- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Applied

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Effective Hamiltonian and parametric tuning for the cross-cross-resonance gate in the transmon model

Yousung Kang1,2 and Kyungsun Moon1,2,*

  • *Contact author: kmoon@yonsei.ac.kr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Applied 23, 014062 – Published 28 January, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.014062

Abstract

The two-qubit entangler is one of the most important components of quantum computers. The cross-cross resonance (CCR) gate has recently been proposed and shown to operate faster than the cross-resonance (CR) gate as an iSWAP gate. However, unlike the CR gate, the CCR gate requires frequency modifications of the input microwave pulses induced by a Stark shift. We present a theoretical study on the CCR gate in the two-transmon system. Using the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation and the rotating-wave approximation, we obtain both the effective Hamiltonian and the input microwave pulse frequencies of the CCR gate. It is well known that the static ZZ term degrades the performance of the CR gate in the transmon system. For the CCR gate, an additional dynamic ZZ term arises from the combined coupling to the qubits by the input microwave pulses, whose strength increases as the product of the two pulse amplitudes Ω0Ω1. We perform numerical simulations using the set of parameters for the IBM Hanoi quantum processor. We show that the CCR gate has a phase tunability and that varying the relative phase of the input microwave pulses can significantly improve the gate performance. This demonstrates that the static ZZ term in the CCR gate can be effectively reduced by optimizing the relative phase of the input microwave pulses.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (49)

  1. V. Bouchiat, D. Vion, P. Joyez, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum coherence with a single Cooper pair, Phys. Scr. T76, 165 (1998).
  2. Gianluigi Catelani, Fluxonium steps up to the plate, Physics 12, 131 (2019).
  3. L. B. Nguyen, Y. H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019).
  4. V. E. Manucharyan, Jens Koch, Leonid I. Glazman, and Michel H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single Cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science 326, 113 (2009).
  5. A. Warren, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Long-distance entangling gates between quantum dot spins mediated by a superconducting resonator, Phys. Rev. B 100, 161303(R) (2019).
  6. M. Metcalfe, E. Boaknin, V. Manucharyan, R. Vijay, I. Siddiqi, C. Rigetti, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Measuring the decoherence of a quantronium qubit with the cavity bifurcation amplifier, Phys. Rev. B 76, 174516 (2007).
  7. B. E. Kane, A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum computer, Nature 393, 133 (1998).
  8. Daniel Loss and David P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998).
  9. Adam Gali, Theory of the neutral nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond and its application to the realization of a qubit, Phys. Rev. B 79, 235210 (2009).
  10. Jens Koch, Terri M. Yu, Jay Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, Alexandre Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007).
  11. Hanhee Paik, D. I. Schuster, Lev S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair, G. Catelani, A. P. Sears, B. R.Johnson, M. J. Reagor, L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Observation of high coherence in Josephson Junction qubits measured in a three-dimensional circuit QED architecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 240501 (2011).
  12. Alexander P. M. Place et al., New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds, Nat. Commun. 12, 1779 (2021).
  13. Chenlu Wang et al., Towards practical quantum computers: transmon qubit with a lifetime approaching 0.5 milliseconds, Npj Quantum Inf. 8, 1 (2022).
  14. Edwin Pednault, John Gunnels, Dmitri Maslov, and Jay Gambetta, On Quantum Supremacy, IBM Research Blog (2019).
  15. Lars S. Madsen, Fabian Laudenbach, Mohsen Falamarzi. Askarani, Fabien Rortais, Trevor Vincent, Jacob F. F. Bulmer, Filippo M. Miatto, Leonhard Neuhaus, Lukas G. Helt, Matthew J. Collins, Adriana E. Lita, Thomas Gerrits, Sae Woo Nam, Varun D. Vaidya, Matteo Menotti, Ish Dhand, Zachary Vernon, Nicolas Quesada, and Jonathan Lavoie, Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor, Nature 606, 75 (2022).
  16. Feng Pan, Keyang Chen, and Pan Zhang, Solving the sampling problem of the Sycamore quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 090502 (2022).
  17. V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsioutsios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even, Nature 616, 50 (2023).
  18. Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2023).
  19. Laird Egan, Dripto M. Debroy, Crystal Noel, Andrew Risinger, Daiwei Zhu, Debopriyo Biswas, Michael Newman, Muyuan Li, Kenneth R. Brown, Marko Cetina, and Christopher Monroe, Fault-tolerant control of an error-corrected qubit, Nature 598, 281 (2021).
  20. P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995).
  21. Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M. Gambetta, Error mitigation for short depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017).
  22. Ying Li and Simon C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017).
  23. Suguru Endo, Simon C. Benjamin, and Ying Li, Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018).
  24. Filip B. Maciejewski, Zoltan Zimboras, and Michal Oszmaniec, Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography, Quantum 4, 257 (2020).
  25. Chao Song, Jing Cui, H. Wang, J. Hao, H. Feng, and Ying Li, Quantum computation with universal error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw5686 (2019).
  26. Shuaining Zhang, Yao Lu, Kuan Zhang, Wentao Chen, Ying Li, Jing-Ning Zhang, and Kihwan Kim, Error-mitigated quantum gates exceeding physical fidelities in a trapped-ion system, Nat. Commun. 11, 587 (2020).
  27. Jarrod R. McClean, Mollie E. Kimchi-Schwartz, Jonathan Carter, and Wibe A. De Jong, Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017).
  28. X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien, Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062339 (2018).
  29. Bibek Pokharel, Namit Anand, Benjamin Fortman, and Daniel A. Lidar, Demonstration of fidelity improvement using dynamical decoupling with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 220502 (2018).
  30. Joel J. Wallman and Joseph Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016).
  31. Google AI Quantum and Collaborators, Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science 369, 1084 (2020).
  32. Matthew Otten and Stephen K. Gray, Accounting for errors in quantum algorithms via individual error reduction, Npj Quantum Inf. 5, 11 (2019).
  33. Piotr Czarnik, Andrew Arrasmith, Patrick J. Coles, and Lukasz Cincio, Error mitigation with Clifford quantum-circuit data, Quantum 5, 592 (2021).
  34. Chad Rigetti and Michel Devoret, Fully microwave-tunable universal gates in superconducting qubits with linear couplings and fixed transition frequencies, Phys. Rev. B 81, 134507 (2010).
  35. Easwar Magesan and Jay M. Gambetta, Effective Hamiltonian models of the cross-resonance gate, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052308 (2020).
  36. Moein Malekakhlagh, Easwar Magesan, and David C. McKay, First-principles analysis of cross-resonance gate operation, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042605 (2020).
  37. David C. McKay, Christopher J. Wood, Sarah Sheldon, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017).
  38. F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009).
  39. Sarah Sheldon, Easwar Magesan, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, Procedure for systematically tuning up cross-talk in the cross-resonance gate, Phys. Rev. A 93, 060302(R) (2016).
  40. Fei Yan, Philip Krantz, Youngkyu Sung, Morten Kjaergaard, Daniel L. Campbell, Terry P. Orlando, Simon Gustavsson, and William D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054062 (2018).
  41. Kentaro Heya and Naoki Kanazawa, Cross-cross resonance gate, PRX Quantum 2, 040336 (2021).
  42. J. Zhang, J. Vala, S. Sastry, and K. B. Whaley, Geometric theory of nonlocal two-qubit operations, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042313 (2003).
  43. P. Watts, M. O’Connor, and J. Vala, Metric structure of the space of two-qubit gates, perfect entanglers and quantum control, Entropy 15, 1963 (2013).
  44. P. Watts, J. Vala, M. M. Müller, T. Calarco, K. B. Whaley, D. M. Reich, M. H. Goerz, and C. P. Koch, Optimizing for an arbitrary perfect entangler. I. Functionals, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062306 (2015).
  45. Yuriy Makhlin, Nonlocal properties of two-qubit gates and mixed states and optimization of quantum computations, Quantum Information Processing 1, 243 (2002).
  46. J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012).
  47. J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and Franco Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013).
  48. Sergey Bravyi, David P. DiVincenzo, and Daniel Loss, Schrieffer-Wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Ann. Phys. (N. Y) 326, 2793 (2011).
  49. Mark M. Wilde, From Classical to Quantum Shannon Theory, arXiv:1106.1445.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Applied 23, 014062– Published 28 January, 2025
  • Received 25 April 2023
  • Revised 11 November 2024
  • Accepted 3 January 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2025 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation