Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 70 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 48 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 24 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 75 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 175 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 447 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro
2000 character limit reached

Resisting high-energy impact events through gap engineering in superconducting qubit arrays (2402.15644v2)

Published 23 Feb 2024 in quant-ph

Abstract: 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.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (37)
  1. Wilen, C. D. et al. Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits. Nature 594, 369–373 (2021). URL http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03557-5.
  2. Cardani, L. et al. Reducing the impact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility. Nature Communications 12, 2733 (2021). URL http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23032-z. _eprint: 2005.02286.
  3. McEwen, M. et al. Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits. Nature Physics 18, 107–111 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-021-01432-8.
  4. TLS Dynamics in a Superconducting Qubit Due to Background Ionizing Radiation (2022). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.04780. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 1.
  5. Cardani, L. et al. Disentangling the sources of ionizing radiation in superconducting qubits (2022). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.13597. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 1.
  6. Harrington, P. M. et al. Synchronous Detection of Cosmic Rays and Correlated Errors in Superconducting Qubit Arrays (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03208. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 1.
  7. Li, X.-G. et al. Direct evidence for cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting qubit array (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04245. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 1.
  8. Kelsey, M. et al. G4CMP: Condensed matter physics simulation using the Geant4 toolkit. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1055, 168473 (2023). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168900223004631.
  9. Nonequilibrium Quasiparticles and 2 e Periodicity in Single-Cooper-Pair Transistors. Physical Review Letters 92, 066802 (2004). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.066802.
  10. Quasiparticle decay rate of Josephson charge qubit oscillations. Physical Review B 72, 014517 (2005). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.014517.
  11. Catelani, G. et al. Quasiparticle Relaxation of Superconducting Qubits in the Presence of Flux. Physical Review Letters 106, 077002 (2011). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.077002. Publisher: American Physical Society.
  12. Relaxation and frequency shifts induced by quasiparticles in superconducting qubits. Physical Review B 84, 064517 (2011). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.064517.
  13. Ristè, D. et al. Millisecond charge-parity fluctuations and induced decoherence in a superconducting qubit (2012). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5459. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 1.
  14. Wang, C. et al. Measurement and control of quasiparticle dynamics in a superconducting qubit. Nature Communications 5, 5836 (2014). URL http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6836.
  15. Gustavsson, S. et al. Suppressing relaxation in superconducting qubits by quasiparticle pumping. Science 354, 1573–1577 (2016). URL https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aah5844.
  16. Serniak, K. et al. Hot Nonequilibrium Quasiparticles in Transmon Qubits. Physical Review Letters 121, 157701 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.157701. Publisher: American Physical Society.
  17. Christensen, B. G. et al. Anomalous charge noise in superconducting qubits. Physical Review B 100, 140503 (2019). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.140503. Publisher: American Physical Society.
  18. Serniak, K. et al. Direct Dispersive Monitoring of Charge Parity in Offset-Charge-Sensitive Transmons. Physical Review Applied 12, 014052 (2019). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.014052.
  19. Diamond, S. et al. Distinguishing parity-switching mechanisms in a superconducting qubit. PRX Quantum 3, 040304 (2022). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07458. ArXiv:2204.07458 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph].
  20. Google Quantum AI et al. Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction. Nature 595, 383–387 (2021). URL http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03588-y. _eprint: 2102.06132.
  21. Google Quantum AI et al. Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit (2022). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06431.
  22. Martinis, J. M. Saving superconducting quantum processors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays. npj Quantum Information 7, 90 (2021). URL http://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-021-00431-0.
  23. Gusenkova, D. et al. Operating in a deep underground facility improves the locking of gradiometric fluxonium qubits at the sweet spots. Applied Physics Letters 120, 054001 (2022). URL https://pubs.aip.org/apl/article/120/5/054001/2833060/Operating-in-a-deep-underground-facility-improves.
  24. Henriques, F. et al. Phonon traps reduce the quasiparticle density in superconducting circuits. Applied Physics Letters 115, 212601 (2019). URL http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5124967. Publisher: AIP Publishing.
  25. Iaia, V. et al. Phonon downconversion to suppress correlated errors in superconducting qubits. Nature Communications 13, 6425 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33997-0.
  26. Bargerbos, A. et al. Mitigation of Quasiparticle Loss in Superconducting Qubits by Phonon Scattering. Physical Review Applied 19, 024014 (2023). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.024014.
  27. Quantitative study of quasiparticle traps using the single-Cooper-pair transistor. Physical Review B 77, 100501 (2008). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.100501.
  28. Gladchenko, S. et al. Superconducting nanocircuits for topologically protected qubits. Nature Physics 5, 48–53 (2009). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1151.
  29. Microwave spectroscopy of a Cooper-pair transistor coupled to a lumped-element resonator. Physical Review B 86, 144512 (2012). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.144512.
  30. Sun, L. et al. Measurements of Quasiparticle Tunneling Dynamics in a Band-Gap-Engineered Transmon Qubit. Physical Review Letters 108, 230509 (2012). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.230509.
  31. Kalashnikov, K. et al. Bifluxon: Fluxon-Parity-Protected Superconducting Qubit. PRX Quantum 1, 010307 (2020). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.010307.
  32. Quasiparticles in Superconducting Qubits with Asymmetric Junctions. PRX Quantum 3, 040338 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040338.
  33. Pan, X. et al. Engineering superconducting qubits to reduce quasiparticles and charge noise. Nature Communications 13, 7196 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34727-2.
  34. Connolly, T. et al. Coexistence of nonequilibrium density and equilibrium energy distribution of quasiparticles in a superconducting qubit (2023). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12330. ArXiv:2302.12330 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph].
  35. Suppression of quasiparticle poisoning in transmon qubits by gap engineering (2023). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.02655. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 2.
  36. Place, A. P. M. et al. New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds. Nature Communications 12, 1779 (2021). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22030-5.
  37. Benevides, R. et al. Quasiparticle dynamics in a superconducting qubit irradiated by a localized infrared source (2023). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05892. ArXiv:2312.05892 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph].
Citations (23)

Summary

  • The paper presents gap engineering as a technique to mitigate quasiparticle-induced errors in superconducting qubit arrays during high-energy impact events.
  • Strongly gap-engineered qubits maintain T1 coherence under high-energy impacts and optical-induced quasiparticle poisoning, unlike weakly engineered ones.
  • The research offers a scalable approach to quantum error correction by integrating gap engineering into existing transmon fabrication methods.

Overview of Gap Engineering in Superconducting Qubit Arrays for Resilience Against High-Energy Impact Events

The paper "Resisting high-energy impact events through gap engineering in superconducting qubit arrays," presents a novel approach to mitigating correlated errors in superconducting qubit arrays caused by high-energy impact events. The researchers focus on gap engineering—a technique that involves varying the superconducting gap across the Josephson junctions of qubits—to suppress the primary mechanisms of quasiparticle (QP) tunneling that induce error bursts.

Key Findings

The paper illustrates a significant contrast in performance between strongly and weakly gap-engineered transmon qubits when subjected to high-energy impact events. Strongly gap-engineered qubits exhibit no degradation in the energy relaxation time (T1T_1) during high-energy impacts, demonstrating robust immunity to QP-induced correlated errors. Conversely, weakly gap-engineered qubits show clear signs of correlated T1T_1 decay.

The paper reports that strongly gap-engineered qubits also remain unaffected by QP poisoning caused by increased optical illumination, showing resilience where the weakly gap-engineered counterparts fail. This resilience is attributed to the higher superconducting gap in the junction region, which creates an energy barrier that QPs cannot surmount, thereby preventing T1T_1 degradation.

Experimental Methods

The authors fabricated an array of 12 transmon qubits using all-aluminum substrates, with both layers of varying thickness to achieve differing levels of gap engineering. Measurements were conducted using rapid repetitive correlated sampling to identify and assess the effects of high-energy impacts on qubit error rates.

In addition, they employed optical illumination to artificially elevate QP densities, thereby assessing the qubits' coherence under controlled conditions. Notably, strongly gap-engineered qubits maintained coherent function under optical powers capable of severely affecting weakly engineered qubits, highlighting the effectiveness of this approach.

Implications and Future Directions

Gap engineering as demonstrated in this research offers a straightforward method to mitigate high-energy impact-related errors without the complexity associated with phonon or QP trapping techniques. This approach effectively addresses a major potential roadblock in scaling quantum error correction (QEC) techniques to achieve fault-tolerant quantum computing.

Despite the advancements shown, further exploration into reducing QP population through alternative methods remains necessary. Techniques like phonon trapping will be crucial to address other sources of loss, including QP scattering in the capacitor material. Additionally, since the gap engineering approach does not resolve TLS scrambling due to high-energy events, it remains vital to improve TLS density or implement dynamic frequency tuning techniques for real-time recalibration.

The paper's findings indicate that future QEC experiments can proceed without being limited by high-energy impact-induced error floors, thus enhancing the scalability and reliability of superconducting qubit systems. This development promises a significant step toward implementing large-scale quantum computations in practical settings. The ease of incorporating gap engineering into current superconducting qubit fabrication processes further accentuates its potential widespread adoption in the field of quantum technology.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 3 posts and received 174 likes.