ZZ freedom in two qubit gates

Xuexin Xu and M.H. AnsariInstitute for Quantum Information, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany

Peter Grünberg Institute, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich 52428, Germany andJülich-Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), Fundamentals of Future Information Technologies, Jülich 52428, Germany∗

Superconducting qubits on a circuit exhibit an always-on state-dependent phase error. This erroris due to sub-MHz parasitic interaction that repels computational levels from non-computationalones. We study a general theory to evaluate the ‘static’ repulsion between seemingly idle qubitsas well as the ‘dynamical’ repulsion between entangled qubits under microwave driving gate. Bycombining qubits of either the same or opposite anharmonicity signs we find the characteristics ofstatic and dynamical ZZ freedoms. The latter universally eliminate the parasitic repulsion, leadingus to mitigate high fidelity gate operation. Our theory introduces new opportunities for makingperfect entangled and unentangled states which is extremely useful for quantum technology.

I. INTRODUCTION

High-performance quantum processors require im-provements in the fidelity of quantum logic gates. Suchimprovements provide opportunities for near term quan-tum systems to demonstrate multi-partite entanglement[1, 2] and full-fledged quantum error correction for sur-passing classical computer power [3, 4]. These mile-stones can be achieved with the advent of long coherencequbits that can quickly go from perfect isolated stateto strongly interacting entanglement and vice versa, us-ing programmable electronics [5–7]. In the last decademany advances have taken place to suppress degradinginteractions among qubits as well as between a qubit andenvironmental noise and quasiparticles [8–13]. Howeverstate-of-the-art quantum systems are yet far from beingperfect [14].

In today’s quantum processors single qubit rotation isfast and precise, however two-qubit entanglement is yetto achieve a high contrast on/off operation with logicalerror rates below error correction threshold [15–18]. Apair of idle qubits initialized at either |00〉 or |11〉 accumu-late the phase error exp(iζt/4) after time t, while |01〉 and|10〉 do it differently with the error being exp(−iζt/4).Experiments show ζ is a sub-MHz coupling strength. Intheory this extra force is generated due to level repul-sion between computational levels, e.g. E11, and non-computational, e.g. E02 or E20 [19]. Within computa-tional subspace this repulsion is a ZZ interaction, with Zbeing σz Pauli operator, and is always internally presentbetween any pair of qubits on the circuit and is calledstatic ZZ interaction. The effect of static ZZ interactiongoes beyond accumulating idle phase error. Externallydriven qubits by 2-qubit gates produces additional ZZcomponent on top of the static one that keeps two-qubitgates from achieving high fidelity entanglement [20–22].Therefore freeing qubits from the unwanted ZZ interac-tion is highly demanded for increasing gate fidelity, whichis the purpose of this paper.

∗ x.xu@fz-juelich.de

In the first part we discuss Hamiltonian circuit analy-sis for demonstrating static ZZ freedom. This is betterto take place first in the circuit model before fabricat-ing the actual circuit as it requires delicate parametertuning. We keep this part at general and self-containedas possible and indicate how all circuit parameters canimpact achieving the freedom. Some of the main gameplayers are qubit-qubit direct coupling and qubit anhar-monicity values and signs. We examine several circuitswith the same-sign anharmonicity, such as 2 transmondevices. Some of our samples are set to be similar tothose tested in [23–25]. We show new possibilities for ze-roing repulsion between two transmons, for example bycontrolling their capacitive direct coupling. We developour theory on circuits with opposite sign anharmonicity,such as in [19], and show under what conditions the exactZZ freedom becomes possible.

In the second part we discuss a new strategy for zero-ing unwanted ZZ interaction, the dynamical ZZ freedom.This is applicable for circuits with built-in ZZ interac-tion, for instance in large processors with many qubitseliminating all static ZZ interactions seems not to be pos-sible. We propose to apply microwave pulses on qubits ina way similar to cross resonance (CR) gates [26]. The mi-crowave pulse produces additional ZZ component on topof the static part and we show that for certain circuitparameters this is possible to have the two parts can-celing each other, resulting in zero total ZZ interaction.This allows to make perfect entanglement as well as unen-tanglement in absence of parasitic interaction. Interest-ingly dynamical ZZ freedom can be universally achievedin qubits with any anharmonicity sign.

II. GENERAL MODEL

Physical qubits have more than two energy levels andcan be found in two classes (anharmonicity species): pos-itive or negative anharmonicity. In qubits with posi-tive (negative) anharmonicity higher levels are farther(closer) apart. A negative anharmonic qubit is trans-mon and an example of positively anharmonic qubit is acapacitively shunted flux qubit (CSFQ) [5]. In a singleJosephson junction (JJ) transmon a rather large capaci-tance shunts the charging energy to warrant less sensitiv-

arX

iv:2

009.

0048

5v2

[qu

ant-

ph]

12

Mar

202

1

mailto:x.xu@fz-juelich.de

2

ity to charge fluctuations. A CSFQ, as depicted in Fig.1(a), replaces the JJ with a closed loop of three junctions,i.e. two in-series JJ parallel to a smaller JJ (smaller incritical current and capacitance) [27].

A single JJ transmon can be classically characterizedby the flux Φ and its canonical conjugate Q = 2en beingthe electric charge of n Cooper pairs tunnelling acrossthe JJ, e being electron charge. The device has a peri-odic potential energy, i.e. −EJ cos (2πΦ/Φ0) with theJosephson energy EJ ≡ I0Φ0/2π proportional to thecritical current I0 and the flux quantum Φ0 = h/2e,h being Planck constant. Variables can be simplifiedto φ ≡ 2πΦ/Φ0 and its conjugate n~ whose quanti-zation can take place in the Fock space of quantumstates |m〉 with m = 0, 1, 2, · · · and annihilation andcreation operators â =

∑m

√m|m〉〈m + 1| and ↠=∑

m

√m+ 1|m+1〉〈m|. A transmon canonical operators

are defined φ̂ = φzpf(â+â†) and n̂ = inzpf(â−â†) with thezero-point fluctuations φzpf and nzpf, satisfying the min-imum uncertainty φzpfnzpf = 1/2. The fluctuations canbe determined by the characteristic impedance Zc, i.e.φzpf =

√~Zc/2. A transmon’s small anharmonicity al-

lows to approximate the periodic potential energy in thevicinity of minimum with a 4th degree polynomial mak-ing a Duffing oscillator, i.e. H = ωâ†â+ (δ/12)(â+ â†)4with δ being anharmonicity. Higher order corrections areknown [28].

The CSFQ depicted in Fig. 1(a) has two in-series iden-tical JJ’s in a closed loop with a smaller JJ that hassmaller critical current αI0 and capacitance αCJ withα < 1. The loop carries negligible kinetic inductanceand an external magnetic flux Φext in the loop which cantune the potential energy [27]. A CSFQ potential energyis −EJ [cos(φ1−φ2)+cos(φ2−φ3)−α cos(2πf−φ1+φ3)]with f being Φext/Φ0. Defining the two variables φ =φ1 − φ3 and φ′ = φ1 − 2φ2 + φ3 and working out cor-responding charging energies, one can show φ′ modehas negligible influence on the potential and can be dis-carded, see Appendix A. This simplifies the potentialto −EJ [2 cos (φ/2) + α cos (2πf − φ)]. Under the con-dition α < 1/2 this potential can be used as a qubit be-cause each period conveys one minimum, not more. Thepotential is the most symmetric at the so-called ‘SweetSpot’ (SS) where f = 1/2. A less symmetric potentialat f = 1/2 + δf with δf � 1/2 − α has a minimumat φ0 = −2πα(δf)/(1/2 − α) and in the vicinity of theminimum with phase differece ∆φ = φ−φ0 it can be ap-proximated to (1− 2α)EJ∆φ2/4+(α− 1/8)EJ∆φ4/4!+2π(δf)αEJ(∆φ−∆φ3/6). This potential has the simpleform of a Duffing oscillator at SS, i.e. δf = 0, withthe periodic frequency ~ω =

√8EJEC(1/2− α), anhar-

monicity δ = 4EC(α−1/8)/(1−2α), and zero point phasefluctuations φzpf = [4EC/EJ(1 − 2α)]1/4. In contrast toa transmon, a CSFQ with 1/8 < α < 1/2 has positiveanharmonicity; see Appendix A for quantization.A hybrid two-qubit circuit: We consider qubits Q1

and Q2 coupled via a coupler C, such as a bus resonator.Each one of the two qubits can have positive or negative

FIG. 1. (a) A CSFQ, (b) A CSFQ-Transmon circuit coupledcapacitively by g12 and via a coupler, each qubit is measured,(c) Energy diagram of a circuit with two qubits Q1 and Q2and a resonator coupler C. Qubits have similar anharmonic-ity δ and frequency detuning ∆, i.e. ω1 = ω2 −∆. The plotshows how different noninteracting eigenstates |nQ1, nC , nQ2〉are coupled to one another by headed lines based on differ-ent interaction terms in the Hamiltonian (1). Red head linesindicate level repulsion due to co-rotating terms in the inter-actions. White head lines indicate level repulsions by counter-rotating terms.

anharmonicity. In the circuit depicted in Fig. 1(b) wegive an example of Q1 being transmon and Q2 being aCSFQ, however we keep this section general without re-ferring to the qubit species. Q1 and Q2 may have smallcapacitive coupling g12 on top of indirect coupling via thecoupler. The circuit Hamiltonian is

H =∑i,ni

ωi(ni)|ni+ 1〉〈ni+ 1|+∑j(6=i)

gij(âi+ â†i )(âj + â

†j)

(1)with i = 1, 2 for qubits and c for the coupler. The energylevels in the bare basis associated to free Hamiltonian areEn1 and En2 for qubits and Enc for the coupler. ωi(ni)is the difference between Eni+1 and Eni , therefore qubitfrequencies are ω1/2(0) or simply ω1/2. The coupler fre-quency ωc is far detuned from qubits in order to warrantno backaction from the coupler on the qubit driving whenexternal gates are applied.

Let us further analyse the Hamiltonian (1). Con-sider a fixed frequency Q2 from which Q1 is detunedby ∆, i.e. ω1 = ω2 − ∆ and similar anharmonicityδ. Given that |n1, nc, n2〉 is an eigenstate for noninter-acting Hamiltonian, interaction with coupling strength(g1c)

k provides transition to |n1±k, nc∓k, n2〉, with thestrength (g2c)k to |n1, nc ∓ k, n2 ± k〉, with the strength(g12)

k to |n1 ± k, nc, n2 ∓ k〉, with the strength g1cg2c to

3

|n1±1, nc∓2, n2±1〉, and so on. Figure 1(c) shows thesetransitions marked by co-rotating terms such as âiâ

†j by

red heads. The counter-rotating terms in intersactionsuch as âiâj are indicated by white heads. Each couplingis labelled by the interaction term in the Hamiltonianthat is responsible for it. One can see in Fig. 1(c) that thetransition between |200〉 and |101〉 takes place either bydirect coupling g12 or via the intermediate state |110〉. Inabsence of direct coupling the avoided crossing betweenthe two levels has been found

√2g1cg2c/∆2(∆1 + δ) in

Ref. [29]. The seemingly non-interacting levels may stayso, or may interact via n photons for n > 2 or underexternal gates.Effective circuit Hamiltonian: To reduce quantum

computation errors all circuit elements should be in thedispersive regime, i.e. with coupling strengths gij muchweaker than frequency detuning ∆ij ≡ ωi − ωj [30]. Inthis limit the Schrieffer-Wolff (SW) transformation [31]simplifies Eq. (1) to this qubit-qubit Hamiltonian:

H =∑nq

ω̄q(nq)|nq + 1〉〈nq + 1|+∑n1,n2

√(n1 + 1)(n2 + 1)

× Jn1,n2 (|n1, n2 + 1〉〈n1 + 1, n2|+ h.c.) , (2)with dressed frequency ω̄q(nq) being the difference be-tween Ēnq+1 and Ēnq in dressed basis associated to inter-acting Hamiltonian. The qubit-qubit coupling strengthwithin two photons limit is

Jn1n2 ≡ g12 −g1cg2c

2

∑q=1,2

[1

∆q(nq)+

1

Σq(nqc)

], (3)

with ∆q(nq) ≡ ωc − ωq(nq) and Σq(nq) ≡ ωc + ωq(nq).One can find the qubit dressed frequency ω̄q(nq) =ωq(nq)−g2qc(nq +1)/∆q(nq) and its dressed anharmonic-ity δ̄q = δq[1− 2g2qc/∆q(∆q − δq)].

Let us briefly discuss the impact of measurement ofqubits. Readout measurement usually takes place bymeans of weakly coupling a qubit to a resonator withthe interaction HqR = gqR(âq + â†q)(âR + â

†R). The pro-

cess of eliminating the readout resonator can take placebefore or after eliminating the coupler. The differencereturns some small leftovers in dressed qubit frequencyđω and anharmonicity đδ, which aređω̃2g6

= −đω̃1g6

=(∆ + 2∆2)

2(∆2 + ∆∆2 + ∆22)

2∆∆42(∆ + ∆2)4

, (4)

đδ̃1/22g6

= − (∆2 − δ1/2)3 + (δ1/2 + ∆2)∆

22

(∆32∆∓ δ1/2)(∆2 − δ1/2)4± 2

∆∆42, (5)

with universal coupling g and two qubit detuning ∆ =ω2 − ω1, and δ1, δ2,∆� ∆2.

The effective Hamiltonian approach is limited to dis-persive regime as shown in Ref. [32], therefore qubitswith small frequency detuning must be treated non-perturbatively. Moreover external driving Hamiltonianshould be treated with methods other than SW such asthe method described in Ref. [33, 34] to express nonper-turbative strong driving impacts.

CSFQ-Transmon

0. 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

-20-15-10-50

Δ (GHz)

E dress-E bar

e(MHz

)

(a)

|01〉|10〉|11〉|02〉|20〉

Transmon-Transmon

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0.-20-15-10-50

Δ (GHz)

E dress-E bar

e(MHz

)

(b)

FIG. 2. Difference between interacting and noninteractingenergy levels obtained from Hamiltonian (1) in (a) a CSFQ-transmon and (b) a transmon-transmon device. Circuit pa-rameters are similar to those used in Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 3(d).

III. STATIC ZZ FREEDOM

The qubit-qubit Hamiltonian (2) has been written forany number of qubit energy levels. Further block diag-onalization separates the computational subspace fromhigher excitations. Within the dispersive regime the com-putational form of qubit-qubit Hamiltonian turns out tohave the following operator structure:

Heff = ω̃1 |10〉 〈10|+ ω̃2 |01〉 〈01|+ (ω̃1 + ω̃2 + ζ) |11〉 〈11| ,

= − ω̃1 + ζ/22

ZI− ω̃2 + ζ/22

IZ +ζ

4ZZ. (6)

Defining En1n2 the energy level with qubit 1 and 2 atlevels n1 and n2, one can find a general definition for theonly interaction term present in Eq. (6) based on energylevels:

ζ = E11 − E10 − E01 + E00, (7)

This interaction term is called static ZZ interactionsince it is always present even when qubits are idle. Letus emphasize that Eq. (7) is an original definition ofstatic ZZ interaction that can be achieved only by takingthe operator form of Eq. (6) into account. Perturbationtheory can evaluate the following ζ and dressed frequen-cies within the dispersive regime:

ζ = 2J210/(∆̄− δ̄1)− 2J201/(∆̄ + δ̄2), (8)ω̃1 = ω̄1 − J200/∆̄, and ω̃2 = ω̄2 + J200/∆̄, (9)

with ∆̄ ≡ ω̄2 − ω̄1. There are a number of divergencesin Eq. (8), however since the original definition Eq. (7)is divergence-free, the divergences are the consequence ofour perturbative block-diagonalization, therefore resultsin the vicinity of these divergences are inaccurate.

The dressed frequency shifts depend on the couplingstrength J00, which causes 0→ 1 transition in one qubitand 1 → 0 transition in the other one. As shown in Eq.(9) J00/∆̄ is subtracted from the frequency of a qubit andthe same amount is added to the other one. Thereforebased in the definition Eq. (7) J00 does not contribute to

4

the static ZZ coupling strength. However the contribu-tion of higher excitations is different; J01 and J10 couple0 ↔ 1 transition in one qubit and 2 ↔ 1 transition inthe other one. The repulsive interaction between E11and the non-computational levels E02 and E20 can can-cel one another, making ZZ interaction zero, if E11 canbe in between and near the two non-computational lev-els. We find the first few eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian(1) in presence and absence of interaction, and in Fig. 2show the energy dispersion (Edress−Ebare) of the two setto clarify how interaction affects energies. Equation (7)still holds valid to the energy dispersion since static ZZis zero in absence of interactions, so one can evaluate ζfrom Fig. 2. Usually the frequency shifting due to theinteraction is much smaller than the energy gap, so thiswill not change the relative positions of energy levels. Ina CSFQ-transmon pair with coupler frequency being fardetuned from both qubits within the limit |∆| < |δ1/2|,E11 falls in between E02 and E20 making it possible tohave repulsion-free E11 at a certain detuning frequency.In a transmon-transmon pair with coupler frequency be-ing far detuned from both qubits, E11 is in one side ofboth non-computational levels E02 and E20, which makesthe two repulsions to sum and not cancelled, possibly ex-cept at very large detuning frequency which falls out ofthe domain of interest for quantum computation.

A pair of idle qubits that interact unwantedly byZZ interaction accumulate state-dependent phase error.Evolving the idle quantum states |00〉 and |11〉 after timet results in the phase exp(+iζt/4), while the states |01〉and |10〉 return a different phase exp(−iζt/4). There-fore all qubits across a circuit accumulate such two-qubit-state-dependent phase error.

Let us search for the possibility of vanishing phase errorfor interacting qubits. This can take place by findingways to eliminate level repulsion between computationaland non-computational levels while computational levelscan still interact. Using Eq. (8) one can find the followingcondition for eliminating ζ:

∆̄ =δ̄1 + δ̄2γ

2

1− γ2 (10)

with γ ≡ J10/J01. Ignore counter-rotating terms one canfind

γ =1− δ1/(2∆2 + ∆)1− δ2/(2∆2 + ∆)

1− δ2/∆21− δ1/(∆2 + ∆)

. (11)

The condition of the static ZZ elimination as shown inEq. (10) makes it possible to investigate such a possi-bility for certain circuit parameters. Below we considertwo types of circuits, a transmon-transmon pair coupledvia a coupler, and a CSFQ-transmon pair coupled via acoupler.CSFQ-Transmon pair: A recent experiment has re-

vealed that combining a positive and a negative anhar-monic qubit can make ZZ freedom [19]. This freedom cantake place in qubits with non-zero J interaction, which

(a)

Effective

Full model

0. 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-100

0

100

200

300

Δ (GHz)ZZ

(kHz)

⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯⨯

EffectiveAnalytical 0thAnalytical 1st⨯ Full model

0. 0.5 1. 1.50.

0.5

1.

1.5

2.

Δ/Δ2 c

|δ 1/δ 2|

(b) (c)

��� = �

�������

�����

-0.2 -0.1 0. 0.1 0.20100

200

300

400

500

Δ (GHz)

ZZ(kHz)

��� = �

������������

20 40 60 80 1000

200

400

600

800

g2 c (MHz)

ZZ(kHz)

(d) (e)

FIG. 3. Static ZZ interaction in a CSFQ-transmon device(a)-(c) and in a transmon-transmon device (d) and (e). Q1has the anharmoncity δ1 and is detuned from a transmonQ2 by ∆. (a) Static ZZ interaction dependence on CSFQanharmonicity and qubit qubit detuning. The two qubitsare uncoupled directly, but they are indirectly coupled viaa bus resonator with frequency ωc = 6.492 GHz and cou-pling strengths g1c = g2c = 80 MHz with ω2 = 5.292 GHz,δ2 = −0.33 GHz. The effective ZZ interaction is positive(negative) in red (blue) areas and it vanishes on the solidlines. (b) Static ZZ interaction with δ1 = 0.6 GHz usingthe effective (dashed pink) and full model (solid brown) in-dividually. (c) Static ZZ freedom criteria via the effective(solid), analytical zeroth-order (dotted), first order (dashed)and full Hamiltonian model (cross). Static ZZ interaction ina transmon-tranmon device with ω2 = 4.914 GHz, ωc = 6.31GHz, δ1 = δ2 = −0.33 GHz and direct coupling g12 = 0, 2.5, 5MHz as a function of (d) qubit-qubit detuning with g1 = 98MHz, g2 = 83 MHz, and (e) transmon-resonator couplingstrength g2c with g1c = 98 MHz and ∆ = −0.1 GHz.

allows for entangling them with two-qubit gates. Herewe search for circuit characteristics that allow ZZ freequbits. Let us consider Q2 being fixed frequency trans-mon is coupled to a CSFQ with ∆ detuned frequency, i.e.ω1 = ω2−∆. We consider a large Hamiltonian (2) matrixwith levels from E00 up to E04 and E40 and block diag-

5

onalize to the computational subspace. This determinesrepulsion between computational and non-computationallevels more accurately. The result has been plotted inFig. 3(a), showing ZZ coupling strength in colors overa wide domain of CSFQ anharmonicity δ1 and the fre-quency detuning ∆. ZZ interaction will have both nega-tive and positive signs with a nontrivial borderline (solidblack) between the two regions where the static ZZ cou-pling is zero. The marked circle indicates the parametersof the CSFQ/Transmon circuit experimented in Ref. [19]and showed zero static ZZ and one can see the markedcircle is on the zero ZZ borderline.

Figure 3(b) compares two different approaches to de-termine the static ZZ for CSFQ/Transmon pair at differ-ent detuning frequency: dashed line obtained from SWeffective Hamiltonian as found in Eq. (8), solid line ob-tains ZZ strength from numerical analysis of diagonaliz-ing full Hamiltonian (1). Comparing the two methodsreveals that: both methods show consistent ZZ freedomand that perturbation theory is more accurate in large∆ domain. Figure 3(c) shows the parameters at whichthe static ZZ is zero. The parameters used here are thenormalized frequency detuning ∆ by transmon-couplerdetuning ∆2 and the magnitude of anharmonicity ratio.Crossed points show exact results from diagonalizing ofthe full Hamiltonian, and the solid line is obtained fromEq. (10). The two dashed lines are analytical solutionsof Eq. (10) in the zeroth and first order in |δ2/∆2|. Forobtaining these analytical solutions we define the qubitsanharmonicities by δ1 = kδ, δ2 = −δ with k, δ > 0. Weconsider no direct coupling between qubits and the uni-versal qubit-coupler coupling strength g, and ∆ = b∆2.Substituting these parameters in Eq. (11) evaluatesJ10/J01 = (1+a)(1+b)(ak−b−2)/(2+b+a)(ak−b−1),with a ≡ δ/∆2. Eq. (10) can be simplified in the absenceof a to k = (2 + b− 3b2 − 2b3)/(2 + 5b + b2), i.e. zerothorder solution. Adding the first order of a increases thesolution precision. One can see for CSFQ anharmonicitybeing greater than transmon anharmonicity the analyti-cal approximation is trustable.Transmon-Transmon pair: In such a pair both an-

harmonicities are negative. Let us first based on theperturbation theory make some estimation about thepossibility of ZZ freedom. A trivial possibility is whenJ01 ≈ J10 ≈ 0, more precisely direct coupling g12 cancelsout the indirect couplings in Eq. (3). This freedom hasbeen realized recently in several experiments [23–25, 35].However non-interacting qubits cannot be entangled atsuch an operating point and are not useful for quantumcomputation. Searching for ZZ freedom in the presenceof J coupling, results in such a possibility with qubit-coupler coupling gqc being equal or larger than the qubit-resonator frequency detuning ∆q, which goes beyond thedispersive regime and perturbatively invalid. Exact nu-merical result with full Hamiltonian does not show anypossibility for ZZ freedom in transmon-transmon pairswithin the quantum computational domain of parame-ters. Other approaches e.g. two transmons coupled via a

tunable coupler can only vary ZZ interaction above zero[36–38].

Although ZZ freedom cannot be achieved for interact-ing pair of transmons, however one can achieve its sup-pression by tuning circuit parameters. For this purposelet us consider two transmons with almost the same an-harmonicity and different frequencies. We numericallysimulate the circuit and extract static ZZ by numericaldiagonalization of the full Hamiltonian model. Figure3(d) shows static ZZ coupling strength decreases by low-ering the magnitude of detuning frequency ∆. This hasbeen studied for three direct couplings g12. At g12 = 5MHz the qubits are J-interaction-free. Interestingly theweaker g12 cases shows that suppression of ZZ interactioncan be achieved within a rather large domain of detuningfrequency ∆, making it possible to design a transmon-transmon circuit with suppressed ZZ interaction withinthe dispersive regime ∆� J . Figure 3(e) shows how ZZcoupling changes by tuning transmon-resonator couplingg2c. Although the zero ZZ points belong to J-interaction-free transmons, however in their vicinity one can see alarge class of transmons that not only interact but alsotheir unwanted ZZ interaction is suppressed.

IV. TWO-QUBIT GATE: CROSS RESONANCE

Let us consider a two-qubit gate that rotates a qubitdepending on the state of another qubit. Here we con-sider the cross-resonance (CR) gate — a microwave pulsewith the oscillation frequency equal to the frequency ofQ2, which is applied on Q1. For this gate Q2 is targetand Q1 is control qubit. The CR driving Hamiltonian is,

HCR = Ω cos(ωdt)∑n1

(|n1〉 〈n1 + 1|+ h.c.) , (12)

with Ω being the amplitude and ωd = ω̃2 + ζ/2 beingthe frequency of driving. We let Eq. (12) to co-rotatewith the free Hamiltonian Eq. (2) by transforming it byR =

∑n exp(−iωdtn̂) |n〉 〈n|, HCR → R†(HCR)R−iR†R.

Rotating wave approximation (RWA) helps to simplifyfast oscillating terms making the Hamiltonian time-independent .

Driving qubits externally by weak amplitude pulseswill not harm perturbative block diagonalization schemeΩ � ∆, g. Since this domain of amplitude is too nar-row we also compare perturbative transformation withnonperturbative least action transformation. We needa unitary transformation T that can be constructed un-der a very weak constraint motivated by the idea thatthe only action that the transformation should performis to bring H into block diagonal form and does noth-ing otherwise[34]. Such a block diagonalization techniquehas been previously worked out in chemistry in Ref. [33],namely the ‘Least Action’ (LA) block diagonalization.This transformation can be constructed after determin-ing the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian H. The matrixof all eigenvectors S, and a block-diagonal part of it SBD,

6

help to construct the transformation matrix T in the fol-lowing way:

T = S S†BD

(SBDS

†BD

)−1/2, (13)

Block diagonalizing the CR driven multilevel inter-acting qubits by transforming their Hamiltonian intoT (H + HCR)T

† leaves us with the following qubit-qubitHamiltonian in the computational subspace:

H = αZIZI

2+ αIX

IX

2+ αZX

ZX

2+ αZZ

ZZ

4

+αZYZY

2+ αIY

IY

2. (14)

Although the same operator structure as of Eq. (14)can be found by perturbative block diagonalization, how-ever deviations from perturbation is visible within strongdriving domain. We keep a record of the both sets of cou-pling strengths and compare them in the results takenin the rest of the paper. Among all terms that appearin Eq. (14) the only desired interaction is ZX as com-bining it with single qubit rotations provides two-qubitCNOT gate. Classical crosstalk effect, whose nature isstill subject of research, can add up additional terms inthe Hamiltonian Eq. (14) by changing the coupling con-stant of IX and IY terms. The ZY term can be elimi-nated by calibrating the global phase of CR pulse andthis leaves us with its sibling ZX interaction. Moreoverapplying an active cancellation pulse on target qubit withfine-tuned amplitude and phase can eliminate IY andIX terms [39]. All these help to obtain gate ZX alongwith unwanted ZZ term. Numerical results in a CSFQ-Transmon circuit has been plotted in Fig. 4. As onecan see in weak amplitudes perturbation and nonpertur-bative results overlap, however as expected they growdifferently by increasing the driving amplitude.

LA

SW

0 20 40 60 80 1000

1

2

3

4

5

Ω (MHz)

ZX(MHz

)

(a)

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

50

100

150

200

Ω (MHz)

ZZ(kHz)

(b)

FIG. 4. ZZ and ZX coupling strengths in a CSFQ-transmonpair versus CR amplitude Ω, using Schrieffer-Wolff trans-formation (dashed) and Least Action transformation (solid).∆ =0.1GHz and the other parameters similar to Fig. 3(b).

The ZZ interaction in a CR driven qubit-qubit circuithas two parts: 1) the static part due to computationallevel repulsion induced by non-computational levels, and2) a dynamical ZZ part induced by CR gate manipula-tion on the level repulsion. It is important to emphasizethat since CR gate produces interactions other than ZZ

⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯

0 50 100 150 200 2500.

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

Δ (MHz)

η(MHz-1 )

(a)

⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯

⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯⨯-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0-0.0004

-0.00020.

0.0002

0.0004

Δ (MHz)

η(MHz-1 )

(b)

FIG. 5. η as a function of qubit frequency detuning,(a) CSFQ-transmon devices similar to Fig. 3(b), and (b)transmon-transmon devices similar to Fig. 3(d) with g12 =2.5MHz. Cross points are numerical results from LA trans-formation and solid line from SW transformation.

coupling in the Hamiltonian (14), such as ZX, in presenceof CR gate the ZZ coupling cannot be identified from Eq.(7) any more.

Perturbation theory obtains that in the weak drivinglimit the dynamic ZZ component depends quadraticallyon CR amplitude Ω [34]. Therefore the general structureof ZZ strength is

αZZ = ζ + ηΩ2 +O(Ω3), (15)

with η depending on qubit parameters such as anhar-monicity and detuning frequency, as well as couplingstrengths. Using SW perturbation theory one can ana-lytically determine it in weak driving limit, see AppendixD.

The nonperturbative block diagonalization of LAtransformation reproduces weak coupling results, how-ever adds higher order corrections denoted by O(Ω3)that contribute to deviations from perturbation theory instrong driving limit. In Fig. 5 we plot perturbative η insolid lines and the LA nonperturbative η in cross points,in (a) for a CSFQ-transmon and in (b) for a transmon-transmon circuit. One can see that CSFQ-transmon paircarries positive η, which makes CR gate to add up pos-itive dynamic ZZ component on top of the static part.This may result in suppression of total ZZ strength if thestatic part is negative. In the transmon-transmon circuitη is negative only at small detuning frequency. Pertur-bation theory shows divergence, however LA transforma-tion finds that the divergence is unphysical and that ZZstrength remains finite.

V. DYNAMICAL ZZ CANCELLATION

In previous section we studies the impact of CR gateon level repulsion that results in variation of total ZZinteraction from its value at idle qubits. Here we deter-mine ZX and ZZ strengths for some CSFQ-transmon andtransmon-trasnmon pairs at a large domain of CR pulseamplitudes. We show in examples how the dynamic ZZinteraction may or may not cancel the static one. Thisprovides a unique opportunity to tune circuits param-eters for obtaining opposite sign static and dynamic ZZcomponents. CR amplitude can control the magnitude of

7

dynamic part and allows for vanishing total ZZ strength.In this section we show the dynamic ZZ freedom can takeplace in transmon-transmon as well as CSFQ-transmonpairs. Moreover the freedom is persistent as long as CRgate is active and this simultaneously improves the CRgate fidelity.

In Fig. 6 we study two types of qubit-qubit setups: fiveCSFQ-transmon samples labelled from 1 to 5, and fivetransmon-transmon samples labelled from 6 to 10. Thecorresponding energy levels are depicted in Fig. 6(a).In the diagram the energy level of |010〉, |100〉, and|001〉 show their differences in the coupler and the twoqubit frequencies. The noncomputational states |002〉and |200〉 in transmon-transmon circuits are both below|101〉 and in CSFQ-transmon circuits on its two sides.Since in these examples the coupler frequency is far de-tuned from qubits, the repulsions between |101〉 and non-computational levels in transmon-transmon devices havethe same sign and sum, and in CSFQ-transmon deviceshave different signs and subtract.

Applying CR pulse produces desired ZX entangle-ment between the two qubits. We determine interactionstrength from nonperturbative LA transformation. InFig. 6(b) and 6(c) the ZX strengths of CSFQ-transmonand transmon-transmon devices have been plotted, re-spectively. The strength of ZX coupling increases withthe CR amplitude, however its growth starts to diminishas soon as E11 comes near to other levels. Figure 6(d)and 6(e) show total ZZ strength for CSFQ-transmon andtransmon-trasmon devices. In samples 1-3 the static ZZ,i.e. at Ω = 0, are negative and in 4 and 5 positive. Thestatic ZZ remains the same at all driving amplitudes Ω,i.e. as it is always on, however adding the positive dy-namic ZZ component the total suppresses in 1-3 and cango zero at certain amplitude, however in 4 and 5 thecancellation cannot take place. Interestingly similar ZZfreedom takes place in transmon-transmon circuits as itcan be seen in devices 8-10. Notice that device 6 is theIBM experimental device used in Ref. [39] and we cansee it does not show total ZZ freedom.

Determining the CR amplitude at which total ZZ free-dom may take place requires measuring the static ZZ cou-pling. This can take place by performing a Ramsey pulsesequence on Q1 at state |0〉 and repeating it at state |1〉.The difference in frequency between these experimentsdetermines the static ZZ rate [19]. Once the static ZZis determined, one can use Eq. (15) to determine howmuch of CR amplitude is required to set the total ZZto zero. Equivalently one can also perform a quantumHamiltonian tomography after applying the CR pulse,by measuring the target qubit state after projecting iton X, Y, and Z axis of the Bloch sphere [39]. This de-termines the Pauli coefficients of Eq. (14), including ZZterm.

We can use SW perturbation theory to determine theinteraction strengths analytically and we expect sufficientaccuracy of the results in weak driving limit. By solvingthe equation αZZ = 0, the condition for dynamical ZZ

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

|Q1CQ2i

AAAB+nicbVBNT8JAEJ3iF+JX0aOXjcTEE2kJiXojcvEIiXwk0DTbZYEN222zu9WQwk/x4kFjvPpLvPlvXKAHBV8yyct7M5mZF8ScKe0431Zua3tndy+/Xzg4PDo+sYunbRUlktAWiXgkuwFWlDNBW5ppTruxpDgMOO0Ek/rC7zxSqVgkHvQ0pl6IR4INGcHaSL5dnDV9F9VR06/0JRYjTn275JSdJdAmcTNSggwN3/7qDyKShFRowrFSPdeJtZdiqRnhdF7oJ4rGmEzwiPYMFTikykuXp8/RpVEGaBhJU0Kjpfp7IsWhUtMwMJ0h1mO17i3E/7xeooc3XspEnGgqyGrRMOFIR2iRAxowSYnmU0MwkczcisgYS0y0SatgQnDXX94k7UrZrZZvm9VS7S6LIw/ncAFX4MI11OAeGtACAk/wDK/wZs2sF+vd+li15qxs5gz+wPr8AZ5Fkvg=

CSFQ-TransmonE

AAAB6HicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FRfCYgHlAsoTZSW8yZnZ2mZkVQsgXePGgiFc/yZt/4yTZgyYWNBRV3XR3BYng2rjut5NbW9/Y3MpvF3Z29/YPiodHTR2nimGDxSJW7YBqFFxiw3AjsJ0opFEgsBWMbmd+6wmV5rF8MOME/YgOJA85o8ZK9bteseSW3TnIKvEyUoIMtV7xq9uPWRqhNExQrTuemxh/QpXhTOC00E01JpSN6AA7lkoaofYn80On5MwqfRLGypY0ZK7+npjQSOtxFNjOiJqhXvZm4n9eJzXhlT/hMkkNSrZYFKaCmJjMviZ9rpAZMbaEMsXtrYQNqaLM2GwKNgRv+eVV0rwoe5Xydb1Sqt5kceThBE7hHDy4hCrcQw0awADhGV7hzXl0Xpx352PRmnOymWP4A+fzB5zNjNU=

�

AAAB7XicbVBNS8NAEN3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lEUG9FPXisYD+gDWWznbRrN9mwOxFK6H/w4kERr/4fb/4bt20O2vpg4PHeDDPzgkQKg6777RRWVtfWN4qbpa3tnd298v5B06hUc2hwJZVuB8yAFDE0UKCEdqKBRYGEVjC6mfqtJ9BGqPgBxwn4ERvEIhScoZWa3VuQyHrlilt1Z6DLxMtJheSo98pf3b7iaQQxcsmM6Xhugn7GNAouYVLqpgYSxkdsAB1LYxaB8bPZtRN6YpU+DZW2FSOdqb8nMhYZM44C2xkxHJpFbyr+53VSDC/9TMRJihDz+aIwlRQVnb5O+0IDRzm2hHEt7K2UD5lmHG1AJRuCt/jyMmmeVb3z6tX9eaV2ncdRJEfkmJwSj1yQGrkjddIgnDySZ/JK3hzlvDjvzse8teDkM4fkD5zPH2Rsjwg=

|001i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QrGF20psMmZ1dZmaVEPMfXjwo4tV/8ebfOEn2oIkFDUVVN91dQSK4Nq777eRWVtfWN/Kbha3tnd294v5BQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/ZNLXOKRjqKyL7BbLLlldwayTLyMlCBDrVv86vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzgpdFKNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObFKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqiCDcFbfHmZNM7KXqV8eVspVa+yOPJwBMdwCh6cQxVuoAZ1YKDgGV7hzXl0Xpx352PemnOymUP4A+fzB6CnkVQ=

|100i

AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEJ2tX7V+VT16CRbBU9mVgnorevFYwX5Au5ZsOtuGZrNLklVK7f/w4kERr/4Xb/4b03YP2vqGgcd7M2TygkRwbVz328mtrK6tb+Q3C1vbO7t7xf2Dho5TxbDOYhGrVkA1Ci6xbrgR2EoU0igQ2AyG11O/+YBK81jemVGCfkT7koecUWOl+yePuLY6isq+wG6x5JbdGcgy8TJSggy1bvGr04tZGqE0TFCt256bGH9MleFM4KTQSTUmlA1pH9uWShqh9sezqyfkxCo9EsbKtjRkpv7eGNNI61EU2MmImoFe9Kbif147NeGFP+YySQ1KNn8oTAUxMZlGQHpcITNiZAllittbCRtQRZmxQRVsCN7il5dJ46zsVcqXt5VS9SqLIw9HcAyn4ME5VOEGalAHBgqe4RXenEfnxXl3PuajOSfbOYQ/cD5/AKCrkVQ=

|200i

AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEJ31s9avqkcvwSJ4KruloN6KXjxWsB/QriWbzrah2eySZJVS+z+8eFDEq//Fm//GtN2Dtr5h4PHeDJm8IBFcG9f9dlZW19Y3NnNb+e2d3b39wsFhQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/VOZuLY6isq+wG6h6JbcGcgy8TJShAy1buGr04tZGqE0TFCt256bGH9MleFM4CTfSTUmlA1pH9uWShqh9sezqyfk1Co9EsbKtjRkpv7eGNNI61EU2MmImoFe9Kbif147NeGFP+YySQ1KNn8oTAUxMZlGQHpcITNiZAllittbCRtQRZmxQeVtCN7il5dJo1zyKqXL20qxepXFkYNjOIEz8OAcqnADNagDAwXP8ApvzqPz4rw7H/PRFSfbOYI/cD5/AKI7kVU=

|101i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QrGF20psMmZ1dZmaVEPMfXjwo4tV/8ebfOEn2oIkFDUVVN91dQSK4Nq777eRWVtfWN/Kbha3tnd294v5BQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/ZNHXOKRjqKyL7BbLLlldwayTLyMlCBDrVv86vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzgpdFKNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObFKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqiCDcFbfHmZNM7KXqV8eVspVa+yOPJwBMdwCh6cQxVuoAZ1YKDgGV7hzXl0Xpx352PemnOymUP4A+fzB6I3kVU=

|002i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hd0QUG9BLx4jmAcka5id9CZDZmeXmVklxPyHFw+KePVfvPk3TpI9aGJBQ1HVTXdXkAiujet+Oyura+sbm7mt/PbO7t5+4eCwoeNUMayzWMSqFVCNgkusG24EthKFNAoENoPh9dRvPqDSPJZ3ZpSgH9G+5CFn1Fjp/sklLimTjqKyL7BbKLoldwayTLyMFCFDrVv46vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzjJd1KNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObVKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqi8DcFbfHmZNMolr1K6vK0Uq1dZHDk4hhM4Aw/OoQo3UIM6MFDwDK/w5jw6L8678zFvXXGymSP4A+fzB6IzkVU=

|010i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QrGF20psMmZ1dZmaVEPMfXjwo4tV/8ebfOEn2oIkFDUVVN91dQSK4Nq777eRWVtfWN/Kbha3tnd294v5BQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/ZNLPOKSjqKyL7BbLLlldwayTLyMlCBDrVv86vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzgpdFKNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObFKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqiCDcFbfHmZNM7KXqV8eVspVa+yOPJwBMdwCh6cQxVuoAZ1YKDgGV7hzXl0Xpx352PemnOymUP4A+fzB6CpkVQ=

|000i

AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEJ2tX7V+VT16CRbBU9mVgnorevFYwX5Au5ZsOm1Ds9klySql9n948aCIV/+LN/+N2XYP2vqGgcd7M2TyglhwbVz328mtrK6tb+Q3C1vbO7t7xf2Dho4SxbDOIhGpVkA1Ci6xbrgR2IoV0jAQ2AxG16nffECleSTvzDhGP6QDyfucUWOl+yeXpNVRVA4Edoslt+zOQJaJl5ESZKh1i1+dXsSSEKVhgmrd9tzY+BOqDGcCp4VOojGmbEQH2LZU0hC1P5ldPSUnVumRfqRsS0Nm6u+NCQ21HoeBnQypGepFLxX/89qJ6V/4Ey7jxKBk84f6iSAmImkEpMcVMiPGllCmuL2VsCFVlBkbVMGG4C1+eZk0zspepXx5WylVr7I48nAEx3AKHpxDFW6gBnVgoOAZXuHNeXRenHfnYz6ac7KdQ/gD5/MHnxuRUw==

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

|Q1CQ2i

AAAB+nicbVBNT8JAEJ3iF+JX0aOXjcTEE2kJiXojcvEIiXwk0DTbZYEN222zu9WQwk/x4kFjvPpLvPlvXKAHBV8yyct7M5mZF8ScKe0431Zua3tndy+/Xzg4PDo+sYunbRUlktAWiXgkuwFWlDNBW5ppTruxpDgMOO0Ek/rC7zxSqVgkHvQ0pl6IR4INGcHaSL5dnDV9F9VR06/0JRYjTn275JSdJdAmcTNSggwN3/7qDyKShFRowrFSPdeJtZdiqRnhdF7oJ4rGmEzwiPYMFTikykuXp8/RpVEGaBhJU0Kjpfp7IsWhUtMwMJ0h1mO17i3E/7xeooc3XspEnGgqyGrRMOFIR2iRAxowSYnmU0MwkczcisgYS0y0SatgQnDXX94k7UrZrZZvm9VS7S6LIw/ncAFX4MI11OAeGtACAk/wDK/wZs2sF+vd+li15qxs5gz+wPr8AZ5Fkvg=

Transmon-TransmonE

AAAB6HicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FRfCYgHlAsoTZSW8yZnZ2mZkVQsgXePGgiFc/yZt/4yTZgyYWNBRV3XR3BYng2rjut5NbW9/Y3MpvF3Z29/YPiodHTR2nimGDxSJW7YBqFFxiw3AjsJ0opFEgsBWMbmd+6wmV5rF8MOME/YgOJA85o8ZK9bteseSW3TnIKvEyUoIMtV7xq9uPWRqhNExQrTuemxh/QpXhTOC00E01JpSN6AA7lkoaofYn80On5MwqfRLGypY0ZK7+npjQSOtxFNjOiJqhXvZm4n9eJzXhlT/hMkkNSrZYFKaCmJjMviZ9rpAZMbaEMsXtrYQNqaLM2GwKNgRv+eVV0rwoe5Xydb1Sqt5kceThBE7hHDy4hCrcQw0awADhGV7hzXl0Xpx352PRmnOymWP4A+fzB5zNjNU=

|200i

AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEJ31s9avqkcvwSJ4KruloN6KXjxWsB/QriWbzrah2eySZJVS+z+8eFDEq//Fm//GtN2Dtr5h4PHeDJm8IBFcG9f9dlZW19Y3NnNb+e2d3b39wsFhQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/VOZuLY6isq+wG6h6JbcGcgy8TJShAy1buGr04tZGqE0TFCt256bGH9MleFM4CTfSTUmlA1pH9uWShqh9sezqyfk1Co9EsbKtjRkpv7eGNNI61EU2MmImoFe9Kbif147NeGFP+YySQ1KNn8oTAUxMZlGQHpcITNiZAllittbCRtQRZmxQeVtCN7il5dJo1zyKqXL20qxepXFkYNjOIEz8OAcqnADNagDAwXP8ApvzqPz4rw7H/PRFSfbOYI/cD5/AKI7kVU=

|101i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QrGF20psMmZ1dZmaVEPMfXjwo4tV/8ebfOEn2oIkFDUVVN91dQSK4Nq777eRWVtfWN/Kbha3tnd294v5BQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/ZNHXOKRjqKyL7BbLLlldwayTLyMlCBDrVv86vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzgpdFKNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObFKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqiCDcFbfHmZNM7KXqV8eVspVa+yOPJwBMdwCh6cQxVuoAZ1YKDgGV7hzXl0Xpx352PemnOymUP4A+fzB6I3kVU=

|002i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hd0QUG9BLx4jmAcka5id9CZDZmeXmVklxPyHFw+KePVfvPk3TpI9aGJBQ1HVTXdXkAiujet+Oyura+sbm7mt/PbO7t5+4eCwoeNUMayzWMSqFVCNgkusG24EthKFNAoENoPh9dRvPqDSPJZ3ZpSgH9G+5CFn1Fjp/sklLimTjqKyL7BbKLoldwayTLyMFCFDrVv46vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzjJd1KNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObVKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqi8DcFbfHmZNMolr1K6vK0Uq1dZHDk4hhM4Aw/OoQo3UIM6MFDwDK/w5jw6L8678zFvXXGymSP4A+fzB6IzkVU=

|010i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QrGF20psMmZ1dZmaVEPMfXjwo4tV/8ebfOEn2oIkFDUVVN91dQSK4Nq777eRWVtfWN/Kbha3tnd294v5BQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/ZNLPOKSjqKyL7BbLLlldwayTLyMlCBDrVv86vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzgpdFKNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObFKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqiCDcFbfHmZNM7KXqV8eVspVa+yOPJwBMdwCh6cQxVuoAZ1YKDgGV7hzXl0Xpx352PemnOymUP4A+fzB6CpkVQ=

|100i

AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEJ2tX7V+VT16CRbBU9mVgnorevFYwX5Au5ZsOtuGZrNLklVK7f/w4kERr/4Xb/4b03YP2vqGgcd7M2TygkRwbVz328mtrK6tb+Q3C1vbO7t7xf2Dho5TxbDOYhGrVkA1Ci6xbrgR2EoU0igQ2AyG11O/+YBK81jemVGCfkT7koecUWOl+yePuLY6isq+wG6x5JbdGcgy8TJSggy1bvGr04tZGqE0TFCt256bGH9MleFM4KTQSTUmlA1pH9uWShqh9sezqyfkxCo9EsbKtjRkpv7eGNNI61EU2MmImoFe9Kbif147NeGFP+YySQ1KNn8oTAUxMZlGQHpcITNiZAllittbCRtQRZmxQRVsCN7il5dJ46zsVcqXt5VS9SqLIw9HcAyn4ME5VOEGalAHBgqe4RXenEfnxXl3PuajOSfbOYQ/cD5/AKCrkVQ=

|001i

AAAB9XicbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QrGF20psMmZ1dZmaVEPMfXjwo4tV/8ebfOEn2oIkFDUVVN91dQSK4Nq777eRWVtfWN/Kbha3tnd294v5BQ8epYlhnsYhVK6AaBZdYN9wIbCUKaRQIbAbD66nffECleSzvzChBP6J9yUPOqLHS/ZNLXOKRjqKyL7BbLLlldwayTLyMlCBDrVv86vRilkYoDRNU67bnJsYfU2U4EzgpdFKNCWVD2se2pZJGqP3x7OoJObFKj4SxsiUNmam/J8Y00noUBbYzomagF72p+J/XTk144Y+5TFKDks0XhakgJibTCEiPK2RGjCyhTHF7K2EDqigzNqiCDcFbfHmZNM7KXqV8eVspVa+yOPJwBMdwCh6cQxVuoAZ1YKDgGV7hzXl0Xpx352PemnOymUP4A+fzB6CnkVQ=

|000i

AAAB9XicbVBNSwMxEJ2tX7V+VT16CRbBU9mVgnorevFYwX5Au5ZsOm1Ds9klySql9n948aCIV/+LN/+N2XYP2vqGgcd7M2TyglhwbVz328mtrK6tb+Q3C1vbO7t7xf2Dho4SxbDOIhGpVkA1Ci6xbrgR2IoV0jAQ2AxG16nffECleSTvzDhGP6QDyfucUWOl+yeXpNVRVA4Edoslt+zOQJaJl5ESZKh1i1+dXsSSEKVhgmrd9tzY+BOqDGcCp4VOojGmbEQH2LZU0hC1P5ldPSUnVumRfqRsS0Nm6u+NCQ21HoeBnQypGepFLxX/89qJ6V/4Ey7jxKBk84f6iSAmImkEpMcVMiPGllCmuL2VsCFVlBkbVMGG4C1+eZk0zspepXx5WylVr7I48nAEx3AKHpxDFW6gBnVgoOAZXuHNeXRenHfnYz6ac7KdQ/gD5/MHnxuRUw==

!1

AAAB73icbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QLGF2MpsMmcc6MyuEJT/hxYMiXv0db/6Nk2QPmljQUFR1090VJZwZ6/vfXmFtfWNzq7hd2tnd2z8oHx61jEo1oU2iuNKdCBvKmaRNyyynnURTLCJO29H4dua3n6g2TMkHO0loKPBQspgRbJ3U6SlBh7gf9MsVv+rPgVZJkJMK5Gj0y1+9gSKpoNISjo3pBn5iwwxrywin01IvNTTBZIyHtOuoxIKaMJvfO0VnThmgWGlX0qK5+nsiw8KYiYhcp8B2ZJa9mfif101tfBVmTCappZIsFsUpR1ah2fNowDQllk8cwUQzdysiI6wxsS6ikgshWH55lbQuqkGten1fq9Rv8jiKcAKncA4BXEId7qABTSDA4Rle4c179F68d+9j0Vrw8plj+APv8we9Z4/L

!c

AAAB73icbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QLGF2MpsMmcc6MyuEJT/hxYMiXv0db/6Nk2QPmljQUFR1090VJZwZ6/vfXmFtfWNzq7hd2tnd2z8oHx61jEo1oU2iuNKdCBvKmaRNyyynnURTLCJO29H4dua3n6g2TMkHO0loKPBQspgRbJ3U6SlBh7hP+uWKX/XnQKskyEkFcjT65a/eQJFUUGkJx8Z0Az+xYYa1ZYTTaamXGppgMsZD2nVUYkFNmM3vnaIzpwxQrLQradFc/T2RYWHMRESuU2A7MsveTPzP66Y2vgozJpPUUkkWi+KUI6vQ7Hk0YJoSyyeOYKKZuxWREdaYWBdRyYUQLL+8SloX1aBWvb6vVeo3eRxFOIFTOIcALqEOd9CAJhDg8Ayv8OY9ei/eu/exaC14+cwx/IH3+QMJPo/9

!2

AAAB73icbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hd0QUG9BLx4jmAckS5idzCZD5rHOzAphyU948aCIV3/Hm3/jJNmDJhY0FFXddHdFCWfG+v63t7a+sbm1Xdgp7u7tHxyWjo5bRqWa0CZRXOlOhA3lTNKmZZbTTqIpFhGn7Wh8O/PbT1QbpuSDnSQ0FHgoWcwItk7q9JSgQ9yv9ktlv+LPgVZJkJMy5Gj0S1+9gSKpoNISjo3pBn5iwwxrywin02IvNTTBZIyHtOuoxIKaMJvfO0XnThmgWGlX0qK5+nsiw8KYiYhcp8B2ZJa9mfif101tfBVmTCappZIsFsUpR1ah2fNowDQllk8cwUQzdysiI6wxsS6iogshWH55lbSqlaBWub6vles3eRwFOIUzuIAALqEOd9CAJhDg8Ayv8OY9ei/eu/exaF3z8pkT+APv8we+64/M

�

AAAB7XicbVBNS8NAEN3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lEUG9FPXisYD+gDWWznbRrN9mwOxFK6H/w4kERr/4fb/4bt20O2vpg4PHeDDPzgkQKg6777RRWVtfWN4qbpa3tnd298v5B06hUc2hwJZVuB8yAFDE0UKCEdqKBRYGEVjC6mfqtJ9BGqPgBxwn4ERvEIhScoZWa3VuQyHrlilt1Z6DLxMtJheSo98pf3b7iaQQxcsmM6Xhugn7GNAouYVLqpgYSxkdsAB1LYxaB8bPZtRN6YpU+DZW2FSOdqb8nMhYZM44C2xkxHJpFbyr+53VSDC/9TMRJihDz+aIwlRQVnb5O+0IDRzm2hHEt7K2UD5lmHG1AJRuCt/jyMmmeVb3z6tX9eaV2ncdRJEfkmJwSj1yQGrkjddIgnDySZ/JK3hzlvDjvzse8teDkM4fkD5zPH2Rsjwg=

!1

AAAB73icbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QLGF2MpsMmcc6MyuEJT/hxYMiXv0db/6Nk2QPmljQUFR1090VJZwZ6/vfXmFtfWNzq7hd2tnd2z8oHx61jEo1oU2iuNKdCBvKmaRNyyynnURTLCJO29H4dua3n6g2TMkHO0loKPBQspgRbJ3U6SlBh7gf9MsVv+rPgVZJkJMK5Gj0y1+9gSKpoNISjo3pBn5iwwxrywin01IvNTTBZIyHtOuoxIKaMJvfO0VnThmgWGlX0qK5+nsiw8KYiYhcp8B2ZJa9mfif101tfBVmTCappZIsFsUpR1ah2fNowDQllk8cwUQzdysiI6wxsS6ikgshWH55lbQuqkGten1fq9Rv8jiKcAKncA4BXEId7qABTSDA4Rle4c179F68d+9j0Vrw8plj+APv8we9Z4/L

!c

AAAB73icbVDLSgNBEOyNrxhfUY9eBoPgKexKQL0FvXiMYB6QLGF2MpsMmcc6MyuEJT/hxYMiXv0db/6Nk2QPmljQUFR1090VJZwZ6/vfXmFtfWNzq7hd2tnd2z8oHx61jEo1oU2iuNKdCBvKmaRNyyynnURTLCJO29H4dua3n6g2TMkHO0loKPBQspgRbJ3U6SlBh7hP+uWKX/XnQKskyEkFcjT65a/eQJFUUGkJx8Z0Az+xYYa1ZYTTaamXGppgMsZD2nVUYkFNmM3vnaIzpwxQrLQradFc/T2RYWHMRESuU2A7MsveTPzP66Y2vgozJpPUUkkWi+KUI6vQ7Hk0YJoSyyeOYKKZuxWREdaYWBdRyYUQLL+8SloX1aBWvb6vVeo3eRxFOIFTOIcALqEOd9CAJhDg8Ayv8OY9ei/eu/exaC14+cwx/IH3+QMJPo/9

!2

AAAB73icbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMr6tHLYBA8hd0QUG9BLx4jmAckS5idzCZD5rHOzAphyU948aCIV3/Hm3/jJNmDJhY0FFXddHdFCWfG+v63t7a+sbm1Xdgp7u7tHxyWjo5bRqWa0CZRXOlOhA3lTNKmZZbTTqIpFhGn7Wh8O/PbT1QbpuSDnSQ0FHgoWcwItk7q9JSgQ9yv9ktlv+LPgVZJkJMy5Gj0S1+9gSKpoNISjo3pBn5iwwxrywin02IvNTTBZIyHtOuoxIKaMJvfO0XnThmgWGlX0qK5+nsiw8KYiYhcp8B2ZJa9mfif101tfBVmTCappZIsFsUpR1ah2fNowDQllk8cwUQzdysiI6wxsS6iogshWH55lbSqlaBWub6vles3eRwFOIUzuIAALqEOd9CAJhDg8Ayv8OY9ei/eu/exaF3z8pkT+APv8we+64/M

(a)

1

234

5

0 20 40 60 800

2

4

6

Ω (MHz)

ZX(MHz

)

6

7

8

10

9

0 50 100 1500

2

4

6

Ω (MHz)

ZX(MHz

)

(b) (c)

2

1

3

4

5

0 20 40 60 80-100-500

50

100

Ω (MHz)

ZZ(kHz)

6

7

8

9

10

0 50 100 150-200

0

200

400

Ω (MHz)

ZZ(kHz)

(d) (e)

FIG. 6. (a) Energy diagrams for five CSFQ-transmon cir-cuits (1-5) and five transmon-transmon circuits (6-10). Thecoupling strength under CR gate using nonperturbative leastaction transformation for: (b) ZX interaction in devices 1-5, (c) ZX interaction in 6-10, (d) ZZ interaction in 1-5, and(e) ZZ interaction in 6-10. Common parameters in 1-5 areδ1/2 = 0.6,−0.33 GHz, g1c/2c = 80 MHz, and g12 = 0. In 1:∆ = 70 MHz and ∆2 = 1.1 GHz. In 2-5: ∆ = 70, 105, 150, 180MHz and ∆2 = 1.2 GHz. Common parameters in 6-10 areδ1/2 = −0.33 GHz, g1c/2c = 98, 83 MHz, and g12 = 2.5 MHz.In 6-9: ∆ = −200,−150,−100,−50 MHz and ∆2 = 1.4 GHz.In 10: ∆ = −70 MHz and ∆2 = 2 GHz.

freedom in the first order of ∆/δ2 can be obtained at theparticular CR amplitude (in the limit of ∆/δ2 � 1):

Ω∗ = |∆|√

2(r + γ2)

r + γ(2 + γ)

√1− C∆

δ2, (16)

with C ≡ 1/2+2γ+γ2+r2+rγ(2+γ)+γ2(1+2γ2)/2r(r+γ2)(r+γ(2+γ)) and r ≡

δ1/δ2. Table I compares the CR amplitude Ω∗ at whichdynamical ZZ cancels out the static ZZ interaction. Theamplitude Ω∗ is determined using three different meth-ods for devices 1-10. In the row labelled by LA we usenonperturbative least action method to determine totalZZ and find where it is zero. In O(n) row we use theSW-evaluated static ZZ coupling ζ of Eq. (8) and the

8

◀◀

◀I

II

0 50 100 150 2000

20

40

60

80

Δ (MHz)

Ω* (MHz)

(a) ▶▶

▶III

IV

-200 -150 -100 -50 0040

80

120

160

Δ (MHz)Ω* (M

Hz)

(b)

FIG. 7. The amplitude of dynamical ZZ freedom versus qubitdetuning frequency, (a) for CSFQ-transmon with parame-ters similar to circuit 2-5 devices, I with δ1/2 = 0.6,−0.33GHz and II with δ1/2 = 0.41,−0.39 GHz, (b) for transmon-transmon with parameters similar to 6-9 devices, III withδ1/2 = −0.33,−0.33 GHz and IV with δ1/2 = −0.41,−0.33GHz. Lines are perturbative results, dots and triangles areresults taken from nonperurbative least action. Shaded areashows the validity domain of perturbation theory.

SW-evaluated η in Appendix D and substitute them inEq. (15) to obtain at what amplitude ZZ becomes zero.Below it we present the results from Eq. (16) and in thelast row we evaluate the ratio of ∆/δ2 in each device.One can see the results are better consistent in the limitof ∆/δ2 � 1.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)LA 42 30 24 No No No No 115 61 82O(n) 41 31 24 No No No 71 83 46 62Eq(16) 41 34 40 20 No 110 104 81 46 61∆/δ2 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.25 0.3 0.61 0.45 0.3 0.15 0.21

TABLE I. Ω∗ from different methods in devices 1-10 in MHz.‘No’ indicates devices with no dynamic ZZ freedom.

Let us further study the CR amplitudes at which dy-namic freedom takes place. In what comes next we workwith the parameters of the devices 2-5 CSFQ-transmonsand the devices 6-9 transmon-transmons, except that wekeep detuning frequency ∆ a variable and change theanharmonicity at large detuning. We work out the CRamplitude at which dynamic ZZ freedom can take placewithin a large range of ∆ in Fig. 7(a) and 7(b). Dotsand triangles shows results taken using nonperturbativeleast action transformation and lines are SW perturba-tive results. Shaded area shows the validity domain ofperturbation theory in the parameter Ω/∆, these resultsshow that dynamical cancellation is not limited by thequbit-qubit detuning. One can see perturbation theoryis a crude approximation for transmon-transmon devices,while it works better for CSFQ-Transmon pairs. Thisis mainly because the static ZZ strength in transmon-transmon pairs is usually large and then cancelling itrequires strong driving amplitudes whose accuracy fallsoutside of perturbation techniques.

One of the noticeable characteristics of dynamic ZZfreedom in CSFQ-transmon pairs as seen in Fig. 7(a) isthat by increasing detuning frequency first cancellationamplitude increases, and at larger detuning frequency theamplitude squeezes. In transmon-transmon pairs of Fig.7(b) the amplitude monotonically changes. These be-haviours are consistent with what we found above forthe way how ζ and η scale with detuning ∆.

VI. CR GATE ERROR

A pair idle qubits carry a Hamiltonian that containsZI, IZ and ZZ Pauli coefficient. CR gate changes someof these coefficients and also as shown in Eq. (14) in-troduces some unwanted interactions. Instead of a singleCR pulse one can use an echoed CR pulse on the con-trol qubit, which a CR pulse for duration t, a π rotationsabout X axis, a π-shifted CR pulse for the same dura-tion, and another π rotation about X axis. Applying anechoed CR gate on the control qubit along with an activecancellation pulse with fine-tuned phase and amplitudeon target qubit eliminate all unwanted interactions andleave us with the following couplings only: ZX and ZZ.For details see Ref. [40, 41]. Applying the echoed CRgate results in an oscillation in the target qubit with thefrequency feCR = 2

√α2ZX + α

2ZZ/4 ≈ 2αZX.

To quantify the performance of echoed-CR gate on dy-namic ZZ free qubits, we numerically simulate the CRgate for several devices in Fig.6. Here we consider thegate length includes two rounded square CR pulses withignorable rise and fall times, and each of which is fol-lowed by a 40ns long π pulse. As described in Ref. [19],the two-qubit gate will be of the form exp[−iθZX/2] withθ = 2πfeCRτ and τ being the flat-top length of each CRtone. Setting θ = π/2 makes a unitary gate that entan-gles the two qubits. When performing a CR gate, theflap top of the single CR tone τ satisfies τ = 1/8αZXwhen CR driving amplitude is small, and the total gatelength tg = (2τ + 80) ns.

We simulate an echoed CR pulse sequence for imple-menting a ZX(π/2) gate. We compute the two-qubit er-ror per gate by evaluating how the unitary evolution ofthe echoed CR gate evolves an initial state. The presenceof ZZ interaction determines a state-dependent phase er-ror in the desired state. We evaluate the infidelity of finalstate. Figure 8 shows the CR gate error caused by ZZinteraction as a function of gate length and qubit-qubitdetuning with infinite coherence time. In these plots weignore the decoherence effect on the gate as assume thatqubits can have desirably long coherence times T1 and T2.In CSFQ-transmon devices 2 and 3 where total ZZ can bedynamically set to zero, we can get the ZX rotation freeof parasitic ZZ interaction and therefore the gate errordrops at certain gate times. For device 2 Fig. 6(a) and6(d) show that where the dynamic freedom takes place isat αZX ∼ 2.7 MHz. Such a frequency requires τ ∼ 46nsfor each CR pulse to perform π/2 ZX rotation. Consid-

9

ering the second CR pulse and the additional π rotationwill sum the total echoed-CR pulse length to 172 ns. InFig. 8(a) one can see that device 2 performs a perfectgate with no error at this gate length. In device 3 thecancellation takes place at a αZX that is smaller by a fac-tor of 1/1.7 and this causes the prolongation of the gateto become 235 ns. While the gate error in devices 4 and5 decreases as the gate becomes longer due to reductionof total ZZ interaction, however the gate error in absenceof decoherence stays can be in the scale of 10−3.

In transmon-transmon devices almost similar behav-ior is expected and one can find errorless ZX(π/2) indynamical ZZ free trasmons. The perfect gate time indevices 8 and 9 are shorter compared to CSFQ-transmonpairs. The reason for such improvement is that inthese transmon-transmon devices the dynamic cancella-tion takes place at an amplitude that causes faster ZXrotation. However, one can see in Fig. 8(b) that sometransmon-transmon devices such as 7, 8, and 9 showsome cutoff in their minimum gate length for ZX(π/2)rotation. Figure 6(c) shows that αZX rate starts to sat-urate after some amplitudes and cannot increase any-more. This saturation puts limitation on flap top lengthτ such that it cannot become shorter than a minimum,i.e. τmin = 1/8αmaxZX . This will introduce a cutoff onecho-CR gate length to become limited to longer thantming = (1/4α

maxZX + 80) ns. For instance device 7 in Fig.

6(c) reaches to a saturation at ∼ 2.5MHz and this intro-duces a gate time cutoff below ∼ 180 ns as shown in Fig.8(b). Moreover the device 7 shows some dynamic ZZ sup-pression to a minimum of ∼20kHz and our analysis showthat at this gate time the error although cannot be elim-inated but it can be suppressed to 10−5 for transmonswithout decoherence error.

Overall, to perform an ideal cross-resonance gate, thefollowing two conditions should be satisfied: 1) staticZZ interaction is zero when two qubits are in the idlestate. 2) Maximum ZX component and zero total ZZinteraction should be realized synchronously when thetwo qubits are under driving. Although it is more conve-nient to implement dynamical ZZ cancellation on a CRgate, this approach can still be generalized to suppressthe build-in ZZ interaction in any gates. In large quan-tum processors we expect to have a huge number of pairsof qubits that have non-zero ZZ interaction contributingto the gate error, if we apply the well-designed CR-typepulses on a pair of qubits and make a 2π rotation by ZXoperator, leaving qubits with no ZX rotation. Such asystem will not suffer from parasitic ZZ interaction at allwhile it maintains its original state.

VII. DISCUSSION

In this paper, we studied the parasite ZZ interactionand the possibility of freeing qubits from it. Zeroing theZZ strength can take place in two ways: 1) in idle qubitscircuit parameters can be found such that the static ZZstrength becomes zero. The static ZZ freedom can take

5

4

3

2

Δ=180 MHz Δ=150 MHz

Δ=105 MHz

Δ=70 MHz

140 160 180 200 220 240 260

10-710-610-510-410-310-2

tg (ns)

ZZerrorofEchoCRgate

(a)

6

9

8

7

Δ=200 MHz

Δ=150

MHz

Δ=100 MHz

Δ=50 MHz

140 160 180 200

10-710-610-510-410-310-2

tg (ns)

ZZerrorofEchoCRgate

(b)

FIG. 8. ZZ error of the echo CR gate as a function of gatelength and two-qubit detuning in (a) CSFQ-transmon devices(b) transmon-transmon devices.

place in qubits with opposite sign anharmonicity. 2) indriven qubits with a microwave pulse a new ZZ compo-nent adds on top of the static part making it possibleto cancel it out, making total ZZ strength zero. Thisdynamic ZZ freedom takes place at a driving amplitudethat could be determined from circuit QED.

Eliminating the static ZZ will make idle qubits to nolonger suffer from accumulating state dependent phaseerror across the circuit. Moreover, when a two-qubit gateis active, eliminating all of the parasitic ZZ interactionas long as the gate is active results in a large increase inthe gate fidelity.

Our derivation was restricted to two interacting qubits.The ZZ free qubits can have many advantages; for in-stance a complete understanding of pairwise suppressionof ZZ interaction in a large circuit with many qubitscan result in quantum computation on the circuit withless error. Future research is needed to study clustersof interacting three-body and higher many-body qubits.Although the general expectation is that the couplingstrength of these terms to be weaker than pairwise inter-

10

actions, however they can generate additional gate erroras well as crosstalk error across the circuit. Eliminationof parasitic many body interactions such as ZZZ cou-plings depends on qubit connectivity, i.e. whether qubitsare connected in a loop or are in linear connection. Thispaves the road toward optimal operation for reducingquantum computational error to below the threshold oferror-correction.

VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank David DiVincenzo and Britton Plourde forinsightful discussions. We also thank the OpenSuperQproject (820363) of the EU Flagship on Quantum Tech-nology, H2020-FETFLAG-2018-03, for support.

Appendix A: CSFQ Hamiltonian

Figure 1(a) helps to write the CSFQ Lagrangian L =12 (Φ0/2π)

2{(CSh + αCJ)(φ̇1 − φ̇3)2 + CJ(φ̇1 − φ̇2)2 +CJ(φ̇2 − φ̇3)2} + EJ{cos(φ1 − φ2) + cos(φ2 − φ3) +α cos(2πf − φ1 + φ3)} with external flux number f ≡Φext/Φ0 and the external magnetic flux Φext penetrat-ing the loop. Defining new phase variables φ = φ1 − φ3and φ′ = φ1 − 2φ2 + φ3 can help to uncouple degreesof freedom. Considering the charging energy of a typi-cal capacitance C being EC ≡ e2/2C, the effective ca-pacitance associated with the modes φ and φ′ are C ≡CSh+αCJ +CJ/2 and C ′ = CJ/2, respectively. The keyto C-shunt flux qubit is the large shunting capacitanceCSh � CJ which indicates that the mode φ′ oscillateswith an order of magnitude larger frequency compared tothe oscillation of φ mode. Therefore the large chargingenergy of φ′ mode makes its contribution to qubit poten-tial negligible. This makes qubit potential separable andeventually the φ′ mode can be safely discarded from dy-namics. This helps to write down the CSFQ qubit Hamil-tonian H = 4ECn2− 2EJ cos (φ/2)−αEJ cos (2πf − φ).The 1D potential has a single minimum for α < 1/2,which is the domain of our interest, otherwise indicatesdouble minima. Bringing the qubit to the bottom of itspotential minimum, namely “Sweet Spot” or (SS), willproduce the longest T2 coherence for the qubit.

Compare to a transmon, higher order terms (>4) in theexpansion of the CSFQ potential also contributes to theeigenvalues, which will change the zero point fluctuationto an unknown number. To be more precise, the Hamil-tonian can be quantized in terms of field operators, e.g.n = i(â− â†)/2ξ and φ = ξ(â+ â†) with ξ being the ex-pansion parameter which will minimize the total energy,

the normal ordered Hamiltonian then can be written as

H = −Ecξ2(↠− â

)2+

∞∑u=0

ξ2u+2u∑v=0

U2u+2(φ0)

2u−v (u− v)!

×v+1∑

w=−(v+1)

(â†)v+1+w

(â)v+1−w

(v + 1 + w)! (v + 1− w)!

+

∞∑u=0

ξ2u+1u∑v=0

U2u+1(φ0)

2u−v (u− v)! (A1)

×v∑

w=−(v+1)

(â†)v+1+w

(â)v−w

(v + 1 + w)! (v − w)!

with Un(φ0) ≡ ∂nU(φ0)/∂φn0 and U(φ0) ≡−2EJ cosφ0/2 − αEJ cos (2πf − φ0) and φ0 being thephase of minimum U(φ0), i.e. φ0 = −2πα(δf)/(1/2−α),which vanishes at sweet spot. By solving Schrödingerequation, the eigenenergies En can be obtained usingperturbation theory. Unperturbed eigenvalues E(0)n andfirst three order corrections are given by

E(0)n =

(L∑l=1

U (2l)ξ2l

(2l − 2)!! +2ECξ2

)n

+

L∑k=2

L∑l=2

U (2l)ξ2l

(2l − 2k)!!n!

(n− k)!

E(1)n = 0

E(2)n =

n+L∑k 6=n

V 2nk

E(0)n − E(0)k

E(3)n =

n+L∑k 6=n

n+L∑m 6=n

VnmVmkVkn(E

(0)n − E(0)k

)(E

(0)n − E(0)m

)

(A2)

with

Vnm = x|m−n|,|m−n|

√max(m,n)!

min(m,n)!

+

min(m,n)∑s=0

xmax(m,n)−s,min(m,n)−s

√n!m!

s!

xa,b = δab

L∑k=a

∑u=0

Θ(k − a− 2u) U(k)ξk

(k − a)!!a!

+ (1− δab)L∑k=a

∑u=0

Θ(k − a− 2u)U(k+b)ξk+b

b(k − a)!!a!

− δa2δb2ECξ2

Sum up unperturbed energy and all three orders correc-tions, one can obtain the analytical formula of CSFQeigenvalues, then frequency ω01 = (E1 − E0)/~ and an-harmonicity δ = (E2 − 2E1 + E0)/~ can be evaluated.Here is an example to illustrate how to find these pa-rameters. Consider a CSFQ with EC = 0.292 GHz,

11

0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.65.05

5.1

5.15

5.2

5.25

5.3

ξ

ω(GHz)

FIG. 9. Frequency as a function of ξ at the sweet spot.Simulation parameters EC = 0.292 GHz, EJ = 108.9 GHz,α = 0.43 and f = 0.5.

0.496 0.498 0.5 0.502 0.5045.06

5.08

5.1

5.12

5.14

f

ω(GHz)

0.496 0.498 0.5 0.502 0.504

0.57

0.59

0.61

0.63

f

δ(GHz)

(a) (b)

FIG. 10. Frequency (a) and anharmonicity (b) as a functionof external flux f using perturbation theory.

EJ = 108.9 GHz, α = 0.43 and f = 0.5. Firstly, expandthe potential to 20th order (L=10) at the sweet spot andplot the frequency f01 as a function of ξ. Determine ξ byfinding the minimum as shown in Fig. 9 (approximatelyξ ≈ φzpf/

√2), then substitute ξ back to the Eq. (A2),

the corresponding frequency and anharmonicity spectraare shown in Fig. 10.

Appendix B: Full Hamiltonian

To understand how the interaction terms change thebare basis, we apply the full Hamiltonian (1) on the states|n1, nc, n2〉. Consider the first order of gij (i 6= j and

i, j = 1, 2, c), the result is written as

Ĥ|n1, nc, n2〉 =[ω1(n1) + ωc(nc) + ω2(n2)] |n1, nc, n2〉+g12[

√n1n2 |n1 − 1, nc, n2 − 1〉

+√n1(n2 + 1) |n1 − 1, nc, n2 + 1〉

+√

(n1 + 1)n2 |n1 + 1, nc, n2 − 1〉+√

(n1 + 1)(n2 + 1) |n1 + 1, nc, n2 + 1〉]+g1c[

√n1nc |n1 − 1, nc − 1, n2〉

+√n1(nc + 1) |n1 − 1, nc + 1, n2〉

+√

(n1 + 1)nc |n1 + 1, nc − 1, n2〉+√

(n1 + 1)(nc + 1) |n1 + 1, nc + 1, n2〉]+g2c[

√n2nc |n1, nc − 1, n2 − 1〉

+√n2(nc + 1) |n1, nc + 1, n2 − 1〉

+√

(n2 + 1)nc |n1, nc − 1, n2 + 1〉+√

(n2 + 1)(nc + 1) |n1, nc + 1, n2 + 1〉]The equation above shows that when interactions turnoff, |n1, nc, n2〉 is the eigenstate of the non-interactingHamiltonian, when we turn on the interactions, levelcrossing takes place with the coupling strength scalingwith the first order of gij as shown in Fig. 1(c).

Appendix C: Principle of Least Action

Consider a general d × d Hermitian Hamiltonian H,which can be transformed into a block diagonal matrixH using Eq. (13) with two blocks Hnn and Hmm, wheren and m are the dimensions of the blocks and satisfyd = n + m and n ≤ m. The corresponding matrix of alleigenvectors S can also be divided into 4 blocks, namely

S =

(Snn SnmSmn Smm

)(C1)

As described in Ref. [33], the unitary transformation Tcan be simplified as T = U(U†U)−1/2 where

U =

(1 X−X† 1

), U†U =

(1 +XX† 0

0 1 +X†X

)(C2)

with X = −(SmnS−1nn )† = SnmS−1mm. Therefore, onlypart of the eigenvector matrix S is needed, for example,the first n eigenvectors. To obtain the blocks in the com-putational subspace in a large matrix, we first decouplethe computational subspace from higher levels using theprinciple of least action above, and then repeat this ap-proach in the 4× 4 matrix.

Appendix D: Dynamical Quadratic Factor

Transmon-Transmon pair: the ratio γ in Eq. (11) isaround 1, so the perturbative dynamical quadratic factor

12

η can be simplified as

η =J201

2δ∆2(δ − 2∆)(δ −∆)3(δ + ∆)2[8δ6 − 15δ5∆

−18δ4∆2 + 38δ3∆3 + 6δ2∆4 − δ∆5 + 2∆6]

(D1)

with δ1 = δ2 = δ.

Transmon-CSFQ pair: the ratio γ in Eq. (11) is a slowchanging parameter, approximately we can assume η =η(∆ = 0) ≈ 3/2, the perturbative dynamical quadraticfactor η can be simplified as

η =J201

16δ∆2(δ + ∆)(2δ + ∆)3[8∆5 − 208δ5

−472δ4∆− 304δ3∆2 + 57δ2∆3 + 97δ∆4] (D2)

with δ1 ≈ −2δ2 = −2δ.

[1] R. Ayanzadeh, M. Halem, and T. Finin, Scientific Re-ports 10, 1 (2020).

[2] T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch,C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F.Roos, Science 364, 260 (2019).

[3] B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro,A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends,F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C.Bardin, S. Boixo, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen,R. Collins, E. Farhi, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina,R. Graff, M. Harrigan, T. Huang, S. V. Isakov, E. Jef-frey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, P. Klimov, A. Ko-rotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, E. Lucero, J. McClean,M. McEwen, X. Mi, M. Mohseni, J. Y. Mutus, O. Naa-man, M. Neeley, M. Niu, A. Petukhov, C. Quintana,N. Rubin, D. Sank, V. Smelyanskiy, A. Vainsencher,T. C. White, Z. Yao, P. Yeh, A. Zalcman, H. Neven,and J. M. Martinis (Google AI Quantum), Phys. Rev.Lett. 125, 120504 (2020).

[4] F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C.Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L.Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen,B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth,E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina,R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan,M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang,T. S. Humble, S. V. Isakov, E. Jeffrey, Z. Jiang,D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, S. Knysh,A. Korotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, M. Lind-mark, E. Lucero, D. Lyakh, S. Mandrà, J. R. Mc-Clean, M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, K. Michielsen,M. Mohseni, J. Mutus, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, C. Neill,M. Y. Niu, E. Ostby, A. Petukhov, J. C. Platt, C. Quin-tana, E. G. Rieffel, P. Roushan, N. C. Rubin, D. Sank,K. J. Satzinger, V. Smelyanskiy, K. J. Sung, M. D. Tre-vithick, A. Vainsencher, B. Villalonga, T. White, Z. J.Yao, P. Yeh, A. Zalcman, H. Neven, and J. M. Martinis,Nature 574, 505 (2019).

[5] M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller,P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D.Oliver, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11(2020).

[6] J. M. Martinis, M. H. Devoret, and J. Clarke, NaturePhysics 16, 234 (2020).

[7] R. C. Bialczak, M. Ansmann, M. Hofheinz, M. Lenan-der, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank,H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, T. Yamamoto, A. N.Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,

060501 (2011).[8] S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, G. Catelani, J. Bylander, A. Ka-

mal, J. Birenbaum, D. Hover, D. Rosenberg, G. Samach,A. P. Sears, S. J. Weber, J. L. Yoder, J. Clarke, A. J.Kerman, F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, T. P. Orlando, andW. D. Oliver, Science 354, 1573 (2016).

[9] M. H. Ansari, Superconductor Science and Technology28, 045005 (2015).

[10] M. H. Ansari, F. K. Wilhelm, U. Sinha, and A. Sinha, Su-perconductor Science and Technology 26, 125013 (2013).

[11] K. Serniak, M. Hays, G. de Lange, S. Diamond,S. Shankar, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, M. Houzet, andM. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 157701 (2018).

[12] M. H. Ansari and F. K. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. B 84,235102 (2011).

[13] M. Bal, M. H. Ansari, J.-L. Orgiazzi, R. M. Lutchyn, andA. Lupascu, Phys. Rev. B 91, 195434 (2015).

[14] P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus-tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Applied Physics Reviews 6,021318 (2019).

[15] S. A. Caldwell, N. Didier, C. A. Ryan, E. A. Sete, A. Hud-son, P. Karalekas, R. Manenti, M. P. da Silva, R. Sinclair,E. Acala, N. Alidoust, J. Angeles, A. Bestwick, M. Block,B. Bloom, A. Bradley, C. Bui, L. Capelluto, R. Chilcott,J. Cordova, G. Crossman, M. Curtis, S. Deshpande,T. E. Bouayadi, D. Girshovich, S. Hong, K. Kuang,M. Lenihan, T. Manning, A. Marchenkov, J. Marshall,R. Maydra, Y. Mohan, W. O’Brien, C. Osborn, J. Ot-terbach, A. Papageorge, J.-P. Paquette, M. Pelstring,A. Polloreno, G. Prawiroatmodjo, V. Rawat, M. Reagor,R. Renzas, N. Rubin, D. Russell, M. Rust, D. Scara-belli, M. Scheer, M. Selvanayagam, R. Smith, A. Sta-ley, M. Suska, N. Tezak, D. C. Thompson, T.-W. To,M. Vahidpour, N. Vodrahalli, T. Whyland, K. Yadav,W. Zeng, and C. Rigetti, Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 034050(2018).

[16] D. C. McKay, S. Filipp, A. Mezzacapo, E. Magesan,J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Applied6, 064007 (2016).

[17] T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag-nard, A. Potočnik, Y. Salathé, M. Pechal, M. Mondal,M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Ap-plied 7, 054020 (2017).

[18] A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Girvin, and A. Wallraff,arXiv:2005.12667.

[19] J. Ku, X. Xu, M. Brink, D. C. McKay, J. B. Hertzberg,M. H. Ansari, and B. L. T. Plourde, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 200504 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64078-1https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64078-1https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau4963https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.120504https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.120504https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0829-5https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0829-5https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.060501https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.060501https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah5844https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/4/045005https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/4/045005https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/26/12/125013https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/26/12/125013https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.157701https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235102https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235102https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.195434https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.034050https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.034050https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.6.064007https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.6.064007https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.7.054020https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.7.054020https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12667https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.200504https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.200504

13

[20] P. Mundada, G. Zhang, T. Hazard, and A. Houck, Phys.Rev. Applied 12, 054023 (2019).

[21] D. C. McKay, S. Sheldon, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, andJ. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 200502 (2019).

[22] S. Krinner, S. Lazar, A. Remm, C. K. Andersen,N. Lacroix, G. J. Norris, C. Hellings, M. Gabureac,C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Applied 14,024042 (2020).

[23] P. Zhao, P. Xu, D. Lan, J. Chu, X. Tan, H. Yu, andY. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200503 (2020).

[24] X. Li, T. Cai, H. Yan, Z. Wang, X. Pan, Y. Ma, W. Cai,J. Han, Z. Hua, X. Han, Y. Wu, H. Zhang, H. Wang,Y. Song, L. Duan, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Applied 14,024070 (2020).

[25] M. Malekakhlagh, E. Magesan, and D. C. McKay, Phys.Rev. A 102, 042605 (2020).

[26] C. Rigetti and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. B 81, 134507(2010).

[27] M. Steffen, S. Kumar, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. R. Rozen,G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, and M. B. Ketchen, Phys.Rev. Lett. 105, 100502 (2010).

[28] N. Didier, E. A. Sete, M. P. da Silva, and C. Rigetti,Phys. Rev. A 97, 022330 (2018).

[29] M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frun-zio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 482, 382(2012).

[30] J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I.Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin,

and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007).[31] S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Annals of

Physics 326, 2793 (2011).[32] M. H. Ansari, Physical Review B 100, 024509 (2019).[33] L. S. Cederbaum, J. Schirmer, and H. D. Meyer, Journal

of Physics A: Mathematical and General 22, 2427 (1989).[34] E. Magesan and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. A 101,

052308 (2020).[35] M. H. Goerz, F. Motzoi, K. B. Whaley, and C. P. Koch,

npj Quantum Information 3, 37 (2017).[36] S. Krinner, P. Kurpiers, B. Royer, P. Magnard, I. Tsit-

silin, J.-C. Besse, A. Remm, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff,Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 044039 (2020).

[37] M. C. Collodo, J. Herrmann, N. Lacroix, C. K. Andersen,A. Remm, S. Lazar, J.-C. Besse, T. Walter, A. Wallraff,and C. Eichler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240502 (2020).

[38] Y. Xu, J. Chu, J. Yuan, J. Qiu, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang,X. Tan, Y. Yu, S. Liu, J. Li, F. Yan, and D. Yu, Phys.Rev. Lett. 125, 240503 (2020).

[39] S. Sheldon, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gam-betta, Phys. Rev. A 93, 060302(R) (2016).

[40] A. D. Córcoles, J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, J. A.Smolin, M. Ware, J. Strand, B. L. T. Plourde, andM. Steffen, Phys. Rev. A 87, 030301(R) (2013).

[41] N. Sundaresan, I. Lauer, E. Pritchett, E. Magesan, P. Ju-rcevic, and J. M. Gambetta, PRX Quantum 1, 020318(2020).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.054023https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.054023https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.200502https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.024042https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.024042https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.200503https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.024070https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.024070https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.042605https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.042605https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.134507https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.134507https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.100502https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.100502https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.022330https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10786https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10786https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2011.06.004https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2011.06.004https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.024509https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/22/13/035https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/22/13/035https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.052308https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.052308https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0036-0https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.044039https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.240502https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.240503https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.240503https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.060302https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.030301https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020318https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020318

ZZ freedom in two qubit gatesAbstractI IntroductionII General ModelIII Static ZZ freedomIV Two-qubit gate: Cross ResonanceV Dynamical ZZ cancellationVI CR gate errorVII DiscussionVIII AcknowledgementA CSFQ HamiltonianB Full HamiltonianC Principle of Least ActionD Dynamical Quadratic Factor References