. These are summarized in Table V. uation, it will be difficult to access a qubit inside a chip. One natural idea that avoids this problem and fits well with Figs. 18 and 19 is the use of the third dimension A. Spectroscopy [Fig. 20(a)].107 For a classical solid-state circuit, a three- dimensional (3D) structure is made by employing a sil- 1. Single-Tone Spectroscopy icon oxide film as a interlayer insulator. However, this method cannot be used for quantum systems because The first step in characterizing a superconducting such layers are so lossy that they can be severe deco- qubit system is finding the resonance frequency of the herence channels. To get around this problem, flip-chip readout resonator, ωr. For this, we inject a microwave bonding is often used. On one chip, qubits are arranged continuously (Continuous Wave, CW) and measure the into a square lattice; on another chip, other circuit com- S-parameters of the system as a function of microwave ponents such as control lines and readout resonators are frequency [Fig. 21(a)]. This task is usually done using fabricated. Then, the two chips are combined face-to- a vector network analyzer (VNA). Since a single mi- face using superconducting bumps.147,148 To introduce crowave source, which is a part of the VNA, is used in microwaves to qubits from the top or back side of the this step, this type of measurement is called single-tone wafer, pogo pins149 and through-silicon vias150,151 can be spectroscopy. used, respectively. Here, a through-silicon via is a coaxial Since the transition frequency of the qubit, ωq, is usu- structure that passes through a silicon wafer. ally designed to be far detuned from ωr for dispersive Recently, it has been reported that the 2D lattice for readout (Sec. VI B 1), most of the microwave power whose the surface code can be folded like origami as shown frequency is close to ωq is filtered out by the resonator. in Fig. 20(b).152 In this architecture, qubits and control As a result, the qubit signal is not visible in single-tone lines can be fabricated on the same plane if the coupling spectroscopy. This is why we need another type of spec- resonators are allowed to intersect by air bridges [inset troscopy, called two-tone spectroscopy. in Fig. 20(b)].149 Because of these cross-connections, this If the qubit and the readout resonator are on-resonance method was named a pseudo-2D architecture. The ap- at a certain external bias, we can estimate the qubit- pealing point of this architecture is that all qubits and resonator coupling constant g by observing the peak split- their associated lines can exist on the same chip. More- ting as explained in Sec. V C. If the qubit is not tun- over, it can be made by utilizing the standard 2D mi- able, we can still estimate g using the dispersive shift crowave technology so that we can avoid the complex (Sec. VIII A 3). techniques required for a 3D architecture. Possible concerns are cross-talk between intersecting resonators and the degradation of the quality factor 2. Two-Tone Spectroscopy caused by air bridges. In Ref. 152, it was shown that the cross-talk is at most about −50 dB; in addition, res- Once ωr is known, we fix the excitation frequency of onators with 15–20 air bridges showed an internal quality the VNA near ωr for readout. Subsequently, we inject 38

(a) (b) 1 3

Coaxial pogo pin 2

RGKHUH )ROG KHUH )ROG RGKHUH )ROG

stretch

Through-silicon via

Superconducting bump

FIG. 20. (a) Schematic image of 3D wiring techniques for quantum circuit: ﬂip-chip bonding using superconducting bumps, pogo pins, and through-silicon vias. (b) Pseudo-2D architecture. All three ﬁgures have the same lattice structure and circles represent qubits. The numbers in circles indicate how the original qubit lattice evolves to the pseudo-2D architecture. The inset shows a scanning electron microscopy image of an air bridge, which can be used at resonator intersections.

TABLE V. Minimal procedure for extracting system parameters and related experimental methods.

Measured quantities Method Comment Resonator: resonance frequency, quality factor Single-tone spectroscopy Anticrossing in the ﬂux bias sweep (if existing): qubit-resonator coupling constant Qubit: transition frequency, sweet spot Two-tone spectroscopy Anticrossing in the ﬂux bias sweep (if existing): qubit-qubit coupling constant Rabi oscillation: pulse strength calibration Time domain ready for time-domain measurements Dispersive shift: qubit-resonator coupling constant Pulsed spectroscopy ready for setting up the Hamiltonian T1 and T2 Time domain show the quality of qubits

another microwave to the circuit to drive the qubit. ωq forms us of the position of the sweet spot. If the transition is found by sweeping the frequency of the second mi- frequencies of two qubits coincide at a certain bias, we crowave, called the drive frequency ωd, while monitoring can see an anticrossing. From this, we can estimate the the changes in the S-parameters of the readout resonator. qubit-qubit coupling constant. If ωd becomes close to ωq, the S-parameters of the readout resonator will vary because of the dispersive shift in resonance frequency [Fig. 13(a)]. This type of measure- 3. Dispersive Shift ment is called two-tone spectroscopy.

When we characterize ωq, we have to minimize the ex- As explained in Sec. VI B 1, the dispersive shift χ is citation power of the VNA; if the excitation power is too the qubit-state-dependent frequency shift of the readout high, then the readout resonator is populated by multi- resonator. From this, we can estimate the qubit-resonator ple photons, resulting in the shift or splitting of the qubit 2 coupling g using χ = g /∆qr, where ∆qr = ωr − ωq. spectrum as mentioned in Sec. VI B 1. To measure χ, we ﬁrst prepare the qubit state of ei- We can repeat this procedure for diﬀerent external bi- ther |0i or |1i. In this step, a π-pulse is required to pre- ases to obtain the full bias dependence of ωq, which in- pare |1i. Because of this, the dispersive shift measure- 39

(a) Spectroscopy (b) Rabi (longitudinal component)

frequency sweep and S-parameter Single-tone qubit (CW) A

resonator A frequency sweep S-parameter R Two-tone (CW) Time

no or pulse readout pulse T Dispersive shift (c) ₁ (longitudinal component) (pulse) ﬂip

qubit resonator R Time Transmission Frequency

(d) T₂, Ramsey (transverse component) On-resonance Oﬀ-resonance xy plane z axis 1 z’ 3 z’ 3 z’

R Time 1 2 3 4 y’ y’ y’ x’ x’ x’ on-resonance 2 z’ 4 z’ 4 z’

oﬀ-resonance y’ y’ y’ x’ x’ x’

FIG. 21. (a) Spectroscopy (frequency domain). The control parameter of this type of measurement is the frequency of the applied microwave. Arrows represent microwave excitation, and the gradient of the arrows represents the frequency sweep direction from low to high frequency. The resonator and qubit signals are detected by the changes in the S-parameters of the system. For the circuit in Fig. 10(a), the qubit and the resonator signals can be detected through the transmission. “CW” stands for continuous wave. (b–d) Time domain measurements. Each figure represents the pulse sequence and typical measurement result for (b) Rabi oscillation, (c) T1, and (d) T2 measured via the Ramsey fringes. Note that each graph represents the averaged result of a set of identical measurements; the result of a single-shot readout is digital. The readout pulses are in red and labeled “R”. τ indicates the time interval, which is the independent variable. “A” in (b) indicates the area of the drive pulse. θ)x is shorthand notation of Rˆx(θ). The circled numbers in (d) describe the evolution of the qubit state in the Bloch sphere. (The longitudinal relaxation process is ignored for clarity.) Each arrow represents the qubit state for each measurement. The average 0 z -component in ○4 is recorded as a result. Note that, in (d), ±π/2)x pulses are required at the beginning and end of the sequence to transfer the z0-component of the Bloch vector to the y0-component, and vice versa. If the external drive and qubit transition frequency are off-resonance, the Bloch vector rotates about the z0-axis. This results in an oscillation called Ramsey fringes. ment has to be preceded by the Rabi oscillation measure- B. Time-Domain Measurement ment (Sec. VIII B 1). Once the qubit state is prepared, we apply the readout pulse and measure the S-parameters. The sweep parameter is the frequency of the readout pulse [Fig. 21(a)]. Hence, the measurement of the dispersive shift is like pulsed single-tone spectroscopy with the qubit state preparation. By comparing the spectrum According to quantum theory, the measurement forces of the readout resonator with two different qubit states, the qubit state to collapse to either the |0i or |1i state, as we can obtain χ as shown in Fig. 13(a). emphasized in Secs. VI E 2 and VII. Hence, to extract the parameters mentioned in this section, we have to make a set of measurements and take the average. 40

1. Rabi Oscillation extract T1. Hence, the fitting function has the following form: In time-domain measurements, we calibrate the qubit τ drive by observing the Rabi oscillation [Fig. 21(b)]. First, f(τ) = A0 + A1 exp − , (104) T1 the qubit drive pulse with ωq is applied to excite the qubit. After the drive pulse, the readout pulse near ωr where τ is the time interval between the drive and read- is applied, and the S-parameters of this readout pulse out pulses, and the fitting parameters are A0, A1, and are measured via quadrature detection.4,102 The sweep T1. parameter is the area of the drive pulse; in actual experiments, it can be either the length or amplitude of the drive pulse. Since the drive pulse rotates the qubit state in the 3. Relaxation Time: T2 Bloch sphere (Fig. 15), and the dispersive measurement detects the longitudinal component of the Bloch vector The standard measurement procedure for the trans- (Sec. VI B 1), the amplitude of the signal oscillates with verse relaxation time (T2) is to observe the Ramsey the drive pulse area: this oscillation is the Rabi oscil- fringes [Fig. 21(d)]. Since we need to detect the trans- lation. The Rabi oscillation provides a correspondence verse component of the Bloch sphere, we apply a π/2 between the nutation angle of the Bloch vector and the pulse at the beginning of the time interval and then a drive pulse area. The names of frequently used pulses, −π/2 pulse to transfer the transverse component back such as π- and π/2-pulses, indicates the nutation angles to the longitudinal component. Subsequently, we make induced by such pulses. a detection. The time constant for the decay of the |0i If the sweep parameter is the length of the drive pulse population is T2. τ , the following function is used for fitting: p If ωd = ωq (on-resonance), we observe single exponential decay shown on the left side of Fig. 21(d). However, τp f(τp) = A0 + A1 cos(ΩRτp + A2) exp − , (103) if ωd 6= ωq (off-resonance), the Bloch vector will acquire TR an additional rotation in the x0y0 plane during the time interval, resulting in an oscillation with the frequency where the fitting parameters are A0, A1, A2,ΩR, and TR. ωd − ωq. The reason for the oscillation is that only the Among them, only ΩR (Rabi frequency) and TR (charac- transverse component perpendicular to the rotating axis teristic decay time of the Rabi oscillation) are physically is transferred to the longitudinal component. This oscil- meaningful quantities. Note that the exponential decay lation is called Ramsey fringes. is also required to fit the data properly. The main reason 21,153 The fitting function is for this decay is finite T1 and fluctuations in ΩR. With the extracted system parameters, we can estab- τ lish the correspondence between the control parameters f(τ) = A0 + A1 cos(ωqdτ + A2) exp − , (105) T we set and the actual response of the system. This pro- 2 cess is called calibration. The Rabi oscillation measure- where τ is the time interval between the ±π/2 pulses, ment is the simplest calibration procedure; however, the and the fitting parameters are A0, A1, A2, ωqd, and T2. Rabi frequency estimated from this method is usually not Here, ωqd is the frequency detuning (≡ ωd − ωq) from accurate enough for high-fidelity control. Probably the which we can obtain a precise value of ωq. next simplest and more accurate one is to apply a train If the dephasing process is dominated by low-frequency of pulses; interested readers should see Refs. 154 and 155. noise, the line shape of the qubit spectrum is close to Optimal control theory can also be adopted; see Refs. 156 Gaussian rather than Lorentzian.25,26 This happens eas- and 157. More advanced techniques for Google’s devices ily when the flux bias is out of the sweet spot. In this can be found in Refs. 158 and 159 and the supplementary case, the fitting function (ω is assumed to be zero for materials for Ref. 160. qd simplicity)

τ 2 τ 2. Relaxation Time: T1 f(τ) = A0 + A1 exp − 2 exp − (106) TG 2T1 The measurement procedure for the longitudinal relax- fits the data better than the simple exponential decay ation time (T1) is shown in Fig. 21(c). Since the disper- function because the Fourier transformation of a Gaus- sive readout measures the longitudinal component of the sian is also a Gaussian. Here, T1 is not a fitting parame- Bloch vector, all we have to do is apply a pulse (often ter; it has to be measured independently (Sec. VIII B 2). but not necessarily a π-pulse) and detect the popula- The fitting parameter TG can be practically considered as tion of |0i as a function of the time interval. During this 1/Γϕ, although it is not mathematically identical to 1/Γϕ time interval, the qubit relaxes back to |0i. By fitting the because Γϕ is defined in an exponential decay function population of |0i with an exponential function, we can (see Sec. IV A 1). 41

IX. CONTROLLING A QUANTUM SYSTEM (a) (b)

In this section, we discuss how to control a superconducting qubit system. As a quantum computing system becomes larger, its precise control becomes as important as making the system itself. Without efficient control, we cannot reduce errors enough to perform quantum error Amplitude (arb. unit) Amplitude correction. (arb.Magnitude unit) What does “controlling a quantum system” mean? Time (ns) Frequency (GHz) Consider the Hamiltonian (c) (d) K X and Hˆ(t) = Hˆ0 + uk(t)Hˆk, (107) k=1 where Hˆ0 is the system Hamiltonian, Hˆk is the control Hamiltonian, uk are the control parameters, and K is the Amplitude (arb. unit) Amplitude number of the control parameters. Controlling a quantum (arb.Magnitude unit) system means finding uk(t) that drive a quantum state of the system to the desired state.161 Single qubit gates Time (ns) Frequency (GHz) in Sec. VI C are good examples. In this case, the control FIG. 22. (a) Square (green) and Gaussian (red) pulses with Hamiltonian is Hˆd [Eq. (61)], and the control parameters are E (t) and the phase of the drive pulse, which selects the same area in the time domain. (b) In the frequency do- r main, it is evident that the excitation bandwidth of a Gaus- the rotation axis. sian pulse (red) is narrower than that of a square pulse To achieve a high-fidelity gate operation, a control (green). (The Fourier transformation of a Gaussian is also pulse must satisfy the following conditions: Gaussian.) (c) and (d) DRAG pulse implemented in Gaus- sian pulse with anharmonicity α = 2π(−200) MHz. Ωx and 1. Fast qubit manipulation: The control pulse must be Ωy indicate the quadratures of the pulse [Eq. (108)]. In (d), as short as possible to avoid loss of coherence. note that the Fourier component of the DRAG pulse (black curve) is suppressed at the position of anharmonicity, result- 2. Narrow excitation bandwidth: The excitation band- ing in the suppression of the information leakage from |1i to width has to be sufficiently narrow to minimize the |2i. information leakage through an unwanted transition. For a multiqubit system, the excitation bandwidth of the readout pulse is also important be- This section is presented to answer the question of how cause the readout of a certain qubit might induce to optimize the control pulse to satisfy the above crite- the dephasing of other qubits by populating read- ria. A good introduction to this topic can be found in out resonators for these qubits (see Sec. VI B 1). Refs. 163 and 164. 3. Decoupling from unwanted interactions: Couplings to uncharted or unaccountable external degrees of freedom, which induce unwanted interactions and A. Elementary Pulse Shaping information leakage, should be minimized. 4. Self-compensating: The gate operation must com- 1. Excitation Bandwidth pensate for the complex response of classical control electronics: bandwidth and long-time transients or In this subsection, we estimate the excitation band- nonlinearity such as kinetic inductance in a su- width by Fourier transforming the pulse applied to the perconducting resonator, amplifier nonlinearity, or qubit. We stress that this method is valid only if the mixer imbalance. Although these nonlinearity is 162 system’s response is linear, while the evolution on the controllable in principle, it is a difficult task. Bloch sphere is intrinsically nonlinear.165,166 To control Thus, the best option is to minimize any unneces- the excitation bandwidth precisely, we must solve the full sary nonlinearity by careful device design and oper- equation of motion of the system. Here, we use the con- ating the amplifier in the linear regime, which will cept of Fourier transformation because it simplifies our set the power limit. discussion and helps develop intuition. 5. Robustness against experimental imperfections: To grasp the concept of controlling the excitation The control must be robust against uncertainties bandwidth, we compare two widely used pulses: square and stochastic variations in the system’s internal and Gaussian pulses. As shown in Fig. 22(a) and (b), and control Hamiltonians, such as amplitude and the excitation bandwidth of a Gaussian pulse is signifi- phase noises in the control pulse. cantly narrower than that of a square pulse.167 One draw- 42 back of a Gaussian pulse is that it does not have well- The pulse we want defined starting and end points; hence, the pulse envelope must be truncated somewhere.168 Because of this, a cosine pulse is also widely used. Amp. Time For qubits like transmons, however, a Gaussian pulse is still not enough to perform nanosecond qubit control What we sent What the qubit sees because of the bandwidth of 100 MHz order, which is (a) comparable to the typical anharmonicity of a transmon [Fig. 22(b)]. A pulse with this bandwidth is likely to induce transitions not only between |0i and |1i but also between |1i and |2i, resulting in information leakage out of (b) the computational subspace. A more advanced pulse re- solving this issue is the Derivative Removal by Adiabatic Gate (DRAG) pulse.169 The DRAG scheme is very effective for weakly nonlinear qubits, such as transmons; all high-fidelity controls achieved in superconducting qubit FIG. 23. Pulse distortion due to the finite response time of systems are based on the DRAG pulse and its variants. various electronics.

Here, we explain the DRAG pulse in an intuitive way using the Fourier transformation following Ref. 170. Con- 2. Pulse Distortion sider a single qubit driven by the following Hamiltonian (in the rotating frame): Although we carefully design a microwave or a DC pulse for qubit control, the shape of the pulse is distorted ˆrot σˆx σˆy H = Ωx(t) + Ωy(t) , (108) as it travels from the pulse generator to the qubit. This d ~ 2 ~ 2 is mainly due to the finite bandwidth of various electrical where Ωx(y) is the amplitude for the rotation about the components, such as cables, filters, and resonators. The x(y)-axis. This is just an extension of Eq. (66). For a problem is even worse for the readout pulse because, in qubit system whose anharmonicity is α, the DRAG con- this case, the pulse is close to the resonance of the high- dition is given by quality superconducting resonator. A typical example of pulse distortion is shown in Fig. 23(a). If the time scale Ω˙ (t) of the transient is not negligible compared with T , which Ω (t) = − x . (109) 1 y α is often the case, the readout fidelity will be limited. The simplest solution is to add overshoot and negative pulses That is, the imaginary part of the pulse is the derivative at the beginning and end of the readout pulse as shown of the real part as shown in Fig. 22(c). in Fig. 23(b).173 A more advanced way to solve this problem is to model In the frequency domain, taking the derivative gives the transient behavior using various filter functions174,175 sharp suppression at a certain frequency [black curve in or an RLC circuit.162,176 Fig. 22(d)]. The coefficient −1/α in Eq. (109) matches this suppressed frequency and the transition frequency between |1i and |2i. This idea is very intuitive and easy to apply; for example, if we want to suppress two fre- B. Numerical Optimization quencies, one higher and the other lower than our working frequency, we can simply take a second derivative The goal of optimal control is to find a set of control of the pulse as the imaginary part.170 Although we ex- parameters that minimize the cost function. Here, the plained the DRAG scheme for a Gaussian pulse, the con- cost function, also called the performance measure, is a cept of the DRAG pulse can also be applied to other measure of how far the performance of a system is from pulse shapes. the target one.177 If our interest is unitary gate optimization, gate infidelity Jgate is a natural choice as the cost One interesting point of view is to consider the DRAG function. Mathematically, Jgate is defined by scheme as an extension of “shortcuts to adiabaticity”, which are fast routes to the final results of slow, adiabatic n o 2 ˆ † ˆ changes of the controlling parameters of a system.171 Jgate ≡ 1 − tr UtargetU(T ) , (110) From this point of view, the imaginary part of the pulse makes the qubit couple to the non-computational sub- where Uˆtarget and Uˆ(T ) are the target and the final uni- space only adiabatically, resulting in the removal of pop- tary gates, respectively. For ideal gate operation, Jgate = ulation leakage.172 Interested readers should see Refs. 171 0. If we want to let the system evolve to the target and 172. state (state-to-state transfer), state infidelity Jstate(≡ 43

2 1 − |hψtarget|ψ(T )i| ) is used as the cost function. There are two types of optimization algorithm: Characterize the system gradient-based and gradient-free. In gradient-based algorithms, the performance of the pulse is evaluated by the cost function. Then, the control parameters are up- Guess initial control parameters dated for the next iteration based on the derivative of Amp. the cost function with respect to the control parameters. The advantage of gradient-based algorithms is that they Time are much faster than gradient-free algorithms. However, Construct the Hamiltonian gradient-based algorithms do not work well if the cost function is discontinuous or noisy because calculating the gradient is difficult in such a case. Thus, they are difficult to use for direct optimization on an experimental system, Calculate the propagator i.e., closed-loop optimal control. Despite their slowness, gradient-free algorithms are simple to implement and work well with a noisy measurement outcome, suggesting that we can perform Evaluate the infidelity closed-loop optimal control using these algorithms. Thus, gradient-free algorithms are useful for the calibration or optimization of pulses defined by a limited number of parameters.156,157 Is the infidelity Yes There are many numerical optimization algorithms low enough? that have been used widely in quantum control. One helpful “decision tree” for the choice of an optimization No algorithm is available in Ref. 178.

Calculate derivatives 1. GRAPE Algorithm

We introduce GRadient Ascent Pulse Engineering Update the control parameters (GRAPE)179 because it has been found to be one of

the most reliable algorithms for controlling quantum sys- Amp. tems. As the name implies, GRAPE is a gradient-based Time algorithm. Hence, it is fast but the control parameters Done! are determined in simulations. This suggests that the GRAPE algorithm requires complete system modeling. In the GRAPE algorithm, the control pulses are de- FIG. 24. Procedure for typical gradient-based numerical pulse fined as a collection of pulses with a piecewise constant optimization. The upper inset shows an example of the initial amplitude and phase over a number of intervals N, each pulse shape. In the lower inset, the dashed line indicates the initial pulse, and the vertical arrows represent gradients, in- of length ∆t, which yields an overall pulse length of dicating how each amplitude should be modified in the next T = N∆t [see Figs. 24(insets) and 25]. Hence, the control iteration in order to reduce the cost function. The solid line parameters are a set of amplitudes and phases (or ampli- represents the resulting updated pulse shape. tudes of two quadratures) of these piecewise pulses. A brief description of the GRAPE algorithm for unitary gate optimization is as follows (Fig. 24): gator [Eq. (49)] 1. Characterize the system: In this step, the system parameters are extracted as described in Sec. VIII. " ( K )# ˆ ∆t ˆ X ˆ From these parameters, we set up the model Hamil- Uj = exp −i H0 + uk(j)Hk . (111) tonian that describes the dynamics of the system ~ k properly [Hˆ0 in Eq. (107)]. Thus, Uˆ(T ) = Uˆ ··· Uˆ . 2. Guess initial control parameters and construct the N 1 Hamiltonian: With a set of initial control param- ˆ 4. Evaluate the infidelity: In this step, it is determined eters, we can construct the full Hamiltonian [H in how close the resulting state is to the target one via Eq. (107)]. An example of the initial pulse shape is J . shown in the upper inset of Fig. 24. gate 3. Calculate the propagator: The time evolution of the 5. Calculate derivatives and update the control param- system during a time step j is given by the propa- eters: The update of the control parameters can be 44

written as (a) XY

δJgate uk(j) → uk(j) + , (112) δuk(j) where is an adjustable small step size. An example

is shown in the lower inset of Fig. 24. For small ( ) Amplitude enough ∆t, the gradients are calculated using the 179 following formula: Driving time ( ) Driving time ( )

(b) XY δJgate ∆t ˆ ˆ ˆ † ˆ † ˆ ≈ −2 Re tr i HkVjΛj tr Vj Λj , δuk(j) ~ (113)

where Vˆj and Λˆ j are defined by Amplitude ( ) Amplitude 2 ˆ † ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Jgate = 1 − tr UtargetUN ··· Uj+1 Uj ··· U1 | {z } | {z } Driving time ( ) Driving time ( ) ˆ † ≡Vˆ ≡Λj j FIG. 25. Examples of optimal solutions (smallest length ˆ ˆ † ˆ † ˆ = 1 − tr VjΛj tr Vj Λj . (114) and maximum amplitude) for π-rotation obtained from the GRAPE algorithm. The fidelity is higher than 0.99999. The Here, the property that the trace is invariant under left figures show the Ωx (X) quadrature and the right figures cyclic permutations was used. show the Ωy (Y) quadrature. (a) When the width of the time slice is 2/|α|, the minimal number of slices required to reach Note that the piecewise constant amplitude and phase > 0.99999 fidelity is 4. (b) If there are amplitude constraints assumption is not valid in reality because of the pulse dis- caused by hardware limitations, we can find an optimal solu- tortion mentioned in Sec. IX A 2. However, this does not tion with a longer gating time in a limited power range. Note make the pulse optimization particularly harder. Once that the amplitude of the Y quadrature is only 1/10 that in (a). This is due to the longer pulse having narrower band- the transient behavior is suitably modeled, it can be inte- width; thus, less phase correction is needed. Also note that grated into the GRAPE algorithm easily by introducing the shape of the Y quadrature is close to the derivative of an additional level of discretization. One discretization the X quadrature, implying that GRAPE takes the idea of is for integrating the state evolution and the other is for the DRAG scheme. For a system with α = 2π(−200) MHz, the control parameters.176,180,181 the unit step 1/|α| corresponds to 0.8 ns. In this case, the gating times for (a) and (b) are 6.4 ns and 19.2 ns, respectively. The initial control parameters for the X quadrature 2. Example: Controlling Excitation Bandwidth are a Gaussian-like shape whose area is roughly π; for the Y quadrature, they are all zeros. For these figures, the Quantu- mUtils package was used.180 Here, we use GRAPE to control the excitation bandwidth. For simplicity, we consider a single transmon system (Sec. IV B 1) controlled by an on-resonance external φ because only a certain range of φ gives a high-fidelity drive, ωd = ωq. 2 2 a. Goal. The quantum state of a transmon can gate solution. evolve easily outside of the computational subspace be- b. Hamiltonian. Our system Hamiltonian Hˆ0 in the cause of the small anharmonicity. This causes the qubit rotating frame, whose angular velocity is the same as ωq, state to acquire an unwanted phase that degrades the fi- is given by delity. Hence, our goal is to find the shortest pulse shape   that suppresses the qubit evolution outside of the com- 0 0 0 ˆ putational subspace. If our target gate Utarget is the X H0 = 0 0 0 , (116) gate, it can be written in matrix form as 0 0 α

h0| h1| h2| where α(≡ω12 − ωq) is the anharmonicity. |0i  0 1 0  The control parameter is the amplitude of the external Utarget = . (115) ˆ |1i  1 0 0  drive. Thus, the control Hamiltonian Hctrl is given by |2i 0 0 eiφ2 0 1 0 0 −i 0  ~Ωx(t) ~Ωy(t) where φ is the relative phase of |2i acquired during the Hˆctrl(t) = 1 0 λ + i 0 −iλ . 2 2   2   evolution. Although we do not need φ2 for the gate op- 0 λ 0 0 iλ 0 eration, the ﬁdelity must be calculated as a function of (117) 45

Here, Ωx(y) is the amplitude of the rotation about the (Sec. VIII B 3). To distinguish the relaxation time con- x(y)-axis, and the matrix next to Ωx(y) is the three- stants obtained from the Ramsey fringes and Hahn echo Ramsey echo level-system version of theσ ˆx(y) operator with the rel- sequence, notations such as T2 and T2 are often ative strength of the |1i-|2i transition with respect to used.9 the |√0i-|1i transition denoted as λ. For a transmon, λ = 2 (Ref. 20). We also use this number. We empha- Now, we explain more precisely how the Hahn echo size that the y-rotation is implemented by − sin(ωdt), not sequence works. The first thing we have to do is distin- by + sin(ωdt), as mentioned in Sec. VI C. guish the state preparation from the actual refocusing c. Constraint. The constraint is usually set by our operation. For this, we rewrite the Hahn echo sequence instruments. In this case, it is the maximal power of the as drive. d. Result. The optimal pulse shape found by π/2)x - τ/2 - π)x - τ/2 - π)x - −π/2)x. (118) GRAPE is shown in Fig. 25. If the system is an ideal two- level system, i.e., λ = 0, we do not need one of the quadra- Combining the last two pulses gives the sequence in R τ Fig. 26(a). Note that, in the pulse sequence for the Ram- tures, say Ωy, and any shape satisfying 0 Ex(t)dt = π achieves a perfect π-rotation, where τ is the total gate sey fringes [Fig. 21(d)], the ±π/2-pulse transfers the lon- time. However, because of the existence of |2i, the nu- gitudinal component to the transverse component and merical solutions found by GRAPE have Ωy(t) whose vice versa for the state preparation and measurement. shape is similar to that of the DRAG pulse as shown in The role of the ±π/2-pulse in Eq. (118) is the same— Fig. 25. it is not an essential part of the refocusing process. The refocusing for an arbitrary qubit state is done by two π-pulses. C. Refocusing Technique Consider an interaction between a qubit of interest and Although a qubit must interact with external systems the coupled system, such as other qubits or the environ- to be controlled or read, the interaction must be turned ment, with the following form: on only when we need it. Any unwanted interaction ˆ (q) ˆ(e) makes the qubit lose its coherence and degrades the per- Hqe = ~Jzσˆz A , (119) formance of gate operation. The problem is that interac- (q) tions associated with qubits are not always controllable; where Jz is the coupling constant,σ ˆz is the Pauli opera- (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) even if we can control some of the interactions using a tor for the qubit, and Aˆ (∈ {Iˆ , σˆx , σˆy , σˆz }, where tunable coupler or flux bias, such control knobs always Iˆ is the identity operator) is an operator associated with introduce additional noises. A refocusing technique185 al- the coupled system. If we ignore this interaction during lows us to cancel the evolution caused by unwanted in- the time when the pulse is turned on, i.e., the pulse length teractions by applying appropriate pulses that can ef- is very small compared with τ, the propagator for the fectively reverse the direction of evolution. In this con- Hahn echo sequence can be written as [using Eq. (49)] text, such a pulsing technique is also called dynamical 186,187 decoupling. Uêcho = Xˆ Uˆqe(τ/2) Xˆ Uˆqe(τ/2), (120) The simplest and most well-known refocusing scheme is the Hahn echo sequence [Fig. 26(a)].8 The Bloch where spheres with circled numbers show how the qubit state ˆ ˆ −iHqet/~ evolves in repeated identical measurements. If the tran- Uqe(t) = e , (121) sition frequency of a qubit fluctuates for each measurement because of noise or unwanted interactions, then and Xˆ is the X gate acting on the qubit. Using the two the qubit will lose its phase coherence [○3 in Fig. 26(a)] identities (Sec. IV A 3). Here, the role of the π pulse is to flip ˆ Bˆ ˆ † UˆBÛˆ † the population of the qubit, thus reversing the direc- Ue U = e , σˆxσˆzσˆx = −σˆz, (122) tion of evolution [○4 in Fig. 26(a)]. This makes the net area of the “direction of evolution” in Fig. 26(a) zero, where Uˆ is a unitary operator and Bˆ is an arbitrary op- indicating that the unwanted evolution is canceled out. Thus, T2 measured using this pulse sequence is usually much longer than that measured via the Ramsey fringes

8 Although the majority of the literature, including this tutorial, calls the pulse sequence in Fig. 26(a) the Hahn echo sequence, it 183 9 ∗ was proposed by Carr and Purcell. In Hahn’s original paper, In the magnetic resonance literature, the notations T2 and T2 are 182 Ramsey echo he applied pulses with the same rotation angle. used for T2 and T2 , respectively, for historical reasons. 46

(a) Hahn echo pulse sequence (c) CPMG pulse sequence

ﬂip -pulses xy plane z axis

R pulse sequence Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 direction of direction of evolution evolution + − (d) Filter function

1 z’ 2 z’ 3 z’ (Ramsey)

y’ y’ y’ (echo) x’ x’ x’

4 z’ 5 z’ 6 z’ Direction of evolution Direction of

y’ y’ y’ Time (µs) x’ x’ x’ Fourier transform

(b) Canceling the ZZ interactions Filter function

1 2 qubit 1

qubit 2

4 3 (arb.Magnitude unit) qubit 3

qubit 4 Frequency (MHz)

FIG. 26. (a) Hahn echo pulse sequence. τ is the time interval of the pulse sequence. The red pulse labeled “R” is the readout pulse. The circled numbers describe the evolution of the qubit state in the Bloch sphere. (The thermalization process is ignored for clarity.) (b) Refocusing scheme for a four-qubit system (four crosses) designed to control the ZZ interactions between qubit (ij) (ij) (12) i and qubit j, Jzz (Ref. 104). In this sequence, all possible Jzz will be canceled out, except Jzz . The time interval is divided into four slices of equal duration by dotted lines. (c) Carr–Purcell–Meiboom–Gill (CPMG) pulse sequence. The red pulse is the readout pulse. Note that π-rotations are about the y-axis, while π/2-rotations are about the x-axis. This change of the rotation axis prevents the accumulation of the error caused by imperfect π-pulses.122 (d) Concept of filter function. The modulation of the direction of evolution acts as a filter function in the frequency domain. erator, it is easy to show that where the global phase was ignored. This suggests that two π-pulses act as a time-reversal operator. Thus, the ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ (q) −iHqeτ/2~ (q) X Uqe(τ/2) X =σ ˆx e σˆx Hahn echo sequence cancels any static interaction in the (q) (e) −iˆσ(q) Hˆ σˆ(q) τ/2 form ofσ ˆz Aˆ . = e x qe x ~ −iJ σˆ(q)σˆ(q)σˆ(q) Aˆ(e)τ/2 = e zz ( x z x ) −iJ −σˆ(q) Aˆ(e)τ/2 = e zz ( z ) Note that the Hahn echo sequence also cancels the (q) ˆ(e) ˆ σˆy A interaction becauseσ ˆxσˆyσˆx = −σˆy. If we use = Uqe(−τ/2), (123) an additional axis for π-pulses, either the y- or z-axis, we (q) (e) can also remove theσ ˆx Aˆ interaction. Here, we choose 47 the z-axis as an example: D. Evaluation of Gate Operation ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ UXY4 =Z Uecho Z Uecho For precise quantum control, a quantitative measure =ZˆXˆ Uˆqe Xˆ Uˆqe ZˆXˆ Uˆqe Xˆ Uˆqe that shows how close the actual gate operation is to the target operation is required. The quantity showing this is =Yˆ Uˆqe Xˆ Uˆqe Yˆ Uˆqe Xˆ Uˆqe, (124) the error rate or gate infidelity Jgate [see Eq. (110) for the definition]. For the surface code, J 0.01 is required. where Zˆ(Yˆ ) is the Z(Y ) gate acting on the qubit, and gate . ˆ The standard method of estimating Jgate in the early we omit the time interval in Uqe to simplify the notation. days of quantum computation (before the 2010s) was This pulse sequence is called XY4 (Refs. 189 and 190). quantum process tomography (QPT).10 Although it gives The Hahn echo sequence is also useful for a multiqubit complete information about the dynamics occurring in system. Figure 26(b) shows an example of engineering the system during a given time, QPT has two drawbacks. 104 ZZ interactions in a four-qubit system. We can intu- First, it is not scalable—the time for fidelity estimation itively see which interaction will be eliminated by multi- increases exponentially with the number of qubits. Sec- plying the two directions of evolution curves and checking ond, QPT is susceptible not only to errors associated if the net area is zero. with gate operation but also to errors associated with One might notice that, if we use the Hahn echo se- state preparation and measurement (SPAM), resulting quence to remove the ZZ interaction for the CR gate in inaccurate gate fidelity estimation. operation as mentioned in Sec. VI D 5, our gate opera- Nowadays, the Clifford group randomized benchmark- tion based on the ZX interaction will also be removed. ing (standard RB) is the standard measure of error rates To prevent such a situation, we apply the π-pulses to the associated with a set of gate operations, i.e., average gate control qubit and change the sign of the CR drive af- fidelity, because of the following advantages. First, the ter the first π-pulse.111 As a result, the ZX interaction Clifford group RB is scalable: the time for fidelity esti- survives, while the ZZ interaction is canceled out. mation increases polynomially with the number of qubits. The Hahn echo sequence works well only when the un- Secondly, the estimated error is insensitive to the type of wanted interaction is static in the time scale of τ. This gate. Lastly, this protocol is robust against SPAM errors. means that only low frequency noise can be canceled out The idea of RB is to observe how the gate error accu- by the Hahn echo sequence. The Carr–Purcell–Meiboom– mulates with the number of gate operations, while SPAM Gill (CPMG) pulse sequence [Fig. 26(c)], an extension of errors remain similar with increasing number of gate op- the Hahn echo sequence, can remove a wider frequency erations. We can understand the idea of RB with a toy range of noise by applying multiple π-pulses.183,184 This block analogy in the following way [Fig. 27(a)]. Imagine can be understood using the concept of the filter func- that we have lots of toy blocks in a toy storage bag with tion, which is basically the Fourier transformation of the different height errors. Our job is to measure the aver- direction of evolution.26,188 Figure 26(d) clearly shows age height error of these blocks. For this, we pick a set that increasing the number of π-pulses filters out a wider of m blocks randomly from the toy storage bag. Then, range of low-frequency noise. we stack these blocks and measure their total height. By As the number of qubits increases, the dimension of comparing the measured height and our expected height the Hilbert space associated with the qubits increase from the design, we can estimate the error ε as shown in exponentially and cannot be efficiently simulated on a Fig. 27(a). We can repeat this process by varying m to classical computer, which is a requirement for optimiza- obtain ε as a function of m [Fig. 27(c)]. The slope from tion as suggested in Sec. IX B. Furthermore, the mere the fitting indicates the average height error of the toy task of perfectly characterizing all multiqubit Hamil- blocks [ε1 in Fig. 27(c)]. The advantage of measuring the tonian terms becomes impossible. Nevertheless, the in- slope is that it is free from errors originating from an crease in T2 by refocusing techniques shows us that we unintended position offset of the stack [ε0 in Fig. 27(c)]. can engineer the system dynamics without full knowl- The procedure of RB is essentially the same as that of edge of the system-environment couplings and the state the toy blocks explained above. A toy block corresponds of the environment in some large Hilbert space that can- to a quantum gate, and the toy storage bag corresponds not be characterized. This success of the refocusing tech- to the Clifford group. The main difference is that the ex- niques arises from treating the problem perturbatively perimentally measured quantity for the toy blocks is the for a class of possible perturbations. These same ideas error in height, which increases linearly with m, whereas can be employed when controlling multiqubit systems the measured quantity for quantum gates is the survival whose Hilbert space can be divided into small manage- probability, which decays exponentially with m. Here, the able sectors (e.g., either one or a few qubits) with un- survival probability means the probability that the ini- wanted/uncharacterized Hamiltonian terms treated as tial state is not changed by the gate sequence. After the perturbations. An approach based on this philosophy is entire process, the survival probability is fitted with the effective Hamiltonian engineering. The most popular the- function Apm + B. The crucial point is that the average oretical tool for this is average Hamiltonian theory. In- gate fidelity is estimated from p only; the effects of SPAM terested readers should see Refs. 104, 165, 191–193. errors are reflected in A and B. 48

(a)Toy blocks (b) Quantum gates

ideal Standard randomized benchmarking real Cliﬀord group

1 2 3 ... m–1 m m+1

Interleaved randomized benchmarking

1 2 3 ... m–1 m m+1 m blocks

toy block toy storage bag standard RB

interleaved RB Survival probability Survival

m m

FIG. 27. (a) Toy block analogy of the Clifford group randomized benchmarking (standard RB). The toy storage bag corresponds to the Clifford group, and each toy block corresponds to a single gate operation. ε is the cumulative error in the total height. (b) In the standard RB, m gates randomly selected from the Clifford group are applied sequentially. In the interleaved RB, a random gate and the gate of interest C (dashed rectangle) appear alternately. Here, the (m + 1)th gate (thick rectangle) is chosen so that the net sequence is the identity operation. (c) In the toy block analogy, the cumulative height error ε is fitted with the function 1m + 0. This separates the average height error 1 (what we want) from an unintended position offset 0 (what we do not want). In RB, the survival probability, which is the probability that the initial state is not changed by the gate sequence, is fitted with the function Apm + B. Here, the average gate fidelity is estimated from p only; the effects of state preparation and measurement errors are reflected in A and B. Therefore, RB separates errors due to gate operations from that due to state preparation and measurement. In the graph, the survival probability for the interleaved RB decays faster than that for the standard RB. This is because there are twice as many applied gates in the interleaved RB.

The detailed protocol of the standard RB is as RB, we often need to know the fidelity of a specific gate. follows:194 One example is the fidelity evaluation for the closed-loop optimization of a certain gate operation.156,157 In this 1. Generate a sequence of m+1 gates picked uniformly case, we use the interleaved RB.195 at random from the Clifford group. Here, the last The procedure for the interleaved RB is similar to that gate is chosen so that the net sequence is the iden- for the standard RB. The differences are (i) a random tity operation. gate and the gate of interest C appear alternately; (ii) 2. Prepare a state, such as |0i for a single-qubit system the infidelity associated with the gate of interest, rC, is or |00i for a two-qubit system. given by rC = (d − 1)(1 − pC/p)/d, where pC is the fit- 3. Perform the gate operation. ting parameter in the decay function and p is the fitting parameter obtained from the standard RB. Note that 4. Repeat steps 1–3 to measure the survival probabil- this formula works only when the gate error is due to a ity. stochastic process, such as thermalization or dephasing. 5. Repeat steps 1–4 for various m to obtain the sur- If the gate error is due to coherent errors, such as impre- vival probability as a function of m. cise control errors, we might have interferences between 6. Fit the survival probability with the decay function these errors. In this case, we have to estimate the up- m Ap + B. per and lower bounds of pC assuming the best and worst cases of interference.196 7. The average gate infidelity is given by Jgate = (d − 1)(1 − p)/d, where d ≡ 2n is the dimension of the Lastly, we point out that, although RB is scalable in Hilbert space and n is the number of qubits. principle, it is not clear in practice. The reason for this is that the implementation of the N-qubit Clifford op- The standard RB gives a single value, the average gate eration requires O(N 2/ log N) primitive two-qubit gate (in)fidelity. Although such convenience is an advantage of operations,197 which implies that, even if the gate fidelity 49

TABLE VI. Useful formulas.

Aˆ ˆ −Aˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ e Be = B + [A, B] + 2! [A, [A, B]] + 3! [A, [A, [A, B]]] + 4! [A, [A, [A, [A, B]]]] + ··· , [AˆB,ˆ Cˆ] = Aˆ[B,ˆ Cˆ] + [A,ˆ Cˆ]B,ˆ [â, aˆ†] = 1, [â†a,ˆ aˆ†] =a ˆ†, [â†a,ˆ aˆ] = −a,ˆ

[ˆσx, σˆy] = 2iˆσz, [ˆσy, σˆz] = 2iˆσx, [ˆσz, σˆx] = 2iˆσy, 1 1 ˆ σˆ± = 2 (ˆσx ± iˆσy), σˆ+σˆ− = 2 (ˆσz + I), [ˆσz, σˆ±] = ±2ˆσ±, [ˆσ+, σˆ−] =σ ˆz.

of a primitive two-qubit gate looks reasonably good, the 14B. Yurke and J. S. Denker, Quantum network theory, Phys. Rev. quality of the gate degrades rapidly with increasing num- A 29, 1419 (1984). 15 ber of qubits. This increases the number of measurements A. J. Leggett, Quantum Liquids (Oxford University Press, 2006). required to estimate the fidelity. One of the scalable al- 16M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed. ternatives is cycle benchmarking: in this protocol, the (McGraw-Hill, 1996). uncertainty of the fidelity estimate is independent of the 17J.-S. Tsai, Toward a superconducting quantum computer: Har- number of qubits. Interested readers should see Ref. 198. nessing macroscopic quantum coherence, Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B 86, 275 (2010). 18U. Vool and M. Devoret, Introduction to quantum electromagnetic circuits, Int. J. Circ. Theor. Appl. 45, 897 (2017). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 19L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995), Chap. 10.7. 20J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schus- S.K. thanks Sota Ino, Paul Magnard, Hiroto Mukai, ter, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. Shotaro Shirai, Teruaki Yoshioka, and Dengke Zhang for J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the helpful discussions and Giuseppe Falci, Holger Haas, Ian Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007). Hincks, Anita Fadavi Roudsari, Rui Wang, Alex Woz- 21G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Es- niakowski, and anonymous reviewers for valuable com- teve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y. Makhlin, J. Schriefl, and G. Schön, Decoherence in a superconducting quantum bit circuit, ments on the manuscript. This work was supported by Phys. Rev. B 72, 134519 (2005). CREST, JST (Grant No. JPMJCR1676) and the New 22O. Astafiev, Yu. A. Pashkin, Y. Nakamura, T. Yamamoto, and J. Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organi- S. Tsai, Quantum Noise in the Josephson Charge Qubit, Phys. zation (NEDO). Rev. Lett. 93, 267007 (2004). 23F. Yan, S Gustavsson, A. Kamal, J. Birenbaum, A. P. Sears, D. Hover, T. J. Gudmundsen, D. Rosenberg, G. Samach, S. Weber, 1J. Q. You and F. Nori, Atomic physics and quantum optics using J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, J. Clarke, A. J. Kerman, and W. superconducting circuits, Nature 474, 589 (2011). D. Oliver, The flux qubit revisited to enhance coherence and 2G. Wendin, Quantum information processing with supercon- reproducibility, Nat. Commun. 7, 12964 (2016). ducting circuits: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 106001 (2017). 24E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B.L. Altshuler, 1/f 3X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-x. Liu, and F. Nori, noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Rev. Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits, Mod. Phys. 86, 361 (2014). Phys. Rep. 718–719, 1 (2017). 25F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, A. O. Niskanen, Y. Nakamura, and 4P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. S. Tsai, Decoherence of Flux Qubits due to 1/f Flux Noise, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconduct- Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 167001 (2006). ing qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019). 26J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, 5M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller,P. Krantz, J. G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a super- Qubits: Current State of Play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter conducting flux qubit, Nat. Phys. 7, 565 (2011). Phys. 11, 369 (2020). 27W. D. Oliver and P. B. Welander, Materials in superconducting 6A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit qubits, MRS Bull. 38, 816 (2013). Quantum Electrodynamics, arXiv:2005.12667. 28R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, Y. Chen, 7Transnational College of LEX, What is Quantum Mechanics? Y. Yin, B. Chiaro, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A Physics Adventure (Language Research Foundation, 1996). J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, 8R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Springer, 1994). Coherent Josephson Qubit Suitable for Scalable Quantum Inte- 9J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics, grated Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 080502 (2013). 2nd ed. (Pearson Education, 2011). 29A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, C. Quintana, Z. Chen, R. Barends, 10M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quan- B. Burkett, B. Foxen, Yu Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Fowler, R. Graff, tum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge Uni- E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, versity Press, 2010). P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, 11N. Cody Jones, R. Van Meter, A. G. Fowler, P. L. McMahon, J. and J. M. Martinis, Characterization and reduction of capacitive Kim, T. D. Ladd, and Y. Yamamoto, Layered Architecture for loss induced by sub-micron Josephson junction fabrication in Quantum Computing, Phys. Rev. X 2, 031007 (2012). superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett. 111, 022601 (2017). 12J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, Building logi- 30Y. Chu, C. Axline, C. Wang, T. Brecht, Y. Y. Gao, L. Frun- cal qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system, npj zio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Suspending superconducting qubits by Quantum Inf 3, 2 (2017). silicon micromachining, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 112601 (2016). 13G. Benenti, G. Casati, D. Rossini, and G. Strini, Principles 31C. Müller,J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Towards understanding of Quantum Computation and Information: A Comprehensive two-level-systems in amorphous solids: insights from quantum Textbook, 2nd ed. (World Scientific, 2018). 50

circuits, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82 124501 (2019). cuits, Nat. Mater. 18, 816 (2019). 32C. Wang, C. Axline, Y. Y. Gao, T. Brecht, Y. Chu, L. Frunzio, 52I. V. Pechenezhskiy, R. A. Mencia, L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Surface participation and and V. E. Manucharyan, The superconducting quasicharge qubit, dielectric loss in superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, Nature 585, 368 (2020). 162601 (2015). 53S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond, Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, 33Z. K. Minev, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, L. Christakis, I. Cavities, and Photons (Oxford University Press, 2013). M. Pop, M. H. Devoret, Energy-participation quantization of 54S. M. Girvin, Circuit QED: superconducting qubits coupled to Josephson circuits, arXiv:2010.00620. microwave photons in Quantum Machines: Measurement and 34B. Dou¸cotand L. B. Ioffe, Physical implementation of protected Control of Engineered Quantum Systems—Lecture Notes of the qubits, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 072001 (2012). Les Houches Summer School: Volume 96, July 2011, edited by 35P. Brooks, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Protected gates for super- M. Devoret, B. Huard, R. Schoelkopf, and L. F. Cugliandolo conducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052306 (2013). (Oxford University Press, 2014). 36M. T. Bell, J. Paramanandam, L. B. Ioffe, and M. E. Gershen- 55A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. son, Protected Josephson Rhombus Chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconduct- 112, 167001 (2014). ing electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computa- 37J. M. Dempster, B. Fu, D. G. Ferguson, D. I. Schuster, and J. tion, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004). Koch, Understanding degenerate ground states of a protected 56A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, Jens quantum circuit in the presence of disorder, Phys. Rev. B 90, Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. De- 094518 (2014). voret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Controlling the Spon- 38P. Groszkowski, A. Di Paolo, A. L. Grimsmo, A. Blais, D. I. taneous Emission of a Superconducting Transmon Qubit, Phys. Schuster, A. A. Houck, and J. Koch, Coherence properties of Rev. Lett. 101, 080502 (2008). the 0-π qubit, New J. Phys. 20, 043053 (2018). 57S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. 39A. Gyenis, P. S. Mundada, A. Di Paolo, T. M. Hazard, X. You, Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, and S. M. Girvin, D. I. Schuster, J. Koch, A. Blais, and A. A. Houck, Experimental Black-Box Superconducting Circuit Quantization, Phys. Rev. realization of an intrinsically error-protected superconducting Lett. 108, 240502 (2012). qubit, arXiv:1910.07542. 58J. Bourassa, F. Beaudoin, Jay M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, 40H. Paik, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair, G. Catelani, Josephson-junction-embedded transmission-line resonators: A. P. Sears, B. R. Johnson, M. J. Reagor, L. Frunzio, L. I. From Kerr medium to in-line transmon, Phys. Rev. A 86, Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, 013814 (2012). Observation of High Coherence in Josephson Junction Qubits 59M. Leib, F. Deppe, A. Marx, R. Gross, and M. J. Hartmann, Measured in a Three-Dimensional Circuit QED Architecture, Networks of nonlinear superconducting transmission line res- Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 240501 (2011). onators, New J. Phys. 14, 075024 (2012). 41C. Rigetti, J. M. Gambetta, S. Poletto, B. L. T. Plourde, J. 60F. Solgun, D. W. Abraham, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Blackbox M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, John A. Smolin, S. T. Merkel, J. quantization of superconducting circuits using exact impedance R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and synthesis, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134504 (2014). M. Steffen, Superconducting qubit in a waveguide cavity with a 61N. Didier, J. Bourassa, and A. Blais, Fast Quantum Nondemoli- coherence time approaching 0.1 ms, Phys. Rev. B 86, 100506(R) tion Readout by Parametric Modulation of Longitudinal Qubit- (2012). Oscillator Interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 203601 (2015). 42L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, 62G. S. Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-Coherence Fluxonium Qubit, 2012). Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019). 63P.-M. Billangeon, J. S. Tsai, and Y. Nakamura, Circuit-QED- 43M. D. Hutchings, J.B. Hertzberg, Y. Liu, N. T. Bronn, G.A. based scalable architectures for quantum information processing Keefe, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and B.L.T. Plourde, Tunable Su- with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094517 (2015). perconducting Qubits with Flux-Independent Coherence, Phys. 64S. Richer and D. DiVincenzo, Circuit design implementing Rev. Applied 8, 044003 (2017). longitudinal coupling: A scalable scheme for superconducting 44G. Rastelli, I. M. Pop, and F. W. J. Hekking, Quantum phase qubits, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134501 (2016). slips in Josephson junction rings, Phys. Rev. B 87, 174513 65X. Wang, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Ideal Quantum Nonde- (2013). molition Readout of a Flux Qubit without Purcell Limitations, 45T. P. Orlando, J. E. Mooij, L. Tian, C. H. van der Wal, L. S. Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 064037 (2019). Levitov, S. Lloyd, and J. J. Mazo, Superconducting persistent- 66J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Johnson, current qubit, Phys. Rev. B 60, 15398 (1999). J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wall- 46T. L. Robertson, B. L. T. Plourde, P. A. Reichardt, T. Hime, raff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, C.-E. Wu, and J. Clarke, Quantum theory of three-junction flux Coupling superconducting qubits via a cavity bus, Nature 449, qubit with non-negligible loop inductance: Towards scalability, 443 (2007). Phys. Rev. B 73, 174526 (2006). 67X.-Y. Lü,S. Ashhab, W. Cui, R. Wu, and F. Nori, Two-qubit 47J. Q. You, X. Hu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Low-decoherence flux gate operations in superconducting circuits with strong coupling qubit, Phys. Rev. B 75, 140515(R) (2007). and weak anharmonicity, New J. Phys. 14, 073041 (2012). 48V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, 68S. Filipp, M. Göppl, J. M. Fink, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, L. Stef- Fluxonium: Single Cooper-Pair Circuit Free of Charge Offsets, fen, and A. Wallraff, Multimode mediated qubit-qubit coupling Science 326, 113 (2009). and dark-state symmetries in circuit quantum electrodynamics, 49M. Peruzzo, A. Trioni, F. Hassani, M. Zemlicka, and J. M. Fink, Phys. Rev. A 83, 063827 (2011). Surpassing the Resistance Quantum with a Geometric Superin- 69B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, Quantum Processes, Sys- ductor, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 044055 (2020). tems, and Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010). 50O. V. Astafiev, L. B. Ioffe, S. Kafanov, Yu. A. Pashkin, K. Yu. 70C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Arutyunov, D. Shahar, O. Cohen, and J. S. Tsai, Coherent quan- Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods tum phase slip, Nature 484, 355 (2012). with Applications to Quantum Optics, 3rd ed. (Springer, 2004). 51L. Grünhaupt,M. Spiecker, D. Gusenkova, N. Maleeva, S. T. 71B. Yurke, Input-Output Theory, in Quantum Squeezing, edited Skacel, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, H. Rotzinger, W. by P. D. Drummond and Z. Ficek (Springer, 2004). Wernsdorfer, A. V. Ustinov, and I. M. Pop, Granular aluminium 72A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. as a superconducting material for high-impedance quantum cir- J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to Quantum Noise, Measurement, 51

and Amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010). 94C. Macklin, K. O’Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. 73J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open- Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, A source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum Near–Quantum-Limited Josephson Traveling-Wave Parametric systems, Comp. Phys. Comm. 183, 1760 (2012). Amplifier, Science 350, 307 (2015). 74J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python 95K. O’Brien, C. Macklin, I. Siddiqi, and X. Zhang, Resonant framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comp. Phase Matching of Josephson Junction Traveling Wave Para- Phys. Comm. 184, 1234 (2013). metric Amplifiers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 157001 (2014). 75P. Phillips, Advanced Solid State Physics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 96L. Planat, A. Ranadive, R. Dassonneville, J. P. Mart´ınez, University Press, 2012). S. Léger, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Hasch-Guichard, D. M. 76C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Basko, and N. Roch, Photonic-Crystal Josephson Traveling- Atom—Photon Interactions: Basic Process and Appilcations Wave Parametric Amplifier, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021021 (2020). (John Wiley & Sons, 1998), p. 41. Note that this book does 97C. M. Caves, Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers, not use the name Schrieffer–Wolff transformation. Phys. Rev. D 26, 1817 (1982). 77V. B. Braginsky and F. Ya. Khalili, Quantum Measurement 98C. M. Caves, J. Combes, Z. Jiang, and S. Pandey, Quantum (Cambridge University Press, 1992). limits on phase-preserving linear amplifiers, Phys. Rev. A 86, 78V. B. Braginsky and F. Ya. Khalili, Quantum Nondemolition 063802 (2012). Measurements: the Route from Toys to Tools, Rev. Mod. Phys. 99C. Eichler and A. Wallraff, Controlling the dynamic range of 68, 1 (1996). a Josephson parametric amplifier, EPJ Quantum Technol. 1, 2 79J. E. Johnson, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, R. Vijay, E. B. Wein- (2014); https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt2 garten, J. Clarke, and I. Siddiqi, Heralded State Preparation in 100H. J. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 2: a Superconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 050506 (2012). Non-Classical Fields (Springer, 2008). 80T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Magnard, A. 101H. A. Haus, Electromagnetic Noise and Quantum Optical Mea- Potoˇcnik,Y. Salathé,M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. surements (Springer, 2000). Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Rapid High-Fidelity Single-Shot Dis- 102M. H. Levitt, Spin Dynamics: Basics of Nuclear Magnetic Res- persive Readout of Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied onance, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 2008). 7, 054020 (2017). 103D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. 81J. Gambetta, A. Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum trajectory approach to A 96, 022330 (2017). circuit QED: Quantum jumps and the Zeno effect, Phys. Rev. 104L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, NMR techniques for A 77, 012112 (2008). quantum control and computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1037 82J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Krinner, T. Walter, (2005). Y. Salathé,S. Gasparinetti, J.-C. Besse, A. Potoˇcnik,A. Wall- 105R. Barends, C.M. Quintana, A.G. Petukhov, Y. Chen, D. Kafri, raff, and C. Eichler, Rapid High-fidelity Multiplexed Readout of K. Kechedzhi, R. Collins, O. Naaman, S. Boixo, F. Arute, K. Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 034040 (2018). Arya, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, 83A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nat. Huang, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, P.V. Klimov, F. Kostritsa, D. Land- Rev. Phys. 1, 19 (2019). huis, E. Lucero, M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, J. Mutus, 84P. Forn-D´ıaz,L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultra- M. Neeley, C. Neill, E. Ostby, P. Roushan, D. Sank, K.J. strong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Satzinger, A. Vainsencher, T. White, J. Yao, P. Yeh, A. Zal- Phys. 91, 025005 (2019). cman, H. Neven, V.N. Smelyanskiy, and J. M. Martinis, Di- 85M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. DiCarlo, J. M. abatic Gates for Frequency-Tunable Superconducting Qubits, Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Fast re- Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210501 (2019). set and suppressing spontaneous emission of a superconducting 106A. O. Niskanen, K. Harrabi, F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, S. qubit, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 203110 (2010). Lloyd, J. S. Tsai, Quantum Coherent Tunable Coupling of Su- 86E. A. Sete, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, Quantum theory perconducting Qubits, Science 316, 723 (2007). of a bandpass Purcell filter for qubit readout, Phys. Rev. A 92, 107R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, 012325 (2015). T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, 87T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, K. Koshino, P.-M. Billangeon, Y. Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Superconducting flux qubit capaci- Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. tively coupled to an LC resonator, New J. Phys. 16, 015017 Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Superconducting quantum circuits (2014). at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, Nature 508, 88G. Zhu, D. G. Ferguson, V. E. Manucharyan, and J. Koch, 500 (2014). Circuit QED with fluxonium qubits: Theory of the dispersive 108Y. Chen, C. Neill, P. Roushan, N. Leung, M. Fang, R. Barends, regime, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024510 (2013). J. Kelly, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. 89T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J.Y. Mutus, P.J.J. O’Malley, C.M. Quin- Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Flux- tana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T.C. White, Michael driven Josephson parametric amplifier, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, R. Geller, A.N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Qubit Architecture 042510 (2008). with High Coherence and Fast Tunable Coupling, Phys. Rev. 90R. Vijay, M. H. Devoret, and I. Siddiqi, Invited Review Arti- Lett. 113, 220502 (2014). cle: The Josephson bifurcation amplifier, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 109S. A. Caldwell, N. Didier, C. A. Ryan, E. A. Sete, A. Hudson, 111101 (2009). P. Karalekas, R. Manenti, M. P. da Silva, R. Sinclair, E. Acala, 91The Duffing Equation: Nonlinear Oscillators and Their Be- N. Alidoust, J. Angeles, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, A. haviour, edited by I. Kovacic and M. J. Brennan (Wiley, 2011). Bradley, C. Bui, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott, J. Cordova, G. Cross- 92A. Roy and M. Devoret, Quantum-limited parametric amplifi- man, M. Curtis, S. Deshpande, T. El Bouayadi, D. Girshovich, cation with Josephson circuits in the regime of pump depletion, S. Hong, K. Kuang, M. Lenihan, T. Manning, A. Marchenkov, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045405 (2018). J. Marshall, R. Maydra, Y. Mohan, W. O’Brien, C. Osborn, 93M. A. Castellanos-Beltrana and K. W. Lehnert, Widely tunable J. Otterbach, A. Papageorge, J.-P. Paquette, M. Pelstring, A. parametric amplifier based on a superconducting quantum in- Polloreno, G. Prawiroatmodjo, V. Rawat, M. Reagor, R. Ren- terference device array resonator, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 083509 zas, N. Rubin, D. Russell, M. Rust, D. Scarabelli, M. Scheer, (2007); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2773988 M. Selvanayagam, R. Smith, A. Staley, M. Suska, N. Tezak, 52

D. C. Thompson, T.-W. To, M. Vahidpour, N. Vodrahalli, T. plied 9, 034011 (2018). Whyland, K. Yadav, W. Zeng, and C. Rigetti, Parametrically 129N. Cottet, S. Jezouin, L. Bretheau, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, Q. Activated Entangling Gates Using Transmon Qubits, Phys. Rev. Ficheux, J. Anders, A. Auffèves, R. Azouit, P. Rouchon, and Applied 10, 034050 (2018). B. Huard, Observing a quantum Maxwell demon at work, Proc. 110J. M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, B. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7561 (2017). R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. 130Y. Masuyama, K. Funo, Y. Murashita, A. Noguchi, S. Kono, Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Simple All-Microwave Y. Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, M. Ueda, and Y. Nakamura, Entangling Gate for Fixed-Frequency Superconducting Qubits, Information-to-work conversion by Maxwell’s demon in a su- Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080502 (2011). perconducting circuit quantum electrodynamical system, Nat. 111S. Sheldon, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Commun. 9, 1291 (2018). Procedure for systematically tuning up cross-talk in the cross- 131M. Naghiloo, J.J. Alonso, A. Romito, E. Lutz, and K.W. Murch, resonance gate, Phys. Rev. A 93, 060302(R) (2016). Information Gain and Loss for a Quantum Maxwell’s Demon, 112N. Schuch and J. Siewert, Natural two-qubit gate for quantum Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 030604 (2018). computation using the XY interaction, Phys. Rev. A 67, 032301 132A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, (2003). Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003). 113J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. Birgitta Whaley, Minimum 133A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Construction of Two-Qubit Quantum Operations, Phys. Rev. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computa- Lett. 93, 020502 (2004). tion, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). 114A. O. Niskanen, Y. Nakamura, and J.-S. Tsai, Tunable coupling 134D. Gottesman, An Introduction to Quantum Error Cor- scheme for flux qubits at the optimal point, Phys. Rev. B 73, rection and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation, in 094506 (2006). Quantum Information Science and Its Contributions to 115S. Poletto, J. M. Gambetta, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Mathematics edited by S. J. Lomonaco Jr., Proceed- Chow, A. D. Córcoles,George A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. ings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics 68, 13 (2010); Rozen, D. W. Abraham, C. Rigetti, and M. Steffen, Entangle- http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/psapm/068/2762145 ment of Two Superconducting Qubits in a Waveguide Cavity via 135S. J. Devitt, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Quantum error Monochromatic Two-Photon Excitation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, correction for beginners, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 076001 (2013). 240505 (2012). 136D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun (eds.), Quantum Error Correction, 116L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop, B. R. (Cambridge University Press, 2013). Johnson, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, S. M. 137B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Demonstration of two-qubit algo- Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015). rithms with a superconducting quantum processor, Nature 460, 138E. Campbell, B. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault- 240 (2009). tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature 549, 172 117J. M. Martinis and M. R. Geller, Fast adiabatic qubit gates using (2017); https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23460 139 only σz control, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022307 (2014). D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, 118C. Rigetti and M. Devoret, Fully microwave-tunable universal arXiv:quant-ph/9705052. gates in superconducting qubits with linear couplings and fixed 140D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum transition frequencies, Phys. Rev. B 81, 134507 (2010). Computers, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006. 119J. L. Allen, R. Kosut, J. Joo, P. Leek, and E. Ginossar, Optimal 141A. Paler, S. Devitt, K. Nemoto, and I. Polian, Software-based control of two qubits via a single cavity drive in circuit quantum Pauli tracking in fault-tolerant quantum circuits, 2014 De- electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042325 (2017). sign, Automation and Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition 120V. Tripathi, M. Khezri, and A. N. Korotkov, Operation and (DATE), 1-4 (2014). intrinsic error budget of a two-qubit cross-resonance gate, Phys. 142C. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, Surface Rev. A 100, 012301 (2019). code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New J. Phys. 14, 121A. Abragam and M. Goldman, Principles of Dynamic Nuclear 123011 (2012). Polarisation, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 395 (1978). 143S. J. Devitt, A. G. Fowler, T. Tilma, W. J. Munro, and 122C. P. Slichter, Principles of Magnetic Resonance, 3rd ed. K. Nemoto, Classical processing requirements for a topological (Springer, 1990). quantum computing system, Int. J. Quant. Inf. 8, 121 (2010). 123D. J. Egger, M. Werninghaus, M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, A. 144S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with Fuhrer, P. Müller,and S. Filipp, Pulsed Reset Protocol for ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 Fixed-Frequency Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied (2005). 10, 044030 (2018). 145A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, Magic-state distillation 124P. Magnard, P. Kurpiers, B. Royer, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, S. with the four-qubit code, Quantum Inf. Comput. 13, 195 (2013). Gasparinetti, M. Pechal, J. Heinsoo, S. Storz, A. Blais, and A. 146L. M. K. Vandersypen, H. Bluhm, J. S. Clarke, A. S. Dzurak, R. Wallraff, Fast and Unconditional All-Microwave Reset of a Su- Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veld- perconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 060502 (2018). horst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, 125A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, dense, and coherent, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 34 (2017). M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Quantum-information pro- 147D. Rosenberg, D. Kim, R. Das, D. Yost, S. Gustavsson, D. cessing with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 75, Hover, P. Krantz, A. Melville, L. Racz, G. O. Samach, S. J. 032329 (2007). Weber, F. Yan, J. L. Yoder, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, 126D. Ristè,C. C. Bultink, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Feed- 3D integrated superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 1 back Control of a Solid-State Qubit Using High-Fidelity Projec- (2017). tive Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 240502 (2012). 148B. Foxen, J. Y. Mutus, E. Lucero, E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, R. 127P. Campagne-Ibarcq, E. Flurin, N. Roch, D. Darson, P. Morfin, Barends, K. Arya, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, F. Mallet, and B. Huard, Persis- A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. tent Control of a Superconducting Qubit by Stroboscopic Mea- Huang, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, A. Megrant, O. Naaman, M. Nee- surement Feedback, Phys. Rev. X 3, 021008 (2013). ley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wen- 128Y. Salathé,P. Kurpiers, T. Karg, C. Lang, C. Kraglund An- ner, T. C. White, and J. M. Martinis, High speed flux sampling dersen, A. Akin, S. Krinner, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Low- for tunable superconducting qubits with an embedded cryogenic Latency Digital Signal Processing for Feedback and Feedforward transducer, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 32, 015012 (2018). in Quantum Computing and Communication, Phys. Rev. Ap- 149N. T. Bronn, V. P. Adiga, S. B. Olivadese, X. Wu, J. M.Chow, 53

and D. P. Pappas, High coherence plane breaking packaging 167C. Bauer, R. Freeman, T. Frenkiel, J. Keeler, A. J. Shaka, Gaus- for superconducting qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 024007 sian pulses, J. Magn. Reson. 58, 442 (1984). (2018). 168J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, S. T. Merkel, and F. K. Wilhelm, 150M. Vahidpour, W. O’Brien, J. T. Whyland, J. Angeles, J. Mar- Analytic control methods for high-fidelity unitary operations in shall, D. Scarabelli, G. Crossman, K. Yadav,Y. Mohan, C. Bui, a weakly nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012308 (2011). V. Rawat, R. Renzas, N. Vodrahalli, A. Bestwick, and C. Rigetti, 169F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting Through-Silicon Vias for Quantum Integrated Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Circuits, arXiv:1708.02226 (2017). Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009). 151D. R. W. Yost, M. E. Schwartz, J. Mallek, D. Rosenberg, C. 170F. Motzoi, Controlling Quantum Information Devices, PhD the- Stull, J. L. Yoder, G. Calusine, M. Cook, R. Das, A. L. Day, E. sis, University of Waterloo (2012). B. Golden, D. K. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, W. Woods, 171D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, Solid-state qubits integrated S. Mart´ınez-Garaot, and J.G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabatic- with superconducting through-silicon vias, npj Quantum Inf. 6, ity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 59 (2020). 045001 (2019). 152H. Mukai, K. Sakata, S. J. Devitt, R. Wang, Y. Zhou, Y. Naka- 172L. S. Theis, F. Motzoi, S. Machnes, and F. K. Wilhelm, Counter- jima, and J. S. Tsai, Pseudo-2D superconducting quantum com- acting systems of diabaticities using DRAG controls: The status puting circuit for the surface code: proposal and preliminary after 10 years, EPL 123, 60001 (2018). tests, New J. Phys. 22, 043013 (2020). 173D. I. Hoult, Fast recovery, high sensitivity NMR probe and 153F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. Bylander, preamplifier for low frequencies, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 50, 193 W. D. Oliver, and J.-S. Tsai, Flux qubit noise spectroscopy using (1979). Rabi oscillations under strong driving conditions, Phys. Rev. B 174J. Butscher, Shaping of Fast Flux Pulses for Two-Qubit Gates: 89, 020503(R) (2014). Inverse Filtering, master thesis, ETH Zürich (2018). 154D. P. Burum, M. Under, and R. R. Ernst, A new “tune-up” 175M. A. Rol, L. Ciorciaro, F. K. Malinowski, B. M. Tarasinski, NMR pulse cycle for minimizing and characterizing phase tran- R. E. Sagastizabal, C. C. Bultink, Y. Salathe, N. Haandbaek, sients, J. Magn. Reson. 43, 463 (1981). J. Sedivy, and L. DiCarlo, Time-domain characterization and 155B. M. Vlastakis, Controlling Coherent State Superpositions with correction of on-chip distortion of control pulses in a quantum Superconducting Circuits, PhD thesis, Yale University (2015). processor, Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 054001 (2020). 156J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, 176T. W. Borneman and D. G. Cory, Bandwidth-limited control and A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. ringdown suppression in high-Q resonators, J. Magn. Reson. Mutus, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. 225, 120 (2012). Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, 177D. E. Kirk, Optimal Control Theory: An Introduction (Dover, and J. M. Martinis, Optimal Quantum Control Using Random- 2004). ized Benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 240504 (2014). 178https://qucontrol.github.io/krotov/v1.2.0/11 other methods.html 157M. Werninghaus, D. J. Egger, F. Roy, S. Machnes, F. K. Wil- 179N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, S. J. helm, and S. Filipp, Leakage reduction in fast superconducting Glaser, Optimal Control of Coupled Spin Dynamics: Design of qubit gates via optimal control, arXiv:2003.05952. NMR Pulse Sequences by Gradient Ascent Algorithms, J. Magn. 158J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. Reson. 172, 296 (2005). White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Yu Chen, Z. Chen, 180C. J. Wood, I. N. Hincks, and C. E. Granade, QuantumUtils for B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. mathematica, http://quantumutils.org (2015). O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, 181F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, S. T. Merkel, and F. K. Wilhelm, and J. M. Martinis, Scalable in situ qubit calibration during Optimal control methods for rapidly time-varying Hamiltoni- repetitive error detection, Phys. Rev. A 94, 032321 (2016). ans, Phys. Rev. A 84, 022307 (2011). 159J. Kelly, P. O’Malley, M. Neeley, H. Neven, and J. M. Mar- 182E. L. Hahn, Spin Echoes, Phys. Rev. 80, 580 (1950). tinis, Physical qubit calibration on a directed acyclic graph, 183H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, Effects of Diffusion on Free arXiv:1803.03226. Precession in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Experiments, Phys. 160C. Neill, P. Roushan, K. Kechedzhi, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. Rev. 94, 630 (1954). Smelyanskiy, A. Megrant, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, K. Arya, 184S. Meiboom and D. Gill, Modified Spin-Echo Method for Mea- R. Barends, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, suring Nuclear Relaxation Times, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 29, 688 M. Giustina, R. Graff, E. Jeffrey, T. Huang, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, (1958). E. Lucero, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. 185A. Sodickson and D. G. Cory, A generalized k-space formalism Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, H. Neven, and J. M. Mar- for treating the spatial aspects of a variety of NMR experiments, tinis, A blueprint for demonstrating quantum supremacy with Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 33, 77 (1998). superconducting qubits, Science 360, 195 (2018). 186A. M. Souza, G. A. Alvarez,´ and D. Suter, Robust dynamical 161D. D’Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dy- decoupling, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 4748 (2012). namics (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2007). 187D. A. Lidar, Review of Decoherence-Free Subspaces, Noiseless 162I. N. Hincks, C. E. Granade, T. W. Borneman, and D. G. Cory, Subsystems, and Dynamical Decoupling, Adv. Chem. Phys. 154, Controlling Quantum Devices with Nonlinear Hardware, Phys. 295 (2014). Rev. Applied 4, 024012 (2015). 188L.Cywiński,R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma, How 163F. K. Wilhelm, S. Kirchhoff, S. Machnes, N. Wittler, and D. to enhance dephasing time in superconducting qubits, Phys. Sugny, An introduction into optimal control for quantum tech- Rev. B 77, 174509 (2008). nologies, arXiv:2003.10132. 189A. A. Maudsley, Modified Carr–Purcell–Meiboom–Gill sequence 164P. Rembold, N. Oshnik, M. M. Müller,S. Montangero, T. for NMR fourier imaging applications, J. Magn. Reson. 69, 488 Calarco, and E. Neu, Introduction to quantum optimal control (1986). for quantum sensing with nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, 190T. Gullion, D. B. Baker, and M. S. Conradi, New, compensated AVS Quantum Sci. 2, 024701 (2020). Carr-Purcell sequences, J. Magn. Reson. 89, 479 (1990). 165R. R. Ernst, G. Bodenhausen, and A. Wokaun, Principles of 191U. Haeberlen, High Resolution NMR in Solids: Selective Aver- Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions (Ox- aging (Academic Press, 1976); https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- ford University Press, 1987). 12-025561-0.X5001-1 166R. Freeman, Shaped radiofrequency pulses in high resolution 192A. Brinkmann, Introduction to average Hamiltonian theory. I. NMR, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 32, 59 (1998). Basics, Concepts Magn. Reson. Part A. 45A, e21414 (2016). 54

193H. Haas, D. Puzzuoli, F. Zhang, and D. G. Cory, Engineering ized Benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080505 (2012). effective Hamiltonians, New J. Phys. 21, 103011 (2019). 196A. Carignan-Dugas, J. J. Wallman, and J. Emerson, Bounding 194E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and Ro- the average gate fidelity of composite channels using the unitar- bust Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Processes, Phys. ity, New J. Phys. 21, 053016 (2019). Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011). 197S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabi- 195E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. lizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004). M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. 198A. Erhard, J. J. Wallman, L. Postler, M. Meth, R. Stricker, E. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Efficient A. Martinez, P. Schindler, T. Monz, J. Emerson, and R. Blatt, Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Random- Characterizing large-scale quantum computers via cycle benchmarking, Nat. Commun. 10, 5347 (2019).