References

Juan José García Ripoll

doi:10.1017/9781316779460.012

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2022

Juan José García Ripoll

Show author details

Juan José García Ripoll: Affiliation:
Instituto de Física Fundamental (IFF), CSIC, Spain

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Quantum Information and Quantum Optics with Superconducting Circuits , pp. 287 - 298

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779460.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdo, B., Suchoi, O., Segev, E., et al. 2009. Intermodulation and parametric amplification in a superconducting stripline resonator integrated with a dc-SQUID. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 85(6), 68001.Google Scholar

Adesso, Gerardo, Ragy, Sammy, and Lee, Antony R. 2014. Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond. Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 21(01–02), 1440001.Google Scholar

Aharonov, Dorit, van Dam, Wim, Kempe, Julia, Landau, Zeph, Lloyd, Seth, and Regev, Oded. 2004. Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation. SIAM Review, 50(4), 755–787.Google Scholar

Albash, Tameem, and Lidar, Daniel A. 2018. Demonstration of a scaling advantage for a quantum annealer over simulated annealing. Physical Review X 8, 031016 (2018).Google Scholar

Albash, Tameem, Vinci, Walter, Mishra, Anurag, Warburton, Paul A., and Lidar, Daniel A. 2015. Consistency tests of classical and quantum models for a quantum annealer. Physical Review A 91, 042314 (2015).Google Scholar

Anderson, P. W., and Rowell, J. M. 1963. Probable observation of the Josephson superconducting tunneling effect. Physical Review Letters, 10(6), 230–232.Google Scholar

Arute, Frank, Arya, Kunal, Babbush, Ryan, et al. 2019. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779), 505–510.Google Scholar

Arute, Frank, Arya, Kunal, Babbush, Ryan, et al. 2020. Hartree–Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer. Science, 369(6507), 1084–1089.Google Scholar

Astafiev, O., Zagoskin, A. M., Abdumalikov, A. A., et al. 2010. Resonance fluorescence of a single artificial atom. Science (New York, N.Y.), 327(5967), 840–843.Google Scholar

Ballentine, L. E. 1970. The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 42(4), 358–381.Google Scholar

Ballentine, Leslie E. 1998. Quantum Mechanics. World Scientific.Google Scholar

Bapst, V., Foini, L., Krzakala, F., Semerjian, G., and Zamponi, F. 2013. The quantum adiabatic algorithm applied to random optimization problems: the quantum spin glass perspective. Physics Reports, 523(3), 127–205.Google Scholar

Barahona, F. 1982. On the computational complexity of Ising spin glass models. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 15(10), 3241–3253.Google Scholar

Bardeen, J., Cooper, L. N., and Schrieffer, J. R. 1957a. Microscopic theory of superconductivity. Physical Review, 106(1), 162–164.Google Scholar

Bardeen, J., Cooper, L. N., and Schrieffer, J. R. 1957b. Theory of superconductivity. Physical Review, 108(5), 1175–1204.Google Scholar

Barends, R., Kelly, J., Megrant, A., et al. 2014. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature, 508(7497), 500–503.Google Scholar

Baumgratz, T., Cramer, M., and Plenio, M. B. 2014. Quantifying coherence. Physical Review Letters, 113(14), 140401.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Benioff, Paul. 1980. The computer as a physical system: a microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines. Journal of Statistical Physics, 22(5), 563–591.Google Scholar

Bennett, Douglas A., Longobardi, Luigi, Patel, Vijay, Chen, Wei, and Lukens, James E. 2007. rf-SQUID qubit readout using a fast flux pulse. Superconductor Science and Technology, 20(11), S445–S449.Google Scholar

Berkley, A. J., Johnson, M. W., Bunyk, P., et al. 2010. A scalable readout system for a superconducting adiabatic quantum optimization system. Superconductor Science and Technology, 23(10), 105014.Google Scholar

Berkley, A. J., Przybysz, A. J., Lanting, T., et al. 2013. Tunneling spectroscopy using a probe qubit. Physical Review B, 87(2), 020502.Google Scholar

Bialczak, R. C., Ansmann, M., Hofheinz, M., et al. 2010. Quantum process tomography of a universal entangling gate implemented with Josephson phase qubits. Nature Physics, 6(6), 409–413.Google Scholar

Biamonte, Jacob D., and Love, Peter J. 2008. Realizable Hamiltonians for universal adiabatic quantum computers. Physical Review A, 78(1), 012352.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bishop, Lev S., Bravyi, Sergey, Gambetta, Jay M., and Smolin, John. 2017. Quantum Volume. Technical Report.Google Scholar

Blais, Alexandre, Huang, Ren-Shou, Wallraff, Andreas, Girvin, S., and Schoelkopf, R. 2004. Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: an architecture for quantum computation. Physical Review A, 69(6), 062320.Google Scholar

Boixo, Sergio, Albash, Tameem, Spedalieri, Federico M., Chancellor, Nicholas, and Lidar, Daniel A. 2013. Experimental signature of programmable quantum annealing. Nature Communications, 4(1), 2067.Google Scholar

Boixo, Sergio, Rønnow, Troels F., Isa kov, Sergei V., et al. 2014. Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits. Nature Physics, 10(3), 218–224.Google Scholar

Boixo, Sergio, Smelyanskiy, Vadim N., Shabani, Alireza, et al. 2016. Computational multiqubit tunnelling in programmable quantum annealers. Nature Communications, 7(Jan), 10327.Google Scholar

Bombin, H., and Martin-Delgado, M. A. 2006. Topological Quantum Distillation. Physical Review Letters, 97(Oct), 180501.Google Scholar

Bouchiat, V., Vion, D., Joyez, P., Esteve, D., and Devoret, M. H. 1998. Quantum coherence with a single Cooper pair. Physica Scripta, T76(1), 165–170.Google Scholar

Bourassa, J., Gambetta, J., Abdumalikov, A., Astafiev, O., Nakamura, Y., and Blais, A. 2009. Ultrastrong coupling regime of cavity QED with phase-biased flux qubits. Physical Review A, 80(3), 032109.Google Scholar

Bravyi, S. B., and Kitaev, A. Yu. 1998. Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary. e-print arXiv:quant-ph-9811052.Google Scholar

Bravyi, Sergey, DiVincenzo, David P., and Loss, Daniel. 2011. Schrieffer–Wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems. Annals of Physics, 326(10), 2793–2826.Google Scholar

Brecht, T., Chu, Y., Axline, C., et al. 2017. Micromachined integrated quantum circuit containing a superconducting qubit. Physics Review Applied, 7(Apr), 044018.Google Scholar

Brecht, Teresa, Pfaff, Wolfgang, Wang, , et al. 2016. Multilayer microwave integrated quantum circuits for scalable quantum computing. npj Quantum Information, 2(1), 16002.Google Scholar

Brink, Markus, Corcoles-Gonzalez, Antonio, Gambetta, Jay M., Rosenblatt, Sami, and Solgun, Firat. 2019 (May 28). Low loss architecture for superconducting qubit circuits. US Patent 10,305,015.Google Scholar

Brown, K. R., Wilson, A. C., Colombe, Y., et al. 2011. Single-qubit-gate error below 10−4 in a trapped ion. Physics Review A, 84(Sep), 030303.Google Scholar

Cai, Jun, Macready, William G., and Roy, Aidan. 2014. A practical heuristic for finding graph minors. e-print arXiv:1406.2741.Google Scholar

Calderbank, A. R., and Shor, Peter W. 1996. Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. Physical Review A, 54(Aug), 1098–1105.Google Scholar

Castellanos-Beltran, M. A., Irwin, K. D., Vale, L. R., Hilton, G. C., and Lehnert, K. W. 2009. Bandwidth and dynamic range of a widely tunable Josephson parametric amplifier. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 19(3), 944–947.Google Scholar

Chancellor, N., Zohren, S., and Warburton, P. A. 2017. Circuit design for multi-body interactions in superconducting quantum annealing systems with applications to a scalable architecture. npj Quantum Information, 3(1), 21.Google Scholar

Chen, Yu, Neill, C., Roushan, P., et al. 2014. Qubit architecture with high coherence and fast tunable coupling. Physical Review Letters, 113(Nov), 220502.Google Scholar

Chen, Zijun, Satzinger, Kevin J., Atalaya, Juan, et al. 2021. Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction. Nature, 595(7867), 383–387.Google Scholar

Chiorescu, I., Bertet, P., Semba, K., Nakamura, Y., Harmans, C. J. P. M., and Mooij, J. E. 2004. Coherent dynamics of a flux qubit coupled to a harmonic oscillator. Nature, 431(7005), 159–162.Google Scholar

Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., Tornberg, L., et al. 2009. Randomized benchmarking and process tomography for gate errors in a solid-state qubit. Physical Review Letters, 102(9), 090502.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chow, Jerry M., Córcoles, A. D., Gambetta, Jay M., et al. 2011. Simple all-microwave entangling gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 107(8), 080502.Google Scholar

Chow, Jerry M., Gambetta, Jay M., Córcoles, A. D., et al. 2012. Universal quantum gate set approaching fault-tolerant thresholds with superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 109(6), 060501.Google Scholar

Cirac, J. I., and Zoller, P. 1995. Quantum computations with cold trapped ions. Physical Review Letters, 74(20), 4091–4094.Google Scholar

Cirac, J. I., Ekert, A. K., Huelga, S. F., and Macchiavello, C. 1999. Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels. Physical Review A, 59(6), 4249–4254.Google Scholar

Clarke, John, and Braginski, Alex I. (eds). 2004. The SQUID Handbook: Fundamentals and Technology of SQUIDs and SQUID Systems, Volume I. Wiley-VCH.Google Scholar

Clarke, John, and Wilhelm, Frank K. 2008. Superconducting quantum bits. Nature, 453(7198), 1031–1042.Google Scholar

Cohen-Tannoudji, Claude, Diu, Bernard, and Laloë, Franck. 1977. Quantum Mechanics. Wiley.Google Scholar

Consani, Gioele, and Warburton, Paul A. 2020. Effective Hamiltonians for interacting super-conducting qubits: local basis reduction and the Schrieffer–Wolff transformation. New Journal of Physics, 22(5), 053040.Google Scholar

Cooper, Leon N. 1956. Bound electron pairs in a degenerate Fermi gas. Physical Review, 104(4), 1189–1190.Google Scholar

Cory, D. G., Fahmy, A. F., and Havel, T. F. 1997. Ensemble quantum computing by NMR spectroscopy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94(5), 1634–1639.Google Scholar

Cross, Andrew W., Bishop, Lev S., Sheldon, Sarah, Nation, Paul D., and Gambetta, Jay M. 2019. Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits. Physical Review A, 100(Sep), 032328.Google Scholar

Cullen, A. L. 1960. Theory of the travelling-wave parametric amplifier. Proceedings of the IEE Part B: Electronic and Communication Engineering, 107(32), 101.Google Scholar

Deaver, Bascom S., and Fairbank, William M. 1961. Experimental evidence for quantized flux in superconducting cylinders. Physical Review Letters, 7(2), 43–46.Google Scholar

Denchev, Vasil S., Boixo, Sergio, Isakov, Sergei V., et al. 2016. What is the computational value of finite-range tunneling? Physical Review X, 6(3), 031015.Google Scholar

Deutsch, David Elieser. 1985. Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 400(1818), 97–117.Google Scholar

Deutsch, David Elieser. 1989. Quantum computational networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 425(1868), 73–90.Google Scholar

Devoret, M. H. 1995. Quantum fluctuations in electrical circuits. Les Houches, Session LXIII, 351–386.Google Scholar

DiCarlo, L., Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., et al. 2009. Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processor. Nature, 460(7252), 240–244.Google Scholar

DiCarlo, L., Reed, M. D., Sun, L., et al. 2010. Preparation and measurement of three-qubit entanglement in a superconducting circuit. Nature, 467(7315), 574–578.Google Scholar

Dickson, N. G., Johnson, M. W., Amin, M. H., et al. 2013. Thermally assisted quantum annealing of a 16-qubit problem. Nature Communications, 4(1), 1903.Google Scholar

Dieks, D. 1982. Communication by EPR devices. Physics Letters A, 92(6), 271–272.Google Scholar

DiVincenzo, D. P. 1995. Quantum computation. Science, 270(5234), 255–261.Google Scholar

DiVincenzo, David P. 2000. The physical implementation of quantum computation. Fortschritte der Physik, 48(9-11), 771–783.Google Scholar

Dowling, Jonathan P., and Milburn, Gerard J. 2003. Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361(1809), 1655–1674.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Egger, D. J., Werninghaus, M., Ganzhorn, M., et al. 2018. Pulsed reset protocol for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits. Physical Review Applied, 10(Oct), 044030.Google Scholar

Eichler, C., Bozyigit, D., and Wallraff, A. 2012. Characterizing quantum microwave radiation and its entanglement with superconducting qubits using linear detectors. Physical Review A, 86(3), 032106.Google Scholar

Eichler, C., Bozyigit, D., Lang, C., Steffen, L., Fink, J., and Wallraff, A. 2011. Experimental state tomography of itinerant single microwave photons. Physical Review Letters, 106(22), 220503.Google Scholar

Farhi, Edward, Goldstone, Jeffrey, Gutmann, Sam, and Sipser, Michael. 2000. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. arXiv, quant-ph:0(jan).Google Scholar

Feynman, Richard P. 1982. Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6-7), 467–488.Google Scholar

Forn-Díaz, P., Lisenfeld, J., Marcos, D., et al. 2010. Observation of the Bloch–Siegert shift in a qubit-oscillator system in the ultrastrong coupling regime. Physical Review Letters, 105(23), 237001.Google Scholar

Forn-Díaz, P., García-Ripoll, J. J., Peropadre, B., et al. 2016. Ultrastrong coupling of a single artificial atom to an electromagnetic continuum in the nonperturbative regime. Nature Physics, 13(1), 39–43.Google Scholar

Forn-Díaz, P., Warren, C. W., Chang, C. W. S., Vadiraj, A. M., and Wilson, C. M. 2017. On-demand microwave generator of shaped single photons. Physical Review Applied, 8(5), 054015.Google Scholar

Fowler, Austin G., Mariantoni, Matteo, Martinis, John M., and Cleland, Andrew N. 2012. Surface codes: towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Physical Review A, 86(Sep), 032324.Google Scholar

Fowler, Austin G., Stephens, Ashley M., and Groszkowski, Peter. 2009. High-threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code. Physical Review A, 80(Nov), 052312.Google Scholar

Gaebler, J. P., Meier, A. M., Tan, T. R., et al. 2012. Randomized benchmarking of multiqubit gates. Physical Review Letters, 108(26), 260503.Google Scholar

Galindo, Alberto, and Pascual, Pedro. 1991. Time-dependent perturbation theory. Pages 161–199 of: Quantum Mechanics II. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar

García-Ripoll, J. J., Peropadre, B., and De Liberato, S. 2015. Light–matter decoupling and A2 term detection in superconducting circuits. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 16055.Google Scholar

García-Ripoll, J. J., Ruiz-Chamorro, A., and Torrontegui, E. 2020. Quantum control of frequency-tunable transmon superconducting qubits. Physical Review Applied, 14(4), 044035.Google Scholar

Gardiner, C. W., and Zoller, P. 2004. Quantum Noise. 3rd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Gershenfeld, Neil A., and Chuang, Isaac L. 1997. Bulk spin-resonance quantum computation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 275(5298), 350–356.Google Scholar

Gilchrist, Alexei, Langford, Nathan K., and Nielsen, Michael A. 2005. Distance measures to compare real and ideal quantum processes. Physical Review A, 71(6), 062310.Google Scholar

Gor’kov, Lev P. 1959. Microscopic derivation of the Ginzburg–Landau equations in the theory of superconductivity. JETP 36(9), 1364.Google Scholar

Gottesman, Daniel. 1998. Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation. Physical Review A, 57(Jan), 127–137.Google Scholar

Haroche, Serge. 2013. Nobel lecture: controlling photons in a box and exploring the quantum to classical boundary. Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(3), 1083–1102.Google Scholar

Harris, R., Berkley, A. J., Johnson, M. W., et al. 2007. Sign- and magnitude-tunable coupler for superconducting flux qubits. Physical Review Letters, 98(17), 177001.Google Scholar

Harris, R., Johansson, J., Berkley, A. J., et al. 2010a. Experimental demonstration of a robust and scalable flux qubit. Physical Review B, 81(13), 134510.Google Scholar

Harris, R., Johnson, M. W., Lanting, T., et al. 2010b. Experimental investigation of an eight-qubit unit cell in a superconducting optimization processor. Physical Review B, 82(2), 024511.Google Scholar

Harris, R., Lanting, T., Berkley, A. J., et al. 2009. Compound Josephson-junction coupler for flux qubits with minimal crosstalk. Physical Review B, 80(5), 052506.Google Scholar

Harris, R., Sato, Y., Berkley, A. J., et al. 2018. Phase transitions in a programmable quantum spin glass simulator. Science, 361(6398), 162–165.Google Scholar

Hauke, Philipp, Katzgraber, Helmut G, Lechner, Wolfgang, Nishimori, Hidetoshi, and Oliver, William D. 2020. Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations. Reports on Progress in Physics, 83(5), 054401.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. 1925. Über quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Physik, 33(1), 879–893.Google Scholar

Hime, T., Reichardt, P. A., Plourde, B. L. T., et al. 2006. Solid-state qubits with current– controlled coupling. Science (New York, N.Y.), 314(5804), 1427–1429.Google Scholar

Hita-Pérez, María, Jaumá, Gabriel, Pino, Manuel, and García-Ripoll, Juan José. 2022. Ultrastrong capacitive coupling of flux qubits. Physical Review Applied 17, 014028.Google Scholar

Hofheinz, Max, Wang, H., Ansmann, M., et al. 2009. Synthesizing arbitrary quantum states in a superconducting resonator. Nature, 459(7246), 546–549.Google Scholar

Hoi, Io-Chun, Kockum, Anton F., Palomaki, Tauno, et al. 2013. Giant Cross–Kerr effect for propagating microwaves induced by an artificial atom. Physical Review Letters, 111(5), 053601.Google Scholar

Hoi, Io-Chun, Palomaki, Tauno, Lindkvist, Joel, Johansson, Göran, Delsing, Per, and Wilson, C. M. 2012. Generation of nonclassical microwave states using an artificial atom in 1d open space. Physical Review Letters, 108(26), 263601.Google Scholar

Hoi, Io-Chun, Wilson, C. M., Johansson, Göran, Palomaki, Tauno, Peropadre, Borja, and Delsing, Per. 2011. Demonstration of a single-photon router in the microwave regime. Physical Review Letters, 107(7), 073601.Google Scholar

Jansen, Sabine, Ruskai, Mary-Beth, and Seiler, Ruedi. 2007. Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48(10), 102111.Google Scholar

Jaynes, E. T., and Cummings, F. W. 1963. Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser. Proceedings of the IEEE, 51(1), 89–109.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, Evan, Sank, Daniel, Mutus, J. Y., et al. 2014. Fast accurate state measurement with superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 112(19), 190504.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. W., Amin, M. H. S., Gildert, S., et al. 2011. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature, 473(7346), 194–198.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. W., Bunyk, P., Maibaum, F., et al. 2010. A scalable control system for a superconducting adiabatic quantum optimization processor. Superconductor Science and Technology, 23(6), 065004.Google Scholar

Josephson, B. D. 1962. Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling. Physics Letters, 1(7), 251–253.Google Scholar

Kadowaki, Tadashi, and Nishimori, Hidetoshi. 1998. Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model. Physical Review E, 58(5), 5355–5363.Google Scholar

Kandala, Abhinav, Temme, Kristan, Córcoles, Antonio D., Mezzacapo, Antonio, Chow, Jerry M., and Gambetta, Jay M. 2019. Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature, 567(7749), 491–495.Google Scholar

Kato, Tosio. 1950. On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 5(6), 435–439.Google Scholar

Kelly, J., Barends, R., Fowler, A. G., et al. 2015. State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit. Nature, 519(7541), 66–69.Google Scholar

Kempe, Julia, Kitaev, Alexei, and Regev, Oded. 2006. The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(5), 1070–1097.Google Scholar

King, Andrew D., Carrasquilla, Juan, Raymond, Jack, et al. 2018. Observation of topological phenomena in a programmable lattice of 1,800 qubits. Nature, 560(7719), 456–460.Google Scholar

Kitaev, A., Shen, A., and Vyalyi, M. 2002. Classical and Quantum Computation. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar

Knill, E., Leibfried, D., Reichle, R., et al. 2008. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Physical Review A, 77(1), 012307.Google Scholar

Koch, Jens, Yu, Terri, Gambetta, Jay, et al. 2007. Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box. Physical Review A, 76(4), 042319.Google Scholar

Krinner, S., Lazar, S., Remm, A., et al. 2020. Benchmarking coherent errors in controlled-phase gates due to spectator qubits. Physical Review Applied, 14(2), 024042.Google Scholar

Kurcz, Andreas, Bermudez, Alejandro, and García-Ripoll, Juan José. 2014. Hybrid quantum magnetism in circuit QED: from spin-photon waves to many-body spectroscopy. Physical Review Letters, 112(18), 180405.Google Scholar

Landau, L. 1932. Zur theorie der energieubertragung II. Physik. Z. Sowjet, 2, 46–50.Google Scholar

Lanting, T., Przybysz, A. J., Smirnov, A. Yu., et al. 2014. Entanglement in a quantum annealing processor. Physical Review X, 4(2), 021041.Google Scholar

Laurat, Julien, Keller, Gaëlle, Oliveira-Huguenin, José Augusto, et al. 2005. Entanglement of two-mode Gaussian states: characterization and experimental production and manipulation. Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 7(12), S577–S587.Google Scholar

Law, C. K., and Eberly, J. H. 1996. Arbitrary control of a quantum electromagnetic field. Physical Review Letters, 76(7), 1055–1058.Google Scholar

Leggett, A., Chakravarty, S., Dorsey, A., Fisher, Matthew, Garg, Anupam, and Zwerger, W. 1987. Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system. Reviews of Modern Physics, 59(1), 1–85.Google Scholar

Leibfried, D., Blatt, R., Monroe, C., and Wineland, D. 2003. Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(1), 281–324.Google Scholar

Lidar, Daniel A., Rezakhani, Ali T., and Hamma, Alioscia. 2009. Adiabatic approximation with exponential accuracy for many-body systems and quantum computation. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 50(10), 102106.Google Scholar

Lindblad, G. 1976. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 48(2), 119–130.Google Scholar

London, F., London, H., and Lindemann, Frederick Alexander. 1935. The electromagnetic equations of the supraconductor. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 149(866), 71–88.Google Scholar

Loss, Daniel, and DiVincenzo, David P. 1998. Quantum computation with quantum dots. Physical Review A, 57(1), 120–126.Google Scholar

Macklin, C., O’Brien, K., Hover, D., et al. 2015. A near-quantum-limited Josephson traveling-wave parametric amplifier. Science (New York, N.Y.), 350(6258), 307–310.Google Scholar

Magesan, Easwar, Gambetta, J. M., and Emerson, Joseph. 2011. Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Physical Review Letters, 106(18), 180504.Google Scholar

Magesan, Easwar, Gambetta, Jay M., Johnson, B. R., et al. 2012. Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking. Physical Review Letters, 109(8), 080505.Google Scholar

Magnard, P., Kurpiers, P., Royer, B., et al. 2018. Fast and unconditional all-microwave reset of a superconducting qubit. Physical Review Letters, 121(Aug), 060502.Google Scholar

Magnard, P., Storz, S., Kurpiers, P., et al. 2020. Microwave quantum link between super-conducting circuits housed in spatially separated cryogenic systems. Physical Review Letters, 125(26), 260502.Google Scholar

Majer, J., Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., et al. 2007. Coupling superconducting qubits via a cavity bus. Nature, 449(7161), 443–447.Google Scholar

Makhlin, Yuriy, Schön, Gerd, and Shnirman, Alexander. 2001. Quantum-state engineering with Josephson-junction devices. Reviews of Modern Physics, 73(2), 357–400.Google Scholar

Mallet, F., Castellanos-Beltran, M. A., Ku, H. S., et al. 2011. Quantum state tomography of an itinerant squeezed microwave field. Physical Review Letters, 106(22), 220502.Google Scholar

Mandrá, Salvatore, and Katzgraber, Helmut G. 2018. A deceptive step towards quantum speedup detection. Quantum Science and Technology, 3(4), 04LT01.Google Scholar

Mandrá, Salvatore, Zhu, Zheng, Wang, Wenlong, Perdomo-Ortiz, Alejandro, and Katzgraber, Helmut G. 2016. Strengths and weaknesses of weak-strong cluster problems: a detailed overview of state-of-the-art classical heuristics versus quantum approaches. Physical Review A, 94(2), 022337.Google Scholar

McEwen, M., Kafri, D., Chen, Z., et al. 2021. Removing leakage-induced correlated errors in superconducting quantum error correction. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1761.Google Scholar

Menzel, E. P., Deppe, F., Mariantoni, M., et al. 2010. Dual-path state reconstruction scheme for propagating quantum microwaves and detector noise tomography. Physical Review Letters, 105(10), 100401.Google Scholar

Menzel, E. P., Di Candia, R., Deppe, F., et al. 2012. Path entanglement of continuous-variable quantum microwaves. Physical Review Letters, 109(25), 250502.Google Scholar

Merkel, Seth T., Gambetta, Jay M., Smolin, John A., et al. 2013. Self-consistent quantum process tomography. Physical Review A, 87(Jun), 062119.Google Scholar

Mi, Xiao, Ippoliti, Matteo, Quintana, Chris, Greene, , et al. 2022. Observation of time-crystalline eigenstate order on a quantum processor. Nature 601, 531.Google Scholar

Mirrahimi, Mazyar, Leghtas, Zaki, Albert, , et al. 2014. Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quantum computation. New Journal of Physics, 16(4), 045014.Google Scholar

Mlynek, J. A., Abdumalikov, A. A., Eichler, C., and Wallraff, A. 2014. Observation of Dicke superradiance for two artificial atoms in a cavity with high decay rate. Nature Communications, 5(1), 5186.Google Scholar

Mooij, J. E., Orlando, T. P., Levitov, L., Tian, L., van der Wal, C. H., and Lloyd, S. 1999. Josephson persistent-current qubit. Science, 285(5430), 1036–1039.Google Scholar

Nakamura, Y., Chen, C. D., and Tsai, J. S. 1997. Spectroscopy of energy-level splitting between two macroscopic quantum states of charge coherently superposed by Josephson coupling. Physical Review Letters, 79(12), 2328–2331.Google Scholar

Nakamura, Y., Pashkin, Yu. A., and Tsai, J. S. 1999. Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box. Nature, 398(6730), 786–788.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nataf, Pierre, and Ciuti, Cristiano. 2010. No-go theorem for superradiant quantum phase transitions in cavity QED and counter-example in circuit QED. Nature Communications, 1(6), 1–6.Google Scholar

Neeley, Matthew, Ansmann, M., Bialczak, Radoslaw C., et al. 2008. Process tomography of quantum memory in a Josephson-phase qubit coupled to a two-level state. Nature Physics, 4(7), 523–526.Google Scholar

Neill, C., McCourt, T., Mi, X., et al. 2021. Accurately computing the electronic properties of a quantum ring. Nature, 594(7864), 508–512.Google Scholar

Nielsen, M. A, and Chuang, I. L. 2011. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nielsen, Michael A. 2002. A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation. Physics Letters A, 303(4), 249–252.Google Scholar

Niemczyk, T., Deppe, F., Huebl, H., et al. 2010. Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime. Nature Physics, 6(10), 772–776.Google Scholar

Nigg, Simon E., Paik, Hanhee, Vlastakis, , et al. 2012. Black-box superconducting circuit quantization. Physical Review Letters, 108(24), 240502.Google Scholar

Niskanen, A O, Harrabi, K, Yoshihara, F, Nakamura, Y, Lloyd, S, and Tsai, J S. 2007. Quantum coherent tunable coupling of superconducting qubits. Science (New York, N.Y.), 316(5825), 723–726.Google Scholar

O’Brien, J. L., Pryde, G. J., Gilchrist, A., et al. 2004. Quantum process tomography of a controlled-NOT gate. Physical Review Letters, 93(Aug), 080502.Google Scholar

O’Brien, William, Vahidpour, Mehrnoosh, Whyland, Jon Tyler, et al. 2017. Superconducting caps for quantum integrated circuits. e-print arXiv:1708.02219.Google Scholar

Ofek, Nissim, Petrenko, Andrei, Heeres, Reinier, et al. 2016. Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits. Nature, 536(7617), 441–445.Google Scholar

Olivares, S. 2012. Quantum optics in the phase space. European Physical Journal Special Topics, 203(1), 3–24.Google Scholar

Olver, F. W. J., Lozier, D. W., Boisvert, R. F., and Clark, C. W. (eds). 2010. NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

O’Malley, P. J. J., Kelly, J., Barends, R., et al. 2015. Qubit metrology of ultralow phase noise using randomized benchmarking. Physical Review Applied, 3(Apr), 044009.Google Scholar

Orlando, Terry P. 1991. Foundations of Applied Superconductivity. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Ortuño, M., Somoza, A. M., Vinokur, V. M., and Baturina, T. I. 2015. Electronic transport in two-dimensional high dielectric constant nanosystems. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 9667.Google Scholar

Otterbach, J. S., Manenti, R., Alidoust, N., et al. 2017. Unsupervised machine learning on a hybrid quantum computer. e-print arXiv:1712.05771.Google Scholar

Ozfidan, I., Deng, C., Smirnov, A.Y., et al. 2020. Demonstration of a nonstoquastic Hamiltonian in coupled superconducting flux qubits. Physical Review Applied, 13(3), 034037.Google Scholar

Paauw, F., Fedorov, A., Harmans, C., and Mooij, J. 2009. Tuning the gap of a superconducting flux qubit. Physical Review Letters, 102(9), 090501.Google Scholar

Paik, Hanhee, Schuster, D. I., Bishop, Lev S., et al. 2011. Observation of high coherence in Josephson junction qubits measured in a three-dimensional circuit QED architecture. Physical Review Letters, 107(24), 240501.Google Scholar

Pashkin, Yu. A., Yamamoto, T., Astafiev, O., Nakamura, Y., Averin, D. V., and Tsai, J. S. 2003. Quantum oscillations in two coupled charge qubits. Nature, 421(6925), 823–826.Google Scholar

Pechal, M., Huthmacher, L., Eichler, C., et al. 2014. Microwave-controlled generation of shaped single photons in circuit quantum electrodynamics. Physical Review X, 4(4), 041010.Google Scholar

Pegg, D., and Barnett, S. 1989. Phase properties of the quantized single-mode electromagnetic field. Physical Review A, 39(4), 1665–1675.Google Scholar

Peropadre, B., Forn-Díaz, P., Solano, E., and García-Ripoll, J. 2010. Switchable ultrastrong coupling in circuit QED. Physical Review Letters, 105(2), 023601.Google Scholar

Peropadre, B., Zueco, D., Porras, D., and García-Ripoll, J. 2013. Nonequilibrium and nonperturbative dynamics of ultrastrong coupling in open lines. Physical Review Letters, 111(24), 243602.Google Scholar

Pino, Manuel, and García-Ripoll, Juan José. 2018. Quantum annealing in spin-boson model: from a perturbative to an ultrastrong mediated coupling. New Journal of Physics, 20(11), 113027.Google Scholar

Pitaevskii, Lev, and Stringari, Sandro. 2016. Bose-Einstein Condensation and Superfluidity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Place, Alexander P. M., Rodgers, Lila V. H., Mundada, Pranav, et al. 2021. New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1779.Google Scholar

Preskill, John. 2018. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2(Aug.), 79.Google Scholar

Raimond, J. M., Brune, M., and Haroche, S. 2001. Manipulating quantum entanglement with atoms and photons in a cavity. Reviews of Modern Physics, 73(3), 565–582.Google Scholar

Ramos, Tomás, and García-Ripoll, Juan José. 2018. Correlated dephasing noise in single-photon scattering. New Journal of Physics, 20(10), 105007.Google Scholar

Reed, M. D., DiCarlo, L., Johnson, B. R., et al. 2010. High-fidelity readout in circuit quantum electrodynamics using the Jaynes–cummings nonlinearity, 173601. Physical Review Letters, 105(17).Google Scholar

Rigetti, Chad, and Devoret, Michel. 2010. Fully microwave-tunable universal gates in super-conducting qubits with linear couplings and fixed transition frequencies. Physical Review B, 81(13), 134507.Google Scholar

Rigetti, Chad, Gambetta, Jay M., Poletto, Stefano, et al. 2012. Superconducting qubit in a waveguide cavity with a coherence time approaching 0.1 ms. Physical Review B, 86(10), 100506.Google Scholar

Rol, M. A., Battistel, F., Malinowski, F. K., et al. 2019. Fast, high-fidelity conditional-phase gate exploiting leakage interference in weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 123(Sep), 120502.Google Scholar

Romero, G., García-Ripoll, J. J., and Solano, E. 2009a. Microwave photon detector in circuit QED. Physical Review Letters, 102(17), 173602.Google Scholar

Romero, Guillermo, García-Ripoll, Juan José, and Solano, Enrique. 2009b. Photodetection of propagating quantum microwaves in circuit QED. Physica Scripta, T137(T137), 014004.Google Scholar

Rosenblum, S., Reinhold, P., Mirrahimi, M., Jiang, Liang, Frunzio, L., and Schoelkopf, R. J. 2018. Fault-tolerant detection of a quantum error. Science, 361(6399), 266–270.Google Scholar

Roy, Ananda, and Devoret, Michel. 2016. Introduction to parametric amplification of quantum signals with Josephson circuits. Comptes Rendus Physique, 17(7), 740–755.Google Scholar

Sánchez-Burillo, E., Martín-Moreno, L., García-Ripoll, J. J., and Zueco, D. 2016. Full two-photon down-conversion of a single photon. Physical Review A, 94(5), 053814.Google Scholar

Sandberg, M., Wilson, C. M., Persson, F., et al. 2008. Tuning the field in a microwave resonator faster than the photon lifetime. Applied Physics Letters, 92(20), 203501.Google Scholar

Schneider, Christian Markus Florian. 2014. On-Chip Superconducting Microwave Beam Splitter. Ph.D. thesis, TU Munich.Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E. 1926. Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem. Annalen der Physik, 384(4), 361–376.Google Scholar

Schuster, D. I., Houck, A. A., Schreier, J. A., et al. 2007. Resolving photon number states in a superconducting circuit. Nature, 445(7127), 515–518.Google Scholar

Schuster, D. I., Wallraff, A., Blais, A., et al. 2005. ac stark shift and dephasing of a superconducting qubit strongly coupled to a cavity field. Physical Review Letters, 94(12), 123602.Google Scholar

Selby, Alex. 2014. Efficient subgraph-based sampling of Ising-type models with frustration. e-print, sep, arXiv:1409.3934.Google Scholar

Sharafiev, Aleksei, Juan, Mathieu L., Gargiulo, Oscar, et al. 2021. Visualizing the emission of a single photon with frequency and time resolved spectroscopy. Quantum, 5(Jun), 474.Google Scholar

Shi, Tao, Chang, Yue, and García-Ripoll, Juan José. 2018. Ultrastrong coupling few-photon scattering theory. Physical Review Letters, 120(15), 153602.Google Scholar

Shin, Seung Woo, Smith, Graeme, Smolin, John A., and Vazirani, Umesh. 2014. How “quantum” is the D-Wave machine? e-print arXiv:1712.05771.Google Scholar

Shnirman, Alexander, Schön, Gerd, and Hermon, Ziv. 1997. Quantum manipulations of small Josephson junctions. Physical Review Letters, 79(12), 2371–2374.Google Scholar

Shor, Peter W. 1995. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Physical Review A, 52(Oct), R2493–R2496.Google Scholar

Silver, A., and Zimmerman, J. 1967. Quantum states and transitions in weakly connected superconducting rings. Physical Review, 157(2), 317–341.Google Scholar

Steane, Andrew. 1996. Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 452(1954), 2551–2577.Google Scholar

Steffen, Matthias, Ansmann, M., Bialczak, Radoslaw C., et al. 2006. Measurement of the entanglement of two superconducting qubits via state tomography. Science, 313(5792), 1423–1425.Google Scholar

Steffen, Matthias, Kumar, Shwetank, DiVincenzo, David P., et al. 2010. High-coherence hybrid superconducting qubit. Physical Review Letters, 105(Sep), 100502.Google Scholar

Sundaresan, Neereja M., Liu, Yanbing, Sadri, Darius, et al. 2015. Beyond strong coupling in a multimode cavity. Physical Review X, 5(2), 021035.Google Scholar

Susskind, L., and Glogower, J. 1964. Quantum mechanical phase and time operator. Physics, 1, 49–61.Google Scholar

Teufel, Stefan. 2003. Adiabatic Perturbation Theory in Quantum Dynamics. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1821. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Townsend, Christopher, Ketterle, Wolfgang, and Stringari, Sandro. 1997. Bose–Einstein condensation. Physics World, 10(3), 29–36.Google Scholar

van den Brink, Alec Maassen, Berkley, A. J., and Yalowsky, M. 2005. Mediated tunable coupling of flux qubits. New Journal of Physics, 7(1), 230–230.Google Scholar

van der Ploeg, S. H. W., Izmalkov, A., van den Brink, Alec Maassen, et al. 2007. Controllable Coupling of Superconducting Flux Qubits. Physical Review Letters, 98(5), 057004.Google Scholar

van der Wal, C. H., ter Haar, A. C., Wilhelm, F. K., et al. 2000. Quantum superposition of macroscopic persistent-current states. Science, 290(5492), 773–777.Google Scholar

Venturelli, Davide, Mandrá, Salvatore, Knysh, Sergey, O’Gorman, Bryan, Biswas, Rupak, and Smelyanskiy, Vadim. 2015. Quantum optimization of fully connected spin glasses. Physical Review X, 5(3), 031040.Google Scholar

Vlastakis, Brian, Kirchmair, Gerhard, Leghtas, Zaki, et al. 2013. Deterministically encoding quantum information using 100-photon Schrödinger cat states. Science (New York, N.Y.), 342(6158), 607–610.Google Scholar

Wallraff, A., Schuster, D. I., Blais, A., et al. 2004. Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nature, 431(7005), 162–167.Google Scholar

Wallraff, A., Schuster, D. I., Blais, A., et al. 2005. Approaching unit visibility for control of a superconducting qubit with dispersive readout. Physical Review Letters, 95(6), 0650501.Google Scholar

Walls, D. F., and Milburn, G. J. 1994. Quantum Optics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Walter, T., Kurpiers, P., Gasparinetti, S., et al. 2017. Rapid high-fidelity single-shot dispersive readout of superconducting qubits. Physical Review Applied, 7(5), 054020.Google Scholar

Wang, C., Gao, Y. Y., Reinhold, P., et al. 2016. A Schrodinger cat living in two boxes. Science, 352(6289), 1087–1091.Google Scholar

Williams, Colin P. 2011. Quantum Gates. Springer London. Pages 51–122.Google Scholar

Wilson, C. M., Johansson, G., Pourkabirian, A., et al. 2011. Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit. Nature, 479(7373), 376–379.Google Scholar

Wootters, W. K., and Zurek, W. H. 1982. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature, 299(5886), 802–803.Google Scholar

Wu, Yulin, Bao, Wan-Su, Cao, Sirui, Chen, , et al. 2021. Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor. Physical Review Letters 127, 180501.Google Scholar

Yamamoto, T., Neeley, M., Lucero, E., et al. 2010. Quantum process tomography of two-qubit controlled-Z and controlled-NOT gates using superconducting phase qubits. Physical Review B, 82(18), 184515.Google Scholar

Yamamoto, T., Pashkin, Yu. A., Astafiev, O., Nakamura, Y., and Tsai, J. S. 2003. Demonstration of conditional gate operation using superconducting charge qubits. Nature, 425(6961), 941–944.Google Scholar

Yan, F., Gustavsson, S., Kamal, A., et al. 2015. The flux qubit revisited to enhance coherence and reproducibility. e-print, arXiv:1508.06299.Google Scholar

Yan, Fei, Gustavsson, Simon, Kamal, Archana, Birenbaum, , et al. 2016. The flux qubit revisited to enhance coherence and reproducibility. Nature Communications, 7(1), 12964.Google Scholar

Yoshihara, Fumiki, Fuse, Tomoko, Ashhab, Sahel, Kakuyanagi, Kosuke, Saito, Shiro, and Semba, Kouichi. 2016. Superconducting qubit–oscillator circuit beyond the ultrastrong-coupling regime. Nature Physics, 13(1), 44–47.Google Scholar

Yurke, Bernard, and Denker, John. 1984. Quantum network theory. Physical Review A, 29(3), 1419–1437.Google Scholar

Zener, C. 1932. Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 137(833), 696–702.Google Scholar

Zueco, David, and García-Ripoll, Juanjo. 2019. Ultrastrongly dissipative quantum Rabi model. Physical Review A, 99(Jan), 013807.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive