4.7 Article

State leakage during fast decay and control of a superconducting transmon qubit

期刊

NPJ QUANTUM INFORMATION
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41534-020-00357-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence program Quantum Technology Finland [312298, 312300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Superconducting Josephson junction qubits are key in many applications, such as scalable quantum computers and thermal devices. Theoretical modeling typically uses the two-level approximation, but accurately capturing system dynamics requires considering higher excited states beyond this framework. This study explores the dynamics and control of a superconducting transmon, highlighting the impact of state leakage and the effectiveness of derivative removal adiabatic gates (DRAG) control in mitigating leakage errors.
Superconducting Josephson junction qubits constitute the main current technology for many applications, including scalable quantum computers and thermal devices. Theoretical modeling of such systems is usually done within the two-level approximation. However, accurate theoretical modeling requires taking into account the influence of the higher excited states without limiting the system to the two-level qubit subspace. Here, we study the dynamics and control of a superconducting transmon using the numerically exact stochastic Liouville-von Neumann equation approach. We focus on the role of state leakage from the ideal two-level subspace for bath induced decay and single-qubit gate operations. We find significant short-time state leakage due to the strong coupling to the bath. We quantify the leakage errors in single-qubit gates and demonstrate their suppression with derivative removal adiabatic gates (DRAG) control for a five-level transmon in the presence of decoherence. Our results predict the limits of accuracy of the two-level approximation and possible intrinsic constraints in qubit dynamics and control for an experimentally relevant parameter set.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据