Filter Results

52655 results

(a) Detail of the **qubit** spectroscopy near Δ U / ℏ ω p = 3.55 , showing splittings of strengths S ≈ 44 MHz and 24 MHz. (b) Tunneling probability versus measurement delay time τ D after application of π -pulse. Solid (dashed) line is taken at a well depth of solid (dashed) arrow in (a), corresponding to a resonant (off-resonant) bias. Inset illustrates how the **qubit** probability amplitude first moves to state | 1 g and then **oscillates** between | 1 g and | 0 e . (c) and (d) Tunneling probability (gray scale) versus well depth and τ D for experimental data (c) and numerical simulation (d). The peak **oscillation** periods are observed to correspond to the spectroscopic splittings.... Spectroscopy of ω 10 obtained using the current-pulse measurement method, as a function of well depth Δ U / ℏ ω p . For each value of Δ U / ℏ ω p , the grayscale intensity is the normalized tunneling probability, with an original peak height of 0.1 - 0.3 . Insets: A given splitting in the spectroscopy of magnitude S comes from a critical-current fluctuator coupled to the **qubit** with strength h S / 2 . On resonance, the **qubit**-fluctuator eigenstates are linear combinations of the states | 1 g and | 0 e , where | g and | e are the two states of the fluctuator.... (a) Room temperature measurement of the fast current pulse. (b) Tunneling probability versus δ I m a x with the **qubit** in state | 0 (solid circles) and in an equal mixture of states | 1 and | 0 (open circles). Fit to data is shown by the solid line. The plateau, being less than 0.5, corresponds to a maximum measurement fidelity of 0.63.... (a) Schematic of the **qubit** circuitry. For the **qubit** used in Fig. 2, the Josephson critical-current and junction capacitance are I 0 ≈ 10 μ A and C ≈ 2 pF; in Figs. 3 and 4, each of these values is about 5 times smaller. (b) Potential energy landscape and quantized energy levels for I φ = I d c prior to the state measurement. (c) At the peak of δ I t , the **qubit** well is much shallower and state | 1 rapidly tunnels to the right hand well.

Data Types:

- Image

The **oscillations** in these FID experiments decay due to voltage noise from DC up to a **frequency** of approximately 1 / t . As the relaxation time, T 1 is in excess of 100 μ s in this regime, T 1 decay is not an important source of decoherence (Fig. S4). The shape of the decay envelope and the scaling of coherence time with d J / d ϵ (which effectively changes the magnitude of the noise) reveal information about the underlying noise spectrum. White (Markovian) noise, for example, results in an exponential decay of e - t / T 2 * where T 2 * ∝ d J / d ϵ -2 is the inhomogeneously broadened coherence time . However, we find that the decay is Gaussian (Fig. t2stard) and that T 2 * (black line in Fig. t2stare) is proportional to d J / d ϵ -1 (red solid line in Fig. t2stare) across two orders of magnitude of T 2 * . Both of these findings can be explained by quasistatic noise, which is low **frequency** compared to 1 / T 2 * . In such a case, one expects an amplitude decay of the form exp - t / T 2 * 2 , where T 2 * = 1 2 π d J / d ϵ ϵ R M S and ϵ R M S is the root-mean-squared fluctuation in ϵ (Eq. S3). From the ratio of T 2 * to d J / d ϵ -1 , we calculate ϵ R M S = 8 μ V in our device. At very negative ϵ , J becomes smaller than Δ B z , and nuclear noise limits T 2 * to approximately 90ns, which is consistent with previous work . We confirm that this effect explains deviations of T 2 * from d J / d ϵ -1 by using a model that includes the independently measured T 2 , n u c l e a r * and Δ B z (Eq. S1) and observe that it agrees well with measured T 2 * at large negative ϵ (dashed red line in Fig. t2stare).... Two level quantum systems (**qubits**) are emerging as promising candidates both for quantum information processing and for sensitive metrology . When prepared in a superposition of two states and allowed to evolve, the state of the system precesses with a **frequency** proportional to the splitting between the states. However, on a timescale of the coherence time, T 2 , the **qubit** loses its quantum information due to interactions with its noisy environment. This causes **qubit** **oscillations** to decay and limits the fidelity of quantum control and the precision of **qubit**-based measurements. In this work we study singlet-triplet ( S - T 0 ) **qubits**, a particular realization of spin **qubits** , which store quantum information in the joint spin state of two electrons. We form the **qubit** in two gate-defined lateral quantum dots (QD) in a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure (Fig. pulsesa). The QDs are depleted until there is exactly one electron left in each, so that the system occupies the so-called 1 1 charge configuration. Here n L n R describes a double QD with n L electrons in the left dot and n R electrons in the right dot. This two-electron system has four possible spin states: S , T + , T 0 , and T - . The S , T 0 subspace is used as the logical subspace for this **qubit** because it is insensitive to homogeneous magnetic field fluctuations and is manipulable using only pulsed DC electric fields . The relevant low-lying energy levels of this **qubit** are shown in Fig. pulsesc. Two distinct rotations are possible in these devices: rotations around the x -axis of the Bloch sphere driven by difference in magnetic field between the QDs, Δ B z (provided in this experiment by feedback-stabilized hyperfine interactions), and rotations around the z -axis driven by the exchange interaction, J (Fig. pulsesb) . A S can be prepared quickly with high fidelity by exchanging an electron with the QD leads, and the projection of the state of the **qubit** along the z -axis can be measured using RF reflectometery with an adjacent sensing QD (green arrow in Fig. pulsesa).... The device used in these measurements is a gate-defined S - T 0 **qubit** with an integrated RF sensing dot. a The detuning ϵ is the voltage applied to the dedicated high-**frequency** control leads pictured. b, The Bloch sphere that describes the logical subspace of this device features two rotation axes ( J and Δ B Z ) both controlled with DC voltage pulses. c, An energy diagram of the relevant low-lying states as a function of ϵ . States outside of the logical subspace of the **qubit** are grayed out. d, J ϵ and d J / d ϵ in three regions; the 1 1 region where J and d J / d ϵ are both small and S - T 0 **qubits** are typically operated, the transitional region where J and d J / d ϵ are both large where the **qubit** is loaded and measured, and the 0 2 region where J is large but d J / d ϵ is small and large quality **oscillations** are possible. pulses... Ramsey oscilllations reveal low **frequency** enivronmental dynamics. a, The pulse sequence used to measure exchange **oscillations** uses a stabilized nuclear gradient to prepare and readout the **qubit** and gives good contrast over a wide range of J . b, Exchange **oscillations** measured over a variety of detunings ϵ and timescales consistently show larger T 2 * as d J / d ϵ shrinks until dephasing due to nuclear fluctuations sets in at very negative ϵ . c, Extracted values of J and d J / d ϵ as a function of ϵ . d, The decay curve of FID exchange **oscillations** shows Gaussian decay. e, Extracted values of T 2 * and d J / d ϵ as a function of ϵ . T 2 * is proportional to d J / d ϵ -1 , indicating that voltage noise is the cause of dephasing of charge **oscillations**. f, Charge **oscillations** measured in 0 2 . This figure portrays the three basic regions we can operate our device in: a region of low **frequency** **oscillations** and small d J / d ϵ , a region of large **frequency** **oscillations** and large d J / d ϵ , and a region where **oscillations** are fast but d J / d ϵ is comparatively small. t2star... Since we observe J to be approximately an exponential function of ϵ , ( d J / d ϵ ∼ J ), we expect and observe the quality (number of coherent **oscillations**) of these FID **oscillations**, Q ≡ J T 2 * / 2 π ∼ J d J / d ϵ -1 , to be approximately constant regardless of ϵ . However, when ϵ is made very positive and J is large, an avoided crossing occurs between the 1 1 T 0 and the 0 2 T 0 state, making the 0 2 S and 0 2 T 0 states electrostatically virtually identical. Here, as ϵ is increased, J increases but d J / d ϵ decreases(Fig. pulsesd), allowing us to probe high quality exchange rotations and test our charge noise model in a regime that has never before been explored.... Spin-echo measurements reveal high **frequency** bath dynamics. a, The pulse sequence used to measure exchange echo rotations. b, A typical echo signal. The overall shape of the envelope reflects T 2 * , while the amplitude of the envelope as a function of τ (not pictured) reflects T 2 e c h o . c, T 2 e c h o and Q ≡ J T 2 e c h o / 2 π as a function of J . A comparison of the two noise models: power law and a mixture of white and 1 / f noise. Noise with a power law spectrum fits over a wide range of **frequencies** (constant β ), but the relative contributions of white and 1 / f noise change as a function of ϵ . d, A typical echo decay is non-exponential but is well fit by exp - τ / T 2 e c h o β + 1 . e, T 2 e c h o varies with d J / d ϵ in a fashion consistent with dephasing due to power law voltage fluctuations. echo... Using a modified pulse sequence that changes the clock **frequency** of our waveform generators to achieve picosecond timing resolution (Fig. S1)), we measure exchange **oscillations** in 0 2 as a function of ϵ and time (Fig. t2stare) and we extract both J (Fig. t2starc) and T 2 * (Fig. t2stard) as a function of ϵ . Indeed, the predicted behavior is observed: for moderate ϵ we see fast **oscillations** that decay after a few ns, and for the largest ϵ we see even faster **oscillations** that decay slowly. Here, too, we observe that T 2 * ∝ d J d ϵ -1 (Fig. t2stard), which indicates that FID **oscillations** in 0 2 are also primarily dephased by low **frequency** voltage noise. We note, however, that we extract a different constant of proportionality between T 2 * and d J / d ϵ -1 for 1 1 and 0 2 . This is expected given that the charge distributions associated with the **qubit** states are very different in these two regimes and thus have different sensitivities to applied electric fields. We note that in the regions of largest d J / d ϵ (near ϵ = 0 ), T 2 * is shorter than the rise time of our signal generator and we systematically underestimate J and overestimate T 2 * (Fig. S1).... The use of Hahn echo dramatically improves coherence times, with T 2 e c h o (the τ at which the observed echo amplitude has decayed by 1 / e ) as large as 9 μ s , corresponding to qualities ( Q ≡ T 2 e c h o J / 2 π ) larger than 600 (Fig. echoc). If at high **frequencies** (50kHz-1MHz) the voltage noise were white (Markovian), we would observe exponential decay of the echo amplitude with τ . However, we find that the decay of the echo signal is non-exponential (Fig. echod), indicating that even in this relatively high-**frequency** band being probed by this measurement, the noise bath is not white.

Data Types:

- Image

Contrary to the shift produced by the linear coupling term, the sign of this **frequency** shift now depends on ϵ . Since g 2 is negative (see figure fig:couplings), δ ν 0 2 actually has the same sign as ϵ . We also note that the quadratic term has no effect on the **qubit** when ϵ = 0 , since at that point the average flux generated by both **qubit** states | 0 and | 1 averages out to zero so that the SQUID Josephson inductance is unchanged.... We will now discuss quantitatively the behaviour of g 1 and g 2 for actual sample parameters : I C = 3.4 μ A , M = 6.5 p H , I p = 240 n A , Δ = 5.5 G H z , ν p = 3.1 G H z , L J = 300 p H , f ' / 2 = 1.45 π . We will restrict ourselves to a range of bias conditions relevant for our conditions, supposing that I b varies between ± 300 n A and that f ' / 2 varies by d f ' = ± 4 ⋅ 10 -3 π around 1.45 π . We chose such an interval for f ' because it corresponds to changing the **qubit** bias point ϵ by ± 2 G H z around 0 . The constants g 1 and g 2 are plotted in figure fig:couplings as a function of I b for two different values of f ' ( g 1 is shown as a full line, g 2 as a dashed line, and the two different values of f ' are symbolized by gray for d f ' = - 2 π 4 ⋅ 10 -3 and black for d f ' = 0 ). It can be seen that the coupling constants only weakly depend on the value of the flux in this range, so that we will neglect this dependence in the following and consider that g 1 and g 2 only depend on the bias current I b . Moreover we see from figure fig:couplings that the approximations made in equation eq:g1g2approx are justified in this range of parameters since g 1 is closely linear in I b and g 2 nearly constant. We also note that g 1 = 0 for I b = 0 . This fact can be generalized to the case where the SQUID-**qubit** coupling is not symmetric and the junctions critical current are dissimilar : in certain conditions these asymmetries can be compensated for by applying a bias current I b * for which g 1 I b * = 0 . At the current I b * , the **qubit** is effectively decoupled from the measuring circuit fluctuations to first order.... (a) **qubit** biased by Φ x and SQUID biased by current I b . (b) Simplified electrical scheme : the SQUID-**qubit** system is seen as an inductance L J connected to the shunct capacitor C s h through inductance L s h . Φ a is the flux across the two inductances L J and L s h in series.... **Qubit** **frequency** ν q as a function of the bias ϵ for Δ = 5.5 G H z (minimum **frequency** in the figure). The dashed line indicates the phase-noise insensitive bias point ϵ = 0 where d ν q / d ϵ = 0... **Frequency** shift per photon δ ν 0 as a function of I b and ϵ . The white regions correspond to -15 M H z and the black to + 35 M H z . The solid line ϵ m I b indicates the bias conditions for which δ ν 0 = 0 . The dashed line indicates the phase noise insensitive point ϵ = 0 ; the dotted line indicates the decoupling current I b = I b * .... The hamiltonian eq:qubit_hamiltonian yields a **qubit** transition **frequency** ν q = Δ 2 + ϵ 2 . The corresponding dependence is plotted in figure fig:nuq for realistic parameters. An interesting property is that when the **qubit** is biased at ϵ = 0 (dashed line in figure fig:nuq), it is insensitive to first order to noise in the bias variable ϵ .... We stress that these biasing conditions are non-trivial in the sense that they do not satisfy an obvious symmetry in the circuit. This point is emphasized in figure fig:deltanu0 where we plotted as a dashed line the bias conditions ϵ = 0 for which the **qubit** is insensitive to phase noise (due to flux or bias current noise) ; and as a dotted line the decoupling current conditions I b = I b * for which the **qubit** is effectively decoupled from its measuring circuit. The ϵ m I b line shares only one point with these two curves : the point I b * ϵ which is optimal with respect to flux, bias current, and photon noise. For the rest, the three lines are obviously distinct. This makes it possible to experimentally discriminate between the various noise sources limiting the **qubit** coherence by studying the dependence of τ φ on bias parameters.... The flux-**qubit** is a superconducting loop containing three Josephson junctions threaded by an external flux Φ x ≡ f Φ 0 / 2 π . It is coupled to a DC-SQUID detector shunted by an external capacitor C s h whose role is to limit phase fluctuations across the SQUID as well as to filter high-**frequency** noise from the dissipative impedance. The SQUID is threaded by a flux Φ S q ≡ f ' Φ 0 / 2 π . The circuit diagram is shown in figure fig1a. There, the flux-**qubit** is the loop in red containing the three junctions of phases φ i and capacitances C i ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 ). It also includes an inductance L 1 which models the branch inductance and eventually the inductance of a fourth larger junction . The two inductances K 1 and K 2 model the kinetic inductance of the line shared by the SQUID and the **qubit**. The SQUID is the larger loop in blue. The junction phases are called φ 4 and φ 5 and their capacitances C 4 and C 5 . The critical current of the circuit junctions is written I C i ( i = 1 to 5 ). The SQUID loop also contains two inductances K 3 and L 2 which model its self-inductance. The SQUID is connected to the capacitor C s h through superconducting lines of parasitic inductance L s . The phase across the stray inductance and the SQUID is denoted φ A . The whole circuit is biased by a current source I b in parallel with a dissipative admittance Y ω . Since our goal is primarily to determine the **qubit**-plasma mode coupling hamiltonian, we will neglect the admittance Y ω .

Data Types:

- Image

The second case where ω R 1 > ω R 2 > ω R 3 is shown in Fig. fig3. This is very similar to the first case, however, there is a slight overall increase in the state transfer rate. This is because the detuning is still relative to R2, but the detuning of R3 is now slightly less. As the **qubits** approach resonance with the resonators from below, the dispersive coupling strength becomes slightly larger because the **frequency** of R3 is a little closer to the **frequency** of the **qubits**. The small differences in resonator **frequencies** also cause slight non-uniformities in the high **frequency** **oscillations** or ripples that become more pronounced at lower detuning. This interference is not a factor if the **qubits** are sufficiently detuned. Regardless of these artifacts, it is clear that an array of resonators that is used for memory storage can also be used to dispersively couple **qubits**.... In both cases, at large detuning of -2000 MHz, the excitation appears to smoothly **oscillate** into **qubit** 2, as shown in Fig. fig2 and fig3. As the detuning decreases, two things happen: First, the time it takes for the excitation to move into **qubit** 2 gets shorter, indicating an increase in the effective coupling strength between the two **qubits**. Second, small ripples, or **oscillations**, begin to appear. These **oscillations** are due to the detuning becoming small enough that the dispersive limit approximation starts to break down. This result shows us that using three identical resonators in parallel to dispersively couple **qubits** is effectively similar to using only one resonator with three times the coupling strength. In general, an array of n resonators can be replaced by a single resonator with n times the coupling strength. The dispersive coupling can be increased by reducing the detuning, but at the cost of having significant **oscillations** between the **qubits** and resonators.... figure2(a) Two **qubits** (Q1, Q2) dispersively coupled to an array of three resonators (R1, R2, R3) via identical coupling capacitors C c . (b),(c) For these two simulations, the system is initialized with a single excitation in Q1, and the two **qubits** maintain equal **frequencies** as they are simultaneously detuned from the resonators. Each vertical cut represents the population in R2 over time at a particular detuning Δ Q , R 2 , of the **qubits** from R2. In (b), the **frequencies** of all three resonators are equal ( ω R 1 = ω R 2 = ω R 3 ). At large detuning ( Δ Q , R 2 = -2000 MHz), the excitation smoothly **oscillates** between the two **qubits** without significant interference from the resonators. As the magnitude of the detuning decreases, the effective coupling between the two **qubits** strengthens, thus the **oscillation** of the excitation becomes more frequent. Also, the direct coupling of the **qubits** to the resonators strengthens, causing the small ripples. In (c), the **frequencies** of R1 and R3 are set slightly above and below R2, respectively ( ω R 1 > ω R 2 > ω R 3 ). The excitation **oscillates** slightly faster than in (b) because the small offsets in **frequency** of R1 and R3 increases the coupling bandwidth, resulting in a small increase in coupling between the **qubits** over the same range of detuning. The offset of R1 and R3 from R2 also causes the ripples to be non-uniform at smaller detuning.... We consider an array of resonators used as a memory register. To accomplish this, one must be able to transfer an excitation from a **qubit** to a specific resonator, without coupling to the other resonators in the array. This is implemented by designing resonators that are sufficiently detuned from each other. To determine the amount of detuning required to avoid crosstalk between resonators, we examine a single **qubit** coupled to an array of two resonators as shown in Fig. block1. The **qubit** (Q) and resonator 1 (R1) are fixed at the same **frequency** while resonator 2 (R2) is detuned. All **qubit**-resonator couplings are presumed to be identical with a strength of g i j = 110 M H z for all i , j , i.e., all coupling capacitances C c are equal. This value is typical in experiments such as in Ref. . We begin with Q in the excited state and let the system evolve over time while recording the population in R1, as we increase the detuning Δ R 2 , R 1 , of R2. The result of this simulation is shown in Fig. fig1.... The result of the simulation is shown in Fig. fig4 where the population in R2 is plotted versus the detuning Δ Q 2 , Q 1 , of Q2 from Q1, in the range of -2000 MHz to 2000 MHz. As per design, at zero detuning, the excitation is transferred after a time of 16 ns. This time can be chosen based on the desired time scale by adjusting the **qubit**-**qubit** and **qubit**-resonator coupling strengths. At large detuning, i.e., beyond ± 1.5 GHz, the coupling between Q1 and R2 becomes dispersive up to about 30 ns, showing that dispersive coupling can be weak enough to isolate the active **qubit**. Q2 can be detuned further to reduce the dispersive coupling if the desired time scale is longer, e.g., to perform operations on Q1. Thus, this simulation shows that a control **qubit** can be effectively used to turn coupling on and off between a **qubit** and an array of resonators.... figure3 (a) Placing a control **qubit** (Q2) between the active **qubit** (Q1) and the resonator array (R1, R2, R3) allows coupling to be turned on and off. (b) The system is initialized with an excitation in Q1, Q1 is in-resonance with R2, and the **frequencies** of R1 and R3 are set slightly above and below R2, respectively ( ω R 1 > ω R 2 > ω R 3 ). Each vertical cut represents the population in R2 over time at a particular detuning Δ Q 2 , Q 1 , of Q2 from Q1. At zero detuning, the excitation readily **oscillates** in and out of the resonator R2. As Q2 is detuned further away, the coupling between Q1 and R2 becomes weaker, resulting in slower **oscillations** of the excitation. The detuning of the control **qubit** Q2 can be chosen based on the desired time scale, e.g. the time required to manipulate Q1.... figure1(a) Schematic of a **qubit** (Q) coupled to an array of two resonators (R1, R2) via identical coupling capacitors C c . The **qubit** is characterized as having capacitance C J and critical current I c , with bias current I b . The resonators are characterized by inductance L i and capacitance C i , for i = 1 , 2 . (b) For this simulation, the system is initialized with a single excitation in Q, and Q is in-resonance with R1. Each vertical cut represents the population in R1 over time at a particular detuning Δ R 2 , R 1 , of R2 from R1. The **qubit**-resonator coupling strength is 110 MHz. At zero detuning, the excitation **oscillates** between the **qubit** and the two resonators; since the two resonators are identical here, each resonator is only half populated. As R2 is detuned, the excitation **oscillates** between Q and R1 with minimal population in R2. After more **oscillations**, R2 will accumulate some population, even at large detuning, which causes the appearance of ripples.... Next, we investigate the behavior of a system consisting of two **qubits** dispersively coupled to an array of three resonators, as shown in Fig. block2. We consider two cases: (1) All three resonators are designed with the same resonant **frequency**, and (2) the resonant **frequencies** of the three resonators are slightly detuned so that ω R 1 > ω R 2 > ω R 3 . We demonstrate how information in the form of an excitation is transferred dispersively from one **qubit** to another through an array of resonators. In both cases, the system is initialized with a single excitation in Q1, and both **qubits** are held in resonance with each other as the magnitude of their detuning from R2 is decreased from, say, -2000 MHz to -400 MHz.

Data Types:

- Image

We use a small-inductance superconducting loop interrupted by three Josephson junctions (a 3JJ **qubit**) , inductively coupled to a high-quality superconducting tank circuit (Fig. fig1). This approach is similar to the one in entanglement experiments with Rydberg atoms and microwave photons in a cavity . The tank serves as a sensitive detector of Rabi transitions in the **qubit**, and simultaneously as a filter protecting it from noise in the external circuit. Since ω T ≪ Ω / ℏ , the **qubit** is effectively decoupled from the tank unless it **oscillates** with **frequency** ω T . That is, while wide-band (i.e., fast on the **qubit** time scale) detectors up to now have received most theoretical attention (e.g., ), we use narrow-band detection to have sufficient sensitivity at a single **frequency** even with a small coupling coefficient; cf. above Eq. ( S). The tank voltage is amplified and sent to a spectrum analyzer. This is a development of the Silver–Zimmerman setup in the first RF-SQUID magnetometers , and is effective for probing flux **qubits** . As such, it was used to determine the potential profile of a 3JJ **qubit** in the classical regime .... We plotted S V , t ω for different HF powers P in Fig. fig3. As P is increased, ω R grows and passes ω T , leading to a non-monotonic dependence of the maximum signal on P in agreement with the above picture. This, and the sharp dependence on the tuning of ω H F to the **qubit** **frequency**, confirm that the effect is due to Rabi **oscillations**. The inset shows that the shape is given by the second line of Eq. ( S) for all curves.... Measurement setup. The flux **qubit** is inductively coupled to a tank circuit. The DC source applies a constant flux Φ e ≈ 1 2 Φ 0 . The HF generator drives the **qubit** through a separate coil at a **frequency** close to the level separation Δ / h = 868 MHz. The output voltage at the resonant **frequency** of the tank is measured as a function of HF power.... The Al **qubit** inside the Nb pancake coil.... (a) Comparing the data to the theoretical Lorentzian. The fitting parameter is g ≈ 0.02 . Letters in the picture correspond to those in Fig. fig3. (b) The Rabi **frequency** extracted from (a) vs the applied HF amplitude. The straight line is the predicted dependence ω R / ω T = P / P 0 . The good agreement provides strong evidence for Rabi **oscillations**.... The spectral amplitude of the tank voltage for HF powers P a **qubit** modifying the tank’s inductance and hence its central **frequency**, and in principle similarly for dissipation in the **qubit** increasing the tank’s linewidth ; these are inconsequential for our analysis.... Without an HF signal, the **qubit**’s influence at ω T is negligible. Thus, the “dark” trace in Fig. fig3 is a quantitative measure of S b .

Data Types:

- Image

The average energy H of the system as a function of the driving **frequency** ω . The main peak ( ω 0 ≈ 0.6 ) corresponds to the resonance. The left peak at ω 0 / 2 is the nonlinear effect of the excitation by a subharmonic, similar to a multiphoton process in the quantum case. The right peak at 2 ω 0 is the first overtone and it has no quantum counterpart. Here ϕ e d = π ; ϕ e a = 0.05 ; γ = 10 -3 .... The dependence of the pseudo-Rabi **frequency** on the driving amplitude ϕ e a for ω = 0.6 , γ = 10 -3 . The solid line, Ω = 0.35 ϕ e a 2 + ω - 0.63 2 1 / 2 , is the best fit to the calculated data.... (Color online) The potential profile of Eq. ( eq_potential) with α = 0.8 , ϕ e d = π . The arrows indicate quantum (solid) and classical (dotted) **oscillations**.... A quantitative difference between this effect and true Rabi **oscillations** is in the different scale of the resonance **frequency**. To induce Rabi **oscillations** between the lowest quantum levels in the potential ( eq_potential), one must apply a signal in resonance with their tunneling splitting, which is exponentially smaller than ω 0 . Still, this is not a very reliable signature of the effect, since the classical effect can also be excited by subharmonics, ∼ ω 0 / n , as we can see in Fig. fig4.... In the presence of the external field ( eq_external) the system will undergo forced **oscillations** around one of the equlibria. For α = 0.8 , which is close to the parameters of the actual devices , the values of the dimensionless **frequencies** become ω θ ≈ 0.612 , and ω χ ≈ 0.791 . Solving the equations of motion ( eq_motion) numerically, we see the appearance of slow **oscillations** of the amplitude and energy superimposed on the fast forced **oscillations** (Fig. fig2), similar to the classical **oscillations** in a phase **qubit** (Fig. 2 in ). The dependence of the **frequency** of these **oscillations** on the driving amplitude shows an almost linear behaviour (Fig. fig3), which justifies the “Pseudo-Rabi” moniker.... The key observable difference between the classical and quantum cases, which would allow to reliably distinguish between them, is that the classical effect can also be produced by driving the system at the overtones of the resonance signal, ∼ n ω 0 (Fig. fig4). This effect can be detected using a standard technique for RF SQUIDs . The current circulating in the **qubit** circuit produces a magnetic moment, which is measured by the inductively coupled high-quality tank circuit. For the tank voltage V T we have... where τ T = R T C T is the RC-constant of the tank, ω T = L T C T -1 / 2 its resonant **frequency**, M the mutual inductance between the tank and the **qubit**, and I q t the current circulating in the **qubit**. The persistent current in the 3JJ loop can be determined directly from ( eq_I). Its behaviour in the presence of an external RF field is shown in Fig. fig2c. Note that the sign of the current does not change, which is due to the fact that the **oscillations** take place inside one potential well (solid arrow in Fig. fig1), and not between two separate nearby potential minima like in the quantum case. (Alternatively, this would also allow to distinguish between the classical and quantum effects by measuring the magnetization with a DC SQUID.)... (a) Driven **oscillations** around a minimum of the potential profile of Fig. fig1 as a function of time. The driving amplitude is ϕ e a = 0.01 , driving **frequency** ω = 0.612 , and the decay rate γ = 10 -3 . Low-**frequency** classical beat **oscillations** are clearly seen. (b) Low-**frequency** **oscillations** of the persistent current in the 3JJ loop. (c) Same for the energy of the system.

Data Types:

- Image

Decay envelopes of the observed **oscillations** (red points), and relative fitting curves (blue continuous lines).... The **frequency** Ω / 2 π given by eq. omega for ϕ x = 0 as a function of ϕ c = 2 π Φ c / Φ 0 (blue curve). Dashed orizontal lines mark the range of **oscillation** **frequencies** observed (about 10-20 GHz), corresponding to the range of used top values of the applied pulse (defined by the vertical dashed lines). In the inset it is sketched the flux pulse used for the **qubit** manipulation, changing the potential from the two-well “W” case to the single-well “V” case (in red).... Some experimental **oscillations** observed for different pulse height. The measured **frequency** is indicated in the top right part of each plot.... Red points are the decay rate γ I (left panel) and γ I I (right panel) obtained by fitting of the experimental decay curves in **oscillations** with eq. envelope. The blue line in the left panel is the fit of the data points with eq. gammaI (Section 3). In the right panel the blue line is the average value of the scattered values of γ I I

Data Types:

- Image

Pulse sequence producing (trivial) diagonal gate: during time T 1 , **qubit** 1 swaps its state onto the **oscillator**, then the **oscillator** interacts with **qubit** 2 before swapping its state back onto **qubit** 1; free evolution during time T 3 is added to annihilate two-photon state in the cavity.... Protocol for creating a Bell-pair: the cavity **frequency** is sequentially swept through resonances with both **qubits**; at the first resonance the **oscillator** is entangled with **qubit** 1, at the next resonance the **oscillator** swaps its state onto **qubit** 2 and ends up in the ground state. A Bell measurement is performed by applying Rabi pulses to non-interacting **qubits**, and projecting on the **qubit** eigenbasis, | g | e , by measuring quantum capacitance.... Equivalent circuit for the device in Fig. Sketch: chain of L C -**oscillators** represents the stripline cavity, φ 1 and φ N are superconducting phase values at the ends of the cavity, φ j and φ l are local phase values where the **qubits** are attached; attached dc-SQUID has effective flux-dependent Josephson energy, E J s f , and capacitance C s , control line for tuning the SQUID is shown at the right; SCB **qubits** are coupled to the cavity via small capacitances, C c 1 and C c 2 .... Sketch of the device: charge **qubits** (single Cooper pair boxes, SCB) coupled capacitively ( C c ) to a stripline cavity integrated with a dc-SQUID formed by two large Josephson junctions (JJ); cavity eigenfrequency is controlled by magnetic flux Φ through the SQUID.... Jonn,NewJP: the duration of the gate operation in the latter case is h / 8 in the units of inverse coupling energy, while it is 2.7 h for the protocol presented in Fig. fig_prot_SK. This illustrates the advantage of longitudinal, z z coupling (in the **qubit** eigenbasis), which is achieved for the charge **qubits** biased at the charge degeneracy point by current-current coupling. More common for charge **qubits** is the capacitive coupling, however there the situation is different: this coupling has x x symmetry at the charge degeneracy point, and because of inevitable difference in the **qubit** **frequencies**, the gate operation takes much longer time, prolonged by the ratio between the **qubits** **frequency** asymmetry and the coupling **frequency**. Recent suggestions to employ dynamic control methods to effectively bring the **qubits** into resonance can speed up the gate operation. For these protocols, the gate duration is ∼ h in units of direct coupling energy, which is longer than in the case of z z coupling, but somewhat shorter than in our case. However, the protocol considered in this paper might be made faster by using pulse shaping.... For a given eigenmode, the integrated stripline + SQUID system behaves as a lumped **oscillator** with variable **frequency**. Our goal in this section will be to derive an effective classical Lagrangian for this **oscillator**. To this end we consider in Fig. 2qubit_circuit an equivalent circuit for the device depicted in Fig. Sketch. A discrete chain of identical L C -**oscillators**, with phases φ i across the chain capacitors (i=1,…,N), represents the stripline cavity; the dc SQUID is directly attached at the right end of the chain, while the superconducting Cooper pair boxes (SCB) are attached via small coupling capacitors, C c 1 and C c 2 to the chain nodes with local phases, φ j and φ l (for simplicity we consider only two attached SCBs). The classical Lagrangian for this circuit,... Gate circuit for constructing a CNOT gate using the control-phase gate: a z-axis rotation is applied to **qubit** 1, and Hadamard gates H are applied to the second **qubit**.... In this section we modify the Bell state construction to implementing a control-phase (CPHASE) two-**qubit** gate. This gate has the diagonal form: | α β 0 → exp i φ α β | α β 0 ( φ 00 = φ 01 = φ 10 = 0 , φ 11 = π ), and it is equivalent to the CNOT gate (up to local rotations). To generate such a diagonal gate, we adopt the following strategy: first tune the **oscillator** through resonance with both **qubits** performing π -pulse swaps in every step, and then reverse the sequence, as shown in figure fig_prot_naive. With an even number of swaps at every level, clearly the resulting gate will be diagonal.... The experimental setup with the **qubit** coupling to a distributed **oscillator** - stripline cavity possesses potential for scalability - several **qubits** can be coupled to the cavity. In this paper we investigate the possibility to use this setup for implementation of tunable **qubit**-**qubit** coupling and simple gate operations. Tunable **qubit**-cavity coupling is achieved by varying the cavity **frequency** by controlling magnetic flux through a dc-SQUID attached to the cavity (see Fig. Sketch). An advantage of this method is the possibility to keep the **qubits** at the optimal points with respect to decoherence during the whole two-**qubit** operation. The **qubits** coupled to the cavity must have different **frequencies**, and the cavity in the idle regime must be tuned away from resonance with all of the **qubits**. Selective addressing of a particular **qubit** is achieved by relatively slow passage through the resonance of a selected **qubit**, while other resonances are rapidly passed. The speed of the active resonant passage should be comparable to the **qubit**-cavity coupling **frequency** while the rapid passages should be fast on this scale, but slow on the scale of the cavity eigenfrequency in order to avoid cavity excitation. This strategy requires narrow width of the **qubit**-cavity resonances compared to the differences in the **qubit** **frequencies**, determined by the available interval of the cavity **frequency** divided by the number of attached **qubits**. This consideration simultaneously imposes a limit on the maximum number of employed **qubits**. Denoting the difference in the **qubit** energies, Δ E J , the coupling energy, κ , the maximum variation of the cavity **frequency**, Δ ω k , and the number of **qubits**, N , we summarize the above arguments with relations, κ ≪ Δ E J , N ∼ ℏ Δ ω k / Δ E J . In the off-resonance state, the **qubit**-**qubit** coupling strength is smaller than the on-resonance coupling by the ratio, κ / ℏ ω k - E J ≪ 1 .

Data Types:

- Image

Schematic of the Josephson-junction **qubit** structure that enables measurements of the two non-commuting observables of the **qubit**, σ z and σ y , as required in the QND Hamiltonian ( 2). For discussion see text.... Spin representation of the QND measurement of the quantum coherent **oscillations** of a **qubit**. The **oscillations** are represented as a spin rotation in the z - y plane with **frequency** Δ . QND measurement is realized if the measurement frame (dashed lines) rotates with **frequency** Ω ≃ Δ .

Data Types:

- Image

A contour plot indicating location of two-dimensional potential energy minima forming a symmetric double well potential when the cantilever equilibrium angle θ0=cos−1[Φo/2BxA], ωi=2π×12000 rad/s, Bx=5×10−2 T. The contour interval in units of **frequency** (E/h) is ∼4×1011 Hz.
... A superconducting-loop-**oscillator** with its axis of rotation along the z-axis consists of a closed superconducting loop without a Josephson Junction. The superconducting loop can be of any arbitrary shape.
... A contour plot indicating location of a two-dimensional global potential energy minimum at (nΦ0=0, θn+=π/2) and the local minima when the cantilever equilibrium angle θ0=π/2, ωi=2π×12000 rad/s, Bx=5.0×10−2 T. The contour interval in units of **frequency** (E/h) is ∼3.9×1011 Hz.
... The potential energy profile of the superconducting-loop-**oscillator** when the intrinsic **frequency** is 10 kHz. (a) For external magnetic field Bx=0, a single well harmonic potential near the minimum is formed. (b) Bx=0.035 T. (c) For Bx=0.045 T, a double well potential is formed.
... A schematic of the flux-**qubit**-cantilever. A part of the flux-**qubit** (larger loop) is projected from the substrate to form a cantilever. The external magnetic field Bx controls the coupling between the flux-**qubit** and the cantilever. An additional magnetic flux threading through a dc-SQUID (smaller loop) which consists of two Josephson junctions adjusts the tunneling amplitude. The dc-SQUID can be shielded from the effect of Bx.

Data Types:

- Image

4