Resisting high-energy impact events through gap engineering in superconducting qubit arrays

  1. Matt McEwen,
  2. Kevin C. Miao,
  3. Juan Atalaya,
  4. Alex Bilmes,
  5. Alex Crook,
  6. Jenna Bovaird,
  7. John Mark Kreikebaum,
  8. Nicholas Zobrist,
  9. Evan Jeffrey,
  10. Bicheng Ying,
  11. Andreas Bengtsson,
  12. Hung-Shen Chang,
  13. Andrew Dunsworth,
  14. Julian Kelly,
  15. Yaxing Zhang,
  16. Ebrahim Forati,
  17. Rajeev Acharya,
  18. Justin Iveland,
  19. Wayne Liu,
  20. Seon Kim,
  21. Brian Burkett,
  22. Anthony Megrant,
  23. Yu Chen,
  24. Charles Neill,
  25. Daniel Sank,
  26. Michel Devoret,
  27. and Alex Opremcak
Quantum error correction (QEC) provides a practical path to fault-tolerant quantum computing through scaling to large qubit numbers, assuming that physical errors are sufficiently uncorrelated
in time and space. In superconducting qubit arrays, high-energy impact events produce correlated errors, violating this key assumption. Following such an event, phonons with energy above the superconducting gap propagate throughout the device substrate, which in turn generate a temporary surge in quasiparticle (QP) density throughout the array. When these QPs tunnel across the qubits‘ Josephson junctions, they induce correlated errors. Engineering different superconducting gaps across the qubit’s Josephson junctions provides a method to resist this form of QP tunneling. By fabricating all-aluminum transmon qubits with both strong and weak gap engineering on the same substrate, we observe starkly different responses during high-energy impact events. Strongly gap engineered qubits do not show any degradation in T1 during impact events, while weakly gap engineered qubits show events of correlated degradation in T1. We also show that strongly gap engineered qubits are robust to QP poisoning from increasing optical illumination intensity, whereas weakly gap engineered qubits display rapid degradation in coherence. Based on these results, gap engineering removes the threat of high-energy impacts to QEC in superconducting qubit arrays.

Measurement-Induced State Transitions in a Superconducting Qubit: Within the Rotating Wave Approximation

  1. Mostafa Khezri,
  2. Alex Opremcak,
  3. Zijun Chen,
  4. Andreas Bengtsson,
  5. Theodore White,
  6. Ofer Naaman,
  7. Rajeev Acharya,
  8. Kyle Anderson,
  9. Markus Ansmann,
  10. Frank Arute,
  11. Kunal Arya,
  12. Abraham Asfaw,
  13. Joseph C Bardin,
  14. Alexandre Bourassa,
  15. Jenna Bovaird,
  16. Leon Brill,
  17. Bob B. Buckley,
  18. David A. Buell,
  19. Tim Burger,
  20. Brian Burkett,
  21. Nicholas Bushnell,
  22. Juan Campero,
  23. Ben Chiaro,
  24. Roberto Collins,
  25. Alexander L. Crook,
  26. Ben Curtin,
  27. Sean Demura,
  28. Andrew Dunsworth,
  29. Catherine Erickson,
  30. Reza Fatemi,
  31. Vinicius S. Ferreira,
  32. Leslie Flores-Burgos,
  33. Ebrahim Forati,
  34. Brooks Foxen,
  35. Gonzalo Garcia,
  36. William Giang,
  37. Marissa Giustina,
  38. Raja Gosula,
  39. Alejandro Grajales Dau,
  40. Michael C. Hamilton,
  41. Sean D. Harrington,
  42. Paula Heu,
  43. Jeremy Hilton,
  44. Markus R. Hoffmann,
  45. Sabrina Hong,
  46. Trent Huang,
  47. Ashley Huff,
  48. Justin Iveland,
  49. Evan Jeffrey,
  50. Julian Kelly,
  51. Seon Kim,
  52. Paul V. Klimov,
  53. Fedor Kostritsa,
  54. John Mark Kreikebaum,
  55. David Landhuis,
  56. Pavel Laptev,
  57. Lily Laws,
  58. Kenny Lee,
  59. Brian J. Lester,
  60. Alexander T. Lill,
  61. Wayne Liu,
  62. Aditya Locharla,
  63. Erik Lucero,
  64. Steven Martin,
  65. Matt McEwen,
  66. Anthony Megrant,
  67. Xiao Mi,
  68. Kevin C. Miao,
  69. Shirin Montazeri,
  70. Alexis Morvan,
  71. Matthew Neeley,
  72. Charles Neill,
  73. Ani Nersisyan,
  74. Jiun How Ng,
  75. Anthony Nguyen,
  76. Murray Nguyen,
  77. Rebecca Potter,
  78. Chris Quintana,
  79. Charles Rocque,
  80. Pedram Roushan,
  81. Kannan Sankaragomathi,
  82. Kevin J. Satzinger,
  83. Christopher Schuster,
  84. Michael J. Shearn,
  85. Aaron Shorter,
  86. Vladimir Shvarts,
  87. Jindra Skruzny,
  88. W. Clarke Smith,
  89. George Sterling,
  90. Marco Szalay,
  91. Douglas Thor,
  92. Alfredo Torres,
  93. Bryan W. K. Woo,
  94. Z. Jamie Yao,
  95. Ping Yeh,
  96. Juhwan Yoo,
  97. Grayson Young,
  98. Ningfeng Zhu,
  99. Nicholas Zobrist,
  100. and Daniel Sank
Superconducting qubits typically use a dispersive readout scheme, where a resonator is coupled to a qubit such that its frequency is qubit-state dependent. Measurement is performed
by driving the resonator, where the transmitted resonator field yields information about the resonator frequency and thus the qubit state. Ideally, we could use arbitrarily strong resonator drives to achieve a target signal-to-noise ratio in the shortest possible time. However, experiments have shown that when the average resonator photon number exceeds a certain threshold, the qubit is excited out of its computational subspace, which we refer to as a measurement-induced state transition. These transitions degrade readout fidelity, and constitute leakage which precludes further operation of the qubit in, for example, error correction. Here we study these transitions using a transmon qubit by experimentally measuring their dependence on qubit frequency, average photon number, and qubit state, in the regime where the resonator frequency is lower than the qubit frequency. We observe signatures of resonant transitions between levels in the coupled qubit-resonator system that exhibit noisy behavior when measured repeatedly in time. We provide a semi-classical model of these transitions based on the rotating wave approximation and use it to predict the onset of state transitions in our experiments. Our results suggest the transmon is excited to levels near the top of its cosine potential following a state transition, where the charge dispersion of higher transmon levels explains the observed noisy behavior of state transitions. Moreover, occupation in these higher energy levels poses a major challenge for fast qubit reset.

Readout of a quantum processor with high dynamic range Josephson parametric amplifiers

  1. T. C. White,
  2. Alex Opremcak,
  3. George Sterling,
  4. Alexander Korotkov,
  5. Daniel Sank,
  6. Rajeev Acharya,
  7. Markus Ansmann,
  8. Frank Arute,
  9. Kunal Arya,
  10. Joseph C Bardin,
  11. Andreas Bengtsson,
  12. Alexandre Bourassa,
  13. Jenna Bovaird,
  14. Leon Brill,
  15. Bob B. Buckley,
  16. David A. Buell,
  17. Tim Burger,
  18. Brian Burkett,
  19. Nicholas Bushnell,
  20. Zijun Chen,
  21. Ben Chiaro,
  22. Josh Cogan,
  23. Roberto Collins,
  24. Alexander L. Crook,
  25. Ben Curtin,
  26. Sean Demura,
  27. Andrew Dunsworth,
  28. Catherine Erickson,
  29. Reza Fatemi,
  30. Leslie Flores-Burgos,
  31. Ebrahim Forati,
  32. Brooks Foxen,
  33. William Giang,
  34. Marissa Giustina,
  35. Alejandro Grajales Dau,
  36. Michael C. Hamilton,
  37. Sean D. Harrington,
  38. Jeremy Hilton,
  39. Markus Hoffmann,
  40. Sabrina Hong,
  41. Trent Huang,
  42. Ashley Huff,
  43. Justin Iveland,
  44. Evan Jeffrey,
  45. Mária Kieferová,
  46. Seon Kim,
  47. Paul V. Klimov,
  48. Fedor Kostritsa,
  49. John Mark Kreikebaum,
  50. David Landhuis,
  51. Pavel Laptev,
  52. Lily Laws,
  53. Kenny Lee,
  54. Brian J. Lester,
  55. Alexander Lill,
  56. Wayne Liu,
  57. Aditya Locharla,
  58. Erik Lucero,
  59. Trevor McCourt,
  60. Matt McEwen,
  61. Xiao Mi,
  62. Kevin C. Miao,
  63. Shirin Montazeri,
  64. Alexis Morvan,
  65. Matthew Neeley,
  66. Charles Neill,
  67. Ani Nersisyan,
  68. Jiun How Ng,
  69. Anthony Nguyen,
  70. Murray Nguyen,
  71. Rebecca Potter,
  72. Chris Quintana,
  73. Pedram Roushan,
  74. Kannan Sankaragomathi,
  75. Kevin J. Satzinger,
  76. Christopher Schuster,
  77. Michael J. Shearn,
  78. Aaron Shorter,
  79. Vladimir Shvarts,
  80. Jindra Skruzny,
  81. W. Clarke Smith,
  82. Marco Szalay,
  83. Alfredo Torres,
  84. Bryan Woo,
  85. Z. Jamie Yao,
  86. Ping Yeh,
  87. Juhwan Yoo,
  88. Grayson Young,
  89. Ningfeng Zhu,
  90. Nicholas Zobrist,
  91. Yu Chen,
  92. Anthony Megrant,
  93. Julian Kelly,
  94. and Ofer Naaman
We demonstrate a high dynamic range Josephson parametric amplifier (JPA) in which the active nonlinear element is implemented using an array of rf-SQUIDs. The device is matched to the
50 Ω environment with a Klopfenstein-taper impedance transformer and achieves a bandwidth of 250-300 MHz, with input saturation powers up to -95 dBm at 20 dB gain. A 54-qubit Sycamore processor was used to benchmark these devices, providing a calibration for readout power, an estimate of amplifier added noise, and a platform for comparison against standard impedance matched parametric amplifiers with a single dc-SQUID. We find that the high power rf-SQUID array design has no adverse effect on system noise, readout fidelity, or qubit dephasing, and we estimate an upper bound on amplifier added noise at 1.6 times the quantum limit. Lastly, amplifiers with this design show no degradation in readout fidelity due to gain compression, which can occur in multi-tone multiplexed readout with traditional JPAs.